Hey, kids. I actually just left, but upon signing out noticed there are three 'recent discussions' for this site (on Vanilla) in Russian, with no replies. Might want to take a look at that.
The UK has 4 of the top 10 Universities in the world. After we leave the EU will have 1 in the top 50. In London we have the largest international financial centre in the world. The idea that the ECB has the skills or expertise to regulate financial services adequately without London involvement is a bit of a joke. In GCHQ the UK has by far the most sophisticated and capable intelligence gathering facility on the continent, essential for future security. We have been a major pressure valve for youth unemployment in many EU countries giving people who might well otherwise have been difficult at home a life and opportunities.
All of this and more shows what the EU is losing with the UK's departure. It is looking increasingly likely that we will not be leaving on even particularly good terms. The future relationship looks far more problematic than it should have done. We may well end up building our own Galileo, for example. It is beyond childish, it is very detrimental to the continent.
Nothing can excuse the incompetence and ineptitude of our political class over the last 3 years or so but Alastair is right to say that the EU has also contributed to the multiple failures that have occurred. I agree with Richard that the time tabling of the talks was small minded and foolish. But that is the nature of the beast we are leaving, I'm afraid.
Fog in channel, EU cut off.
More like fog in channel, world cut off, from the European side.
The EU has this naive idea that together, even without us, they're some sort of superpower. They're not. Fortress Europe is a bit of a meaningless and increasingly irrelevant backwater.
Irrelevant backwater accounting for nearly half our exports.
And shrinking all the time. Be below 40% and still shrinking below very long.
Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.
These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
I doubt they live in Broxtowe
I know but helping to re-elect Anna Soubry is the ultimate goal.
will she stand again ? Shell be 65 at the next GE and may not want the hassle.
I think she’s up for this.
bonkers if she is.
enjoy your time when youre still fit and able
While I do not doubt the unpleasant aspects of being an MP, particularly when one is not wielding or likely to wield true national power, there have to be either positive aspects to it or simply that there are people out there who regard many of the aspects we would think as not worth it as, well, worth it, however strange that is. It's how people are content to skate along on the backbenches for 30 years for example. If serving her country in parliament is something she enjoys enough to keep doing it, then more power to Soubry.
If we do have another election this year (which I am very confident we will) I wonder if Clarke will stand. Seems like he wants to see Brexit through at least, and he only needs 1 more year to make it 50 years.
each to their own natch
but as I age and pick up more of the problems, watch my parents generation become bed bound, metally diminished and dead and as I see the first of my friends hit the diseases of age there comes a time when you want to just enjoy life.
I suspect older men become grumpy old bastards because theyve seen it all before and literally dont have the time to spend arguing with people who are making all the same mistakes they made at a similar age.
This old man smiles on and imparts wisdom of lifes experiences when asked but rarely changes younger minds.
The EU and UK's persistent insistence on misreading each others' political cultures is a big part of the mess we're in, certainly. But the UK's callous indifference towards Ireland early in the process effectively goaded the EU into making a big show of aggressively standing up for a smaller member.
The thing about the backstop is that it's mandatory, whatever happens, even in the case of no deal. The EU will ensure, at any costs, full customs and regulatory alignment between northern ireland and the EU, for the rest of time, at any cost.
It is the sine qua non of the EU talking to us about the future trading partnership at all.
Even if we crash out with no deal, the EU will demand a legally-binding guarantee of full indefinite customs and regulatory alignment between the NI and the EU. EVEN if we commit economic suicide to avoid the backstop, the EU will continue to demand one.
Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.
These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
I doubt they live in Broxtowe
I know but helping to re-elect Anna Soubry is the ultimate goal.
will she stand again ? Shell be 65 at the next GE and may not want the hassle.
I think she’s up for this.
bonkers if she is.
enjoy your time when youre still fit and able
While I do not doubt the unpleasant aspects of beinn more power to Soubry.
If we do have another election this year (which I am very confident we will) I wonder if Clarke will stand. Seems like he wants to see Brexit through at least, and he only needs 1 more year to make it 50 years.
each to their own natch
but as I age and pick up more of the problems, watch my parents generation become bed bound, metally diminished and dead and as I see the first of my friends hit the diseases of age there comes a time when you want to just enjoy life.
I suspect older men become grumpy old bastards because theyve seen it all before and literally dont have the time to spend arguing with people who are making all the same mistakes they made at a similar age.
This old man smiles on and imparts wisdom of lifes experiences when asked but rarely changes younger minds.
fraid so
as I tell Mrs B its pointless talking to Brooke Junior, until hes made enough mistakes for himself hes not ready to listen to advice.
The EU and UK's persistent insistence on misreading each others' political cultures is a big part of the mess we're in, certainly. But the UK's callous indifference towards Ireland early in the process effectively goaded the EU into making a big show of aggressively standing up for a smaller member.
The thing about the backstop is that it's mandatory, whatever happens, even in the case of no deal. The EU will ensure, at any costs, full customs and regulatory alignment between northern ireland and the EU, for the rest of time, at any cost.
It is the sine qua non of the EU talking to us about the future trading partnership at all.
Even if we crash out with no deal, the EU will demand a legally-binding guarantee of full indefinite customs and regulatory alignment between the NI and the EU. EVEN if we commit economic suicide to avoid the backstop, the EU will continue to demand one.
each to their own natch - but as I age and pick up more of the problems, watch my parents generation become bed bound, metally diminished and dead and as I see the first of my friends hit the diseases of age there comes a time when you want to just enjoy life.
That is a great attitude and I wish I had it. Perhaps I can start right now. Turn over a new leaf.
The EU and UK's persistent insistence on misreading each others' political cultures is a big part of the mess we're in, certainly. But the UK's callous indifference towards Ireland early in the process effectively goaded the EU into making a big show of aggressively standing up for a smaller member.
The thing about the backstop is that it's mandatory, whatever happens, even in the case of no deal. The EU will ensure, at any costs, full customs and regulatory alignment between northern ireland and the EU, for the rest of time, at any cost.
It is the sine qua non of the EU talking to us about the future trading partnership at all.
Even if we crash out with no deal, the EU will demand a legally-binding guarantee of full indefinite customs and regulatory alignment between the NI and the EU. EVEN if we commit economic suicide to avoid the backstop, the EU will continue to demand one.
what callous indifference ?
Varadkar has an election, its that simple
If we crash out without a deal, and it leads to a serious recession in Eire, then his electoral chances will not be enhanced.
The fact that the entire Brexit Buccaneer establishment forgot Ireland even existed for six months, and then basically told them to shut up and do as they were told .
The UK is not used to a situation where Ireland has the upper hand. It may have never happened before.
President of the Greens in Germany has made tit of himself on Twitter and offended voters in the state of Thuringen. He has closed all his social media accounts, it now remains to be seen who benefits.
The EU and UK's persistent insistence on misreading each others' political cultures is a big part of the mess we're in, certainly. But the UK's callous indifference towards Ireland early in the process effectively goaded the EU into making a big show of aggressively standing up for a smaller member.
The thing about the backstop is that it's mandatory, whatever happens, even in the case of no deal. The EU will ensure, at any costs, full customs and regulatory alignment between northern ireland and the EU, for the rest of time, at any cost.
It is the sine qua non of the EU talking to us about the future trading partnership at all.
Even if we crash out with no deal, the EU will demand a legally-binding guarantee of full indefinite customs and regulatory alignment between the NI and the EU. EVEN if we commit economic suicide to avoid the backstop, the EU will continue to demand one.
what callous indifference ?
Varadkar has an election, its that simple
If we crash out without a deal, and it leads to a serious recession in Eire, then his electoral chances will not be enhanced.
I dunno, I think the entire Irish establishment will be very quick to remind people that they're suffering because of British malice and incompetence. I doubt that will be a hard sell in a country where the attitude towards the British government's handling of Brexit is somewhere between amused contempt and barely-suppressed rage.
The fact that the entire Brexit Buccaneer establishment forgot Ireland even existed for six months, and then basically told them to shut up and do as they were told .
The UK is not used to a situation where Ireland has the upper hand. It may have never happened before.
immaterial, Varadkar has an election and enjoyed a bit of green tub thuming to boost his prospects. That he has materially endangered Ireland in the process appears to pass him by.
The UK is not used to a situation where Ireland has the upper hand. It may have never happened before.
True, and of course we shouldn't be surprised that, having the upper hand, they appear to have used it in the most Irish way possible, guaranteeing a hard border and no trade deal with the aim of ensuring there was no hard border and a favourable trade deal.
The EU and UK's persistent insistence on misreading each others' political cultures is a big part of the mess we're in, certainly. But the UK's callous indifference towards Ireland early in the process effectively goaded the EU into making a big show of aggressively standing up for a smaller member.
The thing about the backstop is that it's mandatory, whatever happens, even in the case of no deal. The EU will ensure, at any costs, full customs and regulatory alignment between northern ireland and the EU, for the rest of time, at any cost.
It is the sine qua non of the EU talking to us about the future trading partnership at all.
Even if we crash out with no deal, the EU will demand a legally-binding guarantee of full indefinite customs and regulatory alignment between the NI and the EU. EVEN if we commit economic suicide to avoid the backstop, the EU will continue to demand one.
what callous indifference ?
Varadkar has an election, its that simple
If we crash out without a deal, and it leads to a serious recession in Eire, then his electoral chances will not be enhanced.
oh he's totally fked if so.
But he;s the Irish Tony Blair, cool Hibernia, he doesnt think that things can go wrong. Maybe like Blair his luck in office will hold, but like Blair he;ll leave a sea of shit behind him
I see Jolyon has got into a right old ding dong on Twitter when called out over remarks he allegedly heard from an immigration officer - by someone who was there and in front of him in the queue....
The fact that the entire Brexit Buccaneer establishment forgot Ireland even existed for six months, and then basically told them to shut up and do as they were told .
The UK is not used to a situation where Ireland has the upper hand. It may have never happened before.
immaterial, Varadkar has an election and enjoyed a bit of green tub thuming to boost his prospects. That he has materially endangered Ireland in the process appears to pass him by.
Avoiding a hard border was a mandatory issue in the negotiations before he took over. The only problem some people have is that the wrong union holds the stronger negotiating position.
The fact that the entire Brexit Buccaneer establishment forgot Ireland even existed for six months, and then basically told them to shut up and do as they were told .
The UK is not used to a situation where Ireland has the upper hand. It may have never happened before.
immaterial, Varadkar has an election and enjoyed a bit of green tub thuming to boost his prospects. That he has materially endangered Ireland in the process appears to pass him by.
Avoiding a hard border was a mandatory issue in the negotiations before he took over. The only problem some people have is that the wrong union holds the stronger negotiating position.
I see Jolyon has got into a right old ding dong on Twitter when called out over remarks he allegedly heard from an immigration officer - by someone who was there and in front of him in the queue....
To me, it was obviously a text book #didnothappen, the moment I saw it. But FBPE peeps are some of the most gullible people the world has ever birthed.
I would add the following contributions from Britain:
- A loss of a pragmatic sceptical (in the best sense of that word) approach to policy making. - A political culture which believes in the rule of law, civil liberties and which has not, generally, been imbued with an authoritarian top-down gene.
The fact that the entire Brexit Buccaneer establishment forgot Ireland even existed for six months, and then basically told them to shut up and do as they were told .
The UK is not used to a situation where Ireland has the upper hand. It may have never happened before.
immaterial, Varadkar has an election and enjoyed a bit of green tub thuming to boost his prospects. That he has materially endangered Ireland in the process appears to pass him by.
Avoiding a hard border was a mandatory issue in the negotiations before he took over. The only problem some people have is that the wrong union holds the stronger negotiating position.
I think the EU are genuinely befuddled as to why the UK government is proving so inept at passing the deal it negotiated, and has given up on Theresa May entirely. Like the rest of us, they're waiting to see how the constitutional crisis unfolds and what emerges smouldering from the wreckage.
The fact that the entire Brexit Buccaneer establishment forgot Ireland even existed for six months, and then basically told them to shut up and do as they were told .
The UK is not used to a situation where Ireland has the upper hand. It may have never happened before.
immaterial, Varadkar has an election and enjoyed a bit of green tub thuming to boost his prospects. That he has materially endangered Ireland in the process appears to pass him by.
Avoiding a hard border was a mandatory issue in the negotiations before he took over. The only problem some people have is that the wrong union holds the stronger negotiating position.
The fact that the entire Brexit Buccaneer establishment forgot Ireland even existed for six months, and then basically told them to shut up and do as they were told .
The UK is not used to a situation where Ireland has the upper hand. It may have never happened before.
immaterial, Varadkar has an election and enjoyed a bit of green tub thuming to boost his prospects. That he has materially endangered Ireland in the process appears to pass him by.
Avoiding a hard border was a mandatory issue in the negotiations before he took over. The only problem some people have is that the wrong union holds the stronger negotiating position.
he has done nothing to avoid it.
start there.
Clearly not true.
most bleedingly obviously true
So what do you think the odds are that there will be a hard border?
The central problem is that Eurocrats need to grasp hold of The Project a little more loosely and listen to the people (and their governments) and their grievances a little more. Who knows - by being more responsive, they might just become a bit more popular. After all, in most countries, it's not the concept of an integrated Europe that's in doubt; it's its application.
I'm not sure that's true. In the UK at least there has been a general political move to divest government of responsibility for many decades. We've seen services privatised and independent regulators established in order to create a responsibility barrier between ministers and the frustrations of voters.
The EU has played its part in this. Successive British governments have outsourced unpopular law-making to the EU, so that the.necessary business of governance (or the interests of European big business) can continue without them taking responsibility for it.
It's this mode of decision-making that has created the people vs Eurocrats mindset (I believe across the EU), and it's only by changing the decision-making process that it can be solved. And this requires a decisive completion of the European Project to move decision-making power from the behind closed doors horse-trading of the Council of Ministers, to the open debating floor of the European Parliament. Only then could you create a Europe of the people, by the people, for the people.
I fear that it is too late and that this will not happen. Sadly I cannot imagine an exhortation to the people of Europe to, "ask not what the EU can do for you, ask what you can do for the EU," to be met with anything but ridicule at best and fury or contempt at worst. And yet how else is the currency union to be maintained and the continent defended from Russia?
The problem with this line of argument (the old 'democratic deficit' line) is that it assumes that the European Parliament could ever feel democratic. What I mean by that is what connection, what feeling of having an impact on the parliamentary make up and hence its decision- and policy-making, could people possibly have given the size of each constituency.
The largest groups people can truly feel part of is about 1500 people. British constituency size already stretches the sense of impact very far. 73 seats for an electorate of 46.8 million means there is essentially zero sense of connectedness between the individual voter and the outcome of voting.
The fact that the entire Brexit Buccaneer establishment forgot Ireland even existed for six months, and then basically told them to shut up and do as they were told .
The UK is not used to a situation where Ireland has the upper hand. It may have never happened before.
immaterial, Varadkar has an election and enjoyed a bit of green tub thuming to boost his prospects. That he has materially endangered Ireland in the process appears to pass him by.
Avoiding a hard border was a mandatory issue in the negotiations before he took over. The only problem some people have is that the wrong union holds the stronger negotiating position.
he has done nothing to avoid it.
start there.
Clearly not true.
most bleedingly obviously true
So what do you think the odds are that there will be a hard border?
zero
it will get sorted because it has to
it could and should have been done quietly away from the glare and not turned in to an issue
instead Leo thought he'd grandstand on 3700 graves and kick the sleeping dogs as he has an election to win
The fact that the entire Brexit Buccaneer establishment forgot Ireland even existed for six months, and then basically told them to shut up and do as they were told .
The UK is not used to a situation where Ireland has the upper hand. It may have never happened before.
immaterial, Varadkar has an election and enjoyed a bit of green tub thuming to boost his prospects. That he has materially endangered Ireland in the process appears to pass him by.
Avoiding a hard border was a mandatory issue in the negotiations before he took over. The only problem some people have is that the wrong union holds the stronger negotiating position.
he has done nothing to avoid it.
start there.
Clearly not true.
most bleedingly obviously true
So what do you think the odds are that there will be a hard border?
zero
it will get sorted because it has to
it could and should have been done quietly away from the glare and not turned in to an issue
instead Leo thought he'd grandstand on 3700 graves and kick the sleeping dogs as he has an election to win
The largest groups people can truly feel part of is about 1500 people. British constituency size already stretches the sense of impact very far. 73 seats for an electorate of 46.8 million means there is essentially zero sense of connectedness between the individual voter and the outcome of voting.
And yet, for example, California has precisely two federal Senators, and both seem pretty popular and one is planning on using that popularity to springboard her to the presidency.
That's two senators for 40 million people, and you just said that's impossible. Maybe you should ping Kamala and tell her you've done the math and she doesn't exist.
More like fog in channel, world cut off, from the European side.
The EU has this naive idea that together, even without us, they're some sort of superpower. They're not. Fortress Europe is a bit of a meaningless and increasingly irrelevant backwater.
The EU and UK's persistent insistence on misreading each others' political cultures is a big part of the mess we're in, certainly. But the UK's callous indifference towards Ireland early in the process effectively goaded the EU into making a big show of aggressively standing up for a smaller member.
The thing about the backstop is that it's mandatory, whatever happens, even in the case of no deal. The EU will ensure, at any costs, full customs and regulatory alignment between northern ireland and the EU, for the rest of time, at any cost.
It is the sine qua non of the EU talking to us about the future trading partnership at all.
Even if we crash out with no deal, the EU will demand a legally-binding guarantee of full indefinite customs and regulatory alignment between the NI and the EU. EVEN if we commit economic suicide to avoid the backstop, the EU will continue to demand one.
what callous indifference ?
Varadkar has an election, its that simple
If we crash out without a deal, and it leads to a serious recession in Eire, then his electoral chances will not be enhanced.
I dunno, I think the entire Irish establishment will be very quick to remind people that they're suffering because of British malice and incompetence. I doubt that will be a hard sell in a country where the attitude towards the British government's handling of Brexit is somewhere between amused contempt and barely-suppressed rage.
With all due respect, that's as bullshit as "If we leave and there's a recession, then the people who lose their jobs will blame the EU".
Sometimes rightly, often wrongly, we blame our elected officials when things do not turn out as we would like. It's much easier than blaming ourselves.
The fact that the entire Brexit Buccaneer establishment forgot Ireland even existed for six months, and then basically told them to shut up and do as they were told .
The UK is not used to a situation where Ireland has the upper hand. It may have never happened before.
immaterial, Varadkar has an election and enjoyed a bit of green tub thuming to boost his prospects. That he has materially endangered Ireland in the process appears to pass him by.
Avoiding a hard border was a mandatory issue in the negotiations before he took over. The only problem some people have is that the wrong union holds the stronger negotiating position.
he has done nothing to avoid it.
start there.
Clearly not true.
most bleedingly obviously true
So what do you think the odds are that there will be a hard border?
zero
it will get sorted because it has to
it could and should have been done quietly away from the glare and not turned in to an issue
instead Leo thought he'd grandstand on 3700 graves and kick the sleeping dogs as he has an election to win
The EU and UK's persistent insistence on misreading each others' political cultures is a big part of the mess we're in, certainly. But the UK's callous indifference towards Ireland early in the process effectively goaded the EU into making a big show of aggressively standing up for a smaller member.
The thing about the backstop is that it's mandatory, whatever happens, even in the case of no deal. The EU will ensure, at any costs, full customs and regulatory alignment between northern ireland and the EU, for the rest of time, at any cost.
It is the sine qua non of the EU talking to us about the future trading partnership at all.
Even if we crash out with no deal, the EU will demand a legally-binding guarantee of full indefinite customs and regulatory alignment between the NI and the EU. EVEN if we commit economic suicide to avoid the backstop, the EU will continue to demand one.
Indeed.
Fundamentally, the EU failed to understand that many people in the UK saw the EU as a threat to its national independence, being both unwilling to either listen or reform, and also being unstoppable.
It could have dealt with those concerns and worries, and averted Brexit, but it chose not to.
The largest groups people can truly feel part of is about 1500 people. British constituency size already stretches the sense of impact very far. 73 seats for an electorate of 46.8 million means there is essentially zero sense of connectedness between the individual voter and the outcome of voting.
And yet, for example, California has precisely two federal Senators, and both seem pretty popular and one is planning on using that popularity to springboard her to the presidency.
That's two senators for 40 million people, and you just said that's impossible. Maybe you should ping Kamala and tell her you've done the math and she doesn't exist.
Not quite what I said and you are way to bright not to know that. Ask an individual Californian how connected they feel their vote is to make-up of the US senate.
There is a rather sensible article but I am not convinced the EU would agree that they bungled Brexit. Whilst May was trying to pursue her dream of a special relationship with the EU, the EU were not interested. They were much more concerned about using Brexit to deter others from leaving. That is why they were so indifferent to trade talks, so obsessive about the NI border and so petty about issues such as Galileo.
There was simply lack of common ground between Britain and the EU. Both sides used inflammatory language - May’s “no deal is better than a bad deal” for which she negligently failed to prepare and the EU talking of punishing the EU and Selmayr eulogising that losing NI was the price Britain had to pay for Brexit.
It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum. The bigger issue now is, as it has been since A50 was lodged, how best does Britain proceed.
Junckers was responsible more than anyone for misreading Cameron and the UKs attitude to the EU
So having conceded more to the UK than any other member state, the EU is criticised for not offering more?
This is where the discussion went wrong. Cameron's Bloomberg Speech was not about demanding concessions from Europe as if it was a zero-sum game; it was about reforming the EU to work in everyone's interests, not just whether 'Inners' or 'Outers', or Eurozone members or not (i.e. national membership positions) but the public as well. That aspiration ended up being dropped, which is how it ended up turning into the kind of concessionfest that inevitably put the EU's backs up and delivered insubstantial benefits options.
As soon as the debate became about 'exceptionalism', it headed down a wrong path.
I don’t want to speak for him but, from memory, I think the utter failure of Bloomberg was a tipping point for both Sean Fear and myself on Brexit.
It became clear to me the EU wasn’t serious about meaningful reform, unless it was More Europe.
More like fog in channel, world cut off, from the European side.
The EU has this naive idea that together, even without us, they're some sort of superpower. They're not. Fortress Europe is a bit of a meaningless and increasingly irrelevant backwater.
Bit like your mistress running off with your wife after you've filed for divorce.
Be ironic if Britain left the EU shortly before Australia joined it ...
It would certainly be unusual if, upon signing a trade deal, one of the partners said, “we can’t stand the sight of each other, but need to trade, so.. meh.. here it is.”
Not that I’d welcome it but, in the worst case, I’m pretty relaxed about the ability of Europe to defend itself, even if the whole EU collapsed and NATO ceased to be. A simple European defensive alliance could be formed with a common HQ by a new treaty, a la NATO.
The issue is the willingness of European countries to spend and invest seriously in defence. Not the structures.
There is a rather sensible article but I am not convinced the EU would agree that they bungled Brexit. Whilst May was trying to pursue her dream of a special relationship with the EU, the EU were not interested. They were much more concerned about using Brexit to deter others from leaving. That is why they were so indifferent to trade talks, so obsessive about the NI border and so petty about issues such as Galileo.
There was simply lack of common ground between Britain and the EU. Both sides used inflammatory language - May’s “no deal is better than a bad deal” for which she negligently failed to prepare and the EU talking of punishing the EU and Selmayr eulogising that losing NI was the price Britain had to pay for Brexit.
It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum. The bigger issue now is, as it has been since A50 was lodged, how best does Britain proceed.
Junckers was responsible more than anyone for misreading Cameron and the UKs attitude to the EU
So having conceded more to the UK than any other member state, the EU is criticised for not offering more?
This is where the discussion went wrong. Cameron's Bloomberg Speech was not about demanding concessions from Europe as if it was a zero-sum game; it was about reforming the EU to work in everyone's interests, not just whether 'Inners' or 'Outers', or Eurozone members or not (i.e. national membership positions) but the public as well. That aspiration ended up being dropped, which is how it ended up turning into the kind of concessionfest that inevitably put the EU's backs up and delivered insubstantial benefits options.
As soon as the debate became about 'exceptionalism', it headed down a wrong path.
I don’t want to speak for him but, from memory, I think the utter failure of Bloomberg was a tipping point for both Sean Fear and myself on Brexit.
It became clear to me the EU wasn’t serious about meaningful reform, unless it was More Europe.
Cameron not pursuing his agenda seriously persuaded you that the EU wasn’t serious?
There is a rather sensible article but I am not convinced the EU would agree that they bungled Brexit. Whilst May was trying to pursue her dream of a special relationship with the EU, the EU were not interested. They were much more concerned about using Brexit to deter others from leaving. That is why they were so indifferent to trade talks, so obsessive about the NI border and so petty about issues such as Galileo.
There was simply lack of common ground between Britain and the EU. Both sides used inflammatory language - May’s “no deal is better than a bad deal” for which she negligently failed to prepare and the EU talking of punishing the EU and Selmayr eulogising that losing NI was the price Britain had to pay for Brexit.
It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum. The bigger issue now is, as it has been since A50 was lodged, how best does Britain proceed.
Junckers was responsible more than anyone for misreading Cameron and the UKs attitude to the EU
So having conceded more to the UK than any other member state, the EU is criticised for not offering more?
This is where the discussion went wrong. Cameron's Bloomberg Speech was not about demanding concessions from Europe as if it was a zero-sum game; it was about reforming the EU to work in everyone's interests, not just whether 'Inners' or 'Outers', or Eurozone members or not (i.e. national membership positions) but the public as well. That aspiration ended up being dropped, which is how it ended up turning into the kind of concessionfest that inevitably put the EU's backs up and delivered insubstantial benefits options.
As soon as the debate became about 'exceptionalism', it headed down a wrong path.
I don’t want to speak for him but, from memory, I think the utter failure of Bloomberg was a tipping point for both Sean Fear and myself on Brexit.
It became clear to me the EU wasn’t serious about meaningful reform, unless it was More Europe.
Cameron not pursuing his agenda seriously persuaded you that the EU wasn’t serious?
If you have any evidence the EU was open to considering this type of reform, I’m all ears.
You’re the sort of dogmatic europhile who’d have hated it.
The problem with this line of argument (the old 'democratic deficit' line) is that it assumes that the European Parliament could ever feel democratic. What I mean by that is what connection, what feeling of having an impact on the parliamentary make up and hence its decision- and policy-making, could people possibly have given the size of each constituency.
The largest groups people can truly feel part of is about 1500 people. British constituency size already stretches the sense of impact very far. 73 seats for an electorate of 46.8 million means there is essentially zero sense of connectedness between the individual voter and the outcome of voting.
On that basis, all the US Senate seats are undemocratic, yet lots of Americans feel a connection to their Senators. I might be wrong (you'll know better) but I get the impression that sometimes they identify more with them than their local member of the House or the local assembly?
Britain is unusual in aspiring to have MPs whom you can meet personally with minimal effort, and the effect of that is the enormous personal caseload which is so often criticised as "not what the job is about". Some favour reducing the number of MPs, which will accentuate the issue.
Clearly the EU Parliament is somewhat anonymous, because it's so little reported in the British media and because the candidates are elected by the list system. I'd like to see the President elected multinationally - a Merkel vs Blair vs Orban election, say, would engage people right across the continent.
But I don't think most people in Britain feel "truly part of" Westminster democracy either - sadly. Still less of local councils, where the proportionality is not far over 1500 but the bodies are powerless over most things that matter to people. The reason why the European institutions matter is that increasingly they can affect outcomes globally that we can't affect on our own.
There is a rather sensible article but I am not convinced the EU would agree that they bungled Brexit. Whilst May was trying to pursue her dream of a special relationship with the EU, the EU were not interested. They were much more concerned about using Brexit to deter others from leaving. That is why they were so indifferent to trade talks, so obsessive about the NI border and so petty about issues such as Galileo.
There was simply lack of common ground between Britain and the EU. Both sides used inflammatory language - May’s “no deal is better than a bad deal” for which she negligently failed to prepare and the EU talking of punishing the EU and Selmayr eulogising that losing NI was the price Britain had to pay for Brexit.
It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum. The bigger issue now is, as it has been since A50 was lodged, how best does Britain proceed.
Junckers was responsible more than anyone for misreading Cameron and the UKs attitude to the EU
So having conceded more to the UK than any other member state, the EU is criticised for not offering more?
What precisely has the EU conceded to us?
Opt outs are not concessions it is the EU going in a different direction to us, without us, that marginalises us. If that happens it is a concession to those who wanted to go in the different direction, not those left behind.
The Euro forming without us was no concession to the UK. It was a concession to those who wanted a Single Currency with us left with a dilemma to join something we don't want or be left ostracised outside it.
There is a rather sensible article but I am not convinced the EU would agree that they bungled Brexit. Whilst May was trying to pursue her dream of a special relationship with the EU, the EU were not interested. They were much more concerned about using Brexit to deter others from leaving. That is why they were so indifferent to trade talks, so obsessive about the NI border and so petty about issues such as Galileo.
There was simply lack of common ground between Britain and the EU. Both sides used inflammatory language - May’s “no deal is better than a bad deal” for which she negligently failed to prepare and the EU talking of punishing the EU and Selmayr eulogising that losing NI was the price Britain had to pay for Brexit.
It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum. The bigger issue now is, as it has been since A50 was lodged, how best does Britain proceed.
Junckers was responsible more than anyone for misreading Cameron and the UKs attitude to the EU
So having conceded more to the UK than any other member state, the EU is criticised for not offering more?
This is where the discussion went wrong. Cameron's Bloomberg Speech was not about demanding concessions from Europe as if it was a zero-sum game; it was about reforming the EU to work in everyone's interests, not just whether 'Inners' or 'Outers', or Eurozone members or not (i.e. national membership positions) but the public as well. That aspiration ended up being dropped, which is how it ended up turning into the kind of concessionfest that inevitably put the EU's backs up and delivered insubstantial benefits options.
As soon as the debate became about 'exceptionalism', it headed down a wrong path.
I don’t want to speak for him but, from memory, I think the utter failure of Bloomberg was a tipping point for both Sean Fear and myself on Brexit.
It became clear to me the EU wasn’t serious about meaningful reform, unless it was More Europe.
I was very confused by this comment, as I initially read it as "the utter failure of Bloomberg [to stand for US President] was a tipping point"...
If you have any evidence the EU was open to considering this type of reform, I’m all ears.
You’re the sort of dogmatic europhile who’d have hated it.
Cameron could have spent a year or eighteen months working with our obvious allies in the EU - countries that either weren't going to join the Euro like Denmark or Sweden, or who weren't that keen on further centralisation, such as Poland. He could have created an awkward bunch who agitated, because they were broadly on the same page.
But he didn't. He chose to try and bank a quick win.
This reads to me like Michel Barnier trying to get it, he does at least mention national as well as European sovereignty, but then his response to both Brexit and the yellow vests is to - bizarrely-put a Green Europe as his top priority, with immigration and security near the bottom, and mainly just more Europe throughout with little thought on how to bring it closer to governments and citizens (i.e. devolution and red/yellow cards):
Completely off topic, the O'Reilly book on machine learning with Python is pretty good fun for anyone who wants to learn something new. (And it's easy to do the examples in a Jupyter notebook on the essential PythonAnywhere.)
If you have any evidence the EU was open to considering this type of reform, I’m all ears.
You’re the sort of dogmatic europhile who’d have hated it.
Cameron could have spent a year or eighteen months working with our obvious allies in the EU - countries that either weren't going to join the Euro like Denmark or Sweden, or who weren't that keen on further centralisation, such as Poland. He could have created an awkward bunch who agitated, because they were broadly on the same page.
But he didn't. He chose to try and bank a quick win.
It was actually Mark Rutte in the Netherlands who was most sympathetic to this play, but, yes, Cameron instead decided to head straight to Berlin to see what Mutti would give him.
Nevertheless, I saw, and still don’t see, any appetite in the EU for this reform. Cameron couldn’t even get Juncker blocked when he wanted to.
President of the Greens in Germany has made tit of himself on Twitter and offended voters in the state of Thuringen. He has closed all his social media accounts, it now remains to be seen who benefits.
Rather a mini-tit by British standards. He said he was standing up for his area being free, liberal and environmental. His mistake was that he said "becoming" instead of "being" ("wird" rather than "bleibt"), implying it wasn't like that now. He's apologised and I'd think most people would accept it was a slip of the pen.
One key reform the EU could adopt is simply to remove its ever closer union clauses from its treaties and any aspirations to statehood.
Instead replace the EU with the EA (European Alliance) which would exist to pool the sovereignty of European countries in selected areas to the extent that both they and their citizens wished to do so, to increase their coordination and clout.
Such pooling of powers would be both joinable and leavable.
The EU and UK's persistent insistence on misreading each others' political cultures is a big part of the mess we're in, certainly. But the UK's callous indifference towards Ireland early in the process effectively goaded the EU into making a big show of aggressively standing up for a smaller member.
The thing about the backstop is that it's mandatory, whatever happens, even in the case of no deal. The EU will ensure, at any costs, full customs and regulatory alignment between northern ireland and the EU, for the rest of time, at any cost.
It is the sine qua non of the EU talking to us about the future trading partnership at all.
Even if we crash out with no deal, the EU will demand a legally-binding guarantee of full indefinite customs and regulatory alignment between the NI and the EU. EVEN if we commit economic suicide to avoid the backstop, the EU will continue to demand one.
what callous indifference ?
Varadkar has an election, its that simple
If we crash out without a deal, and it leads to a serious recession in Eire, then his electoral chances will not be enhanced.
If you have any evidence the EU was open to considering this type of reform, I’m all ears.
You’re the sort of dogmatic europhile who’d have hated it.
Cameron could have spent a year or eighteen months working with our obvious allies in the EU - countries that either weren't going to join the Euro like Denmark or Sweden, or who weren't that keen on further centralisation, such as Poland. He could have created an awkward bunch who agitated, because they were broadly on the same page.
But he didn't. He chose to try and bank a quick win.
Yep. He ignored the key and long standing truism: no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the [British] public.
One key reform the EU could adopt is simply to remove its ever closer union clauses from its treaties and any aspirations to statehood.
Instead replace the EU with the EA (European Alliance) which would exist to pool the sovereignty of European countries in selected areas to the extent that both they and their citizens wished to do so, to increase their coordination and clout.
Such pooling of powers would be both joinable and leavable.
the bit I never get is if France Germany Belgium and Luxemburg want to merge why dont they just get on with it. Why this incessant need to drag everyone else with them ?
One key reform the EU could adopt is simply to remove its ever closer union clauses from its treaties and any aspirations to statehood.
Instead replace the EU with the EA (European Alliance) which would exist to pool the sovereignty of European countries in selected areas to the extent that both they and their citizens wished to do so, to increase their coordination and clout.
Such pooling of powers would be both joinable and leavable.
One key reform the FA could adopt is to abandon the use of a round ball in football matches and use a shuttlecock instead.
One key reform the EU could adopt is simply to remove its ever closer union clauses from its treaties and any aspirations to statehood.
Instead replace the EU with the EA (European Alliance) which would exist to pool the sovereignty of European countries in selected areas to the extent that both they and their citizens wished to do so, to increase their coordination and clout.
Such pooling of powers would be both joinable and leavable.
the bit I never get is is France Germany Belgium and Luxemburg want to merge why dont they just get on with it. Why this incessant need to drag everyone else with them ?
That's not the only bit you never get. Britain spent a decade begging to get in.
One key reform the EU could adopt is simply to remove its ever closer union clauses from its treaties and any aspirations to statehood.
Instead replace the EU with the EA (European Alliance) which would exist to pool the sovereignty of European countries in selected areas to the extent that both they and their citizens wished to do so, to increase their coordination and clout.
Such pooling of powers would be both joinable and leavable.
One key reform the FA could adopt is to abandon the use of a round ball in football matches and use a shuttlecock instead.
Sounds more interesting than football with that stupid round thing they use, TBH.
One key reform the EU could adopt is simply to remove its ever closer union clauses from its treaties and any aspirations to statehood.
Instead replace the EU with the EA (European Alliance) which would exist to pool the sovereignty of European countries in selected areas to the extent that both they and their citizens wished to do so, to increase their coordination and clout.
Such pooling of powers would be both joinable and leavable.
the bit I never get is is France Germany Belgium and Luxemburg want to merge why dont they just get on with it. Why this incessant need to drag everyone else with them ?
That's not the only bit you never get. Britain spent a decade begging to get in.
Thought provoking article and interesting to have a different angle on the sorry Brexit mess.
I agree the EU is diminished in several ways by the UK's exit. Also that the EU response lacks imagination. But I'm unsure what realistically the EU should have done differently given the nature of the EU, and the circumstances of the UK's departure.
The EU is above all a legal structure. It is in fact a legalistic one .It is such to compensate for it not being the superstate that no EU member wants it to be. The EU has no interest or capacity to offer bespoke deals that give flexibility it doesn't offer to members. As a membership organisation it needs clarity on the value of membership so no other member will pretend that cancellation has no impact.
The EU could (and should in my view) appeal to emotion, that the EU is the Europe of values, that appeal would fall on deaf British ears, given how transactional we have been.
The EU approach to Brexit is extremely focused. To get the UK out with the least additional damage to themselves. It has been ruthless and ultimately probably effective.
One key reform the EU could adopt is simply to remove its ever closer union clauses from its treaties and any aspirations to statehood.
Instead replace the EU with the EA (European Alliance) which would exist to pool the sovereignty of European countries in selected areas to the extent that both they and their citizens wished to do so, to increase their coordination and clout.
Such pooling of powers would be both joinable and leavable.
the bit I never get is is France Germany Belgium and Luxemburg want to merge why dont they just get on with it. Why this incessant need to drag everyone else with them ?
That's not the only bit you never get. Britain spent a decade begging to get in.
Thought provoking article and interesting to have a different angle on the sorry Brexit mess.
I agree the EU is diminished in several ways by the UK's exit. Also that the EU response lacks imagination. But I'm unsure what realistically the EU should have dune l done differently given what the EU actually is, and given the circumstances of the UK's departure.
The EU is above all a legal structure. In fact a legalistic one .It is so to compensate for it not being the superstate that no EU member wants it to be. It has no interest or capacity to offer bespoke deals that go beyond what it offers members. As a membership organisation it needs clarity on the value of membership so no other member will pretend that cancellation has no impact.
The EU could (and should in my view) appeal to emotion, that the EU is the Europe of values, that appeal would fall on deaf British ears, given how transactional we have been.
The EU approach to Brexit is extremely focused. To get the UK out with the least additional damage to themselves. It has been ruthless and ultimately probably effective.
The transactional thing was not one way(actually it was technically one way, as we didnt get more back in funding than we put in a single year of membership).
President of the Greens in Germany has made tit of himself on Twitter and offended voters in the state of Thuringen. He has closed all his social media accounts, it now remains to be seen who benefits.
Rather a mini-tit by British standards. He said he was standing up for his area being free, liberal and environmental. His mistake was that he said "becoming" instead of "being" ("wird" rather than "bleibt"), implying it wasn't like that now. He's apologised and I'd think most people would accept it was a slip of the pen.
President of the Greens in Germany has made tit of himself on Twitter and offended voters in the state of Thuringen. He has closed all his social media accounts, it now remains to be seen who benefits.
Rather a mini-tit by British standards. He said he was standing up for his area being free, liberal and environmental. His mistake was that he said "becoming" instead of "being" ("wird" rather than "bleibt"), implying it wasn't like that now. He's apologised and I'd think most people would accept it was a slip of the pen.
If you have any evidence the EU was open to considering this type of reform, I’m all ears.
You’re the sort of dogmatic europhile who’d have hated it.
Cameron could have spent a year or eighteen months working with our obvious allies in the EU - countries that either weren't going to join the Euro like Denmark or Sweden, or who weren't that keen on further centralisation, such as Poland. He could have created an awkward bunch who agitated, because they were broadly on the same page.
But he didn't. He chose to try and bank a quick win.
I recall at the time my belief was he rushed it because the previous summer had seen masses of boats washing up on EU shores, and I assumed he was worried another summer of it would fire up leavers too much.
Completely off topic, the O'Reilly book on machine learning with Python is pretty good fun for anyone who wants to learn something new. (And it's easy to do the examples in a Jupyter notebook on the essential PythonAnywhere.)
Learn something new? Political anoraks like us only care about refighting old battles, not learning new things.
President of the Greens in Germany has made tit of himself on Twitter and offended voters in the state of Thuringen. He has closed all his social media accounts, it now remains to be seen who benefits.
Rather a mini-tit by British standards. He said he was standing up for his area being free, liberal and environmental. His mistake was that he said "becoming" instead of "being" ("wird" rather than "bleibt"), implying it wasn't like that now. He's apologised and I'd think most people would accept it was a slip of the pen.
That's making a tit of himself?
germans are renowned for their easy going ways
They haven't kept a breast of modern standards of incompetence?
If you have any evidence the EU was open to considering this type of reform, I’m all ears.
You’re the sort of dogmatic europhile who’d have hated it.
Cameron could have spent a year or eighteen months working with our obvious allies in the EU - countries that either weren't going to join the Euro like Denmark or Sweden, or who weren't that keen on further centralisation, such as Poland. He could have created an awkward bunch who agitated, because they were broadly on the same page.
But he didn't. He chose to try and bank a quick win.
I recall at the time my belief was he rushed it because the previous summer had seen masses of boats washing up on EU shores, and I assumed he was worried another summer of it would fire up leavers too much.
Some Brexiteers on here screeched that the referendum was being held too late, and that Cameron was delaying it for political reasons, and that it was all a stitch-up, etc, etc.
The problem with this line of argument (the old 'democratic deficit' line) is that it assumes that the European Parliament could ever feel democratic. What I mean by that is what connection, what feeling of having an impact on the parliamentary make up and hence its decision- and policy-making, could people possibly have given the size of each constituency.
The largest groups people can truly feel part of is about 1500 people. British constituency size already stretches the sense of impact very far. 73 seats for an electorate of 46.8 million means there is essentially zero sense of connectedness between the individual voter and the outcome of voting.
But I don't think most people in Britain feel "truly part of" Westminster democracy either - sadly. Still less of local councils, where the proportionality is not far over 1500 but the bodies are powerless over most things that matter to people.
So you would favour abolishing local councils I presume? If they are powerless over anything important and people have no connection to them there's no point to them.
If you have any evidence the EU was open to considering this type of reform, I’m all ears.
You’re the sort of dogmatic europhile who’d have hated it.
Cameron could have spent a year or eighteen months working with our obvious allies in the EU - countries that either weren't going to join the Euro like Denmark or Sweden, or who weren't that keen on further centralisation, such as Poland. He could have created an awkward bunch who agitated, because they were broadly on the same page.
But he didn't. He chose to try and bank a quick win.
I recall at the time my belief was he rushed it because the previous summer had seen masses of boats washing up on EU shores, and I assumed he was worried another summer of it would fire up leavers too much.
Some Brexiteers on here screeched that the referendum was being held too late, and that Cameron was delaying it for political reasons, and that it was all a stitch-up, etc, etc.
Well everyone is a little bit unreasonable, and some are more unreasonable than others.
This is where the discussion went wrong. Cameron's Bloomberg Speech was not about demanding concessions from Europe as if it was a zero-sum game; it was about reforming the EU to work in everyone's interests, not just whether 'Inners' or 'Outers', or Eurozone members or not (i.e. national membership positions) but the public as well. That aspiration ended up being dropped, which is how it ended up turning into the kind of concessionfest that inevitably put the EU's backs up and delivered insubstantial benefits options.
As soon as the debate became about 'exceptionalism', it headed down a wrong path.
All EU members agree the EU needs reform. They don't agree what that reform should be. The British think reform is what they decide it to be and everyone else is backward for not doing what the British tell them to do. Cameron's speech and your comment are typical of this assumption.
One key reform the EU could adopt is simply to remove its ever closer union clauses from its treaties and any aspirations to statehood.
Instead replace the EU with the EA (European Alliance) which would exist to pool the sovereignty of European countries in selected areas to the extent that both they and their citizens wished to do so, to increase their coordination and clout.
Such pooling of powers would be both joinable and leavable.
the bit I never get is if France Germany Belgium and Luxemburg want to merge why dont they just get on with it. Why this incessant need to drag everyone else with them ?
If you have any evidence the EU was open to considering this type of reform, I’m all ears.
You’re the sort of dogmatic europhile who’d have hated it.
Cameron could have spent a year or eighteen months working with our obvious allies in the EU - countries that either weren't going to join the Euro like Denmark or Sweden, or who weren't that keen on further centralisation, such as Poland. He could have created an awkward bunch who agitated, because they were broadly on the same page.
But he didn't. He chose to try and bank a quick win.
I recall at the time my belief was he rushed it because the previous summer had seen masses of boats washing up on EU shores, and I assumed he was worried another summer of it would fire up leavers too much.
Some Brexiteers on here screeched that the referendum was being held too late, and that Cameron was delaying it for political reasons, and that it was all a stitch-up, etc, etc.
Well everyone is a little bit unreasonable, and some are more unreasonable than others.
Some people were quite convinced that their vote would be stolen unless they brought a black marker.
This is where the discussion went wrong. Cameron's Bloomberg Speech was not about demanding concessions from Europe as if it was a zero-sum game; it was about reforming the EU to work in everyone's interests, not just whether 'Inners' or 'Outers', or Eurozone members or not (i.e. national membership positions) but the public as well. That aspiration ended up being dropped, which is how it ended up turning into the kind of concessionfest that inevitably put the EU's backs up and delivered insubstantial benefits options.
As soon as the debate became about 'exceptionalism', it headed down a wrong path.
All EU members agree the EU needs reform. They don't agree what that reform should be. The British think reform is what they decide it to be and everyone else is backward for not doing what the British tell them to do. Cameron's speech and your comment are typical of this assumption.
The EU talk a good game on reform, then sneer and whine at 'populists' and moan about the UK not understanding them (the reverse is apparently never true). If they could live up to their dream it would be ok, but they clearly do not mean it when they talk about reform in any meaningful sense. They way they talk about opponents of further integration, and the concerns they have, once the heat dies down shows that.
Which is fine if that is truly what they want. It's better for them if we are not in there messing about.
Comments
The thing about the backstop is that it's mandatory, whatever happens, even in the case of no deal. The EU will ensure, at any costs, full customs and regulatory alignment between northern ireland and the EU, for the rest of time, at any cost.
It is the sine qua non of the EU talking to us about the future trading partnership at all.
Even if we crash out with no deal, the EU will demand a legally-binding guarantee of full indefinite customs and regulatory alignment between the NI and the EU. EVEN if we commit economic suicide to avoid the backstop, the EU will continue to demand one.
as I tell Mrs B its pointless talking to Brooke Junior, until hes made enough mistakes for himself hes not ready to listen to advice.
In our lives we have walked
Some strange and lonely treks
Slightly worn but dignified
And not too old for sex
Varadkar has an election, its that simple
I'm going to go outside.
The UK is not used to a situation where Ireland has the upper hand. It may have never happened before.
Too many tweets make...
But he;s the Irish Tony Blair, cool Hibernia, he doesnt think that things can go wrong. Maybe like Blair his luck in office will hold, but like Blair he;ll leave a sea of shit behind him
start there.
I would add the following contributions from Britain:
- A loss of a pragmatic sceptical (in the best sense of that word) approach to policy making.
- A political culture which believes in the rule of law, civil liberties and which has not, generally, been imbued with an authoritarian top-down gene.
The largest groups people can truly feel part of is about 1500 people. British constituency size already stretches the sense of impact very far. 73 seats for an electorate of 46.8 million means there is essentially zero sense of connectedness between the individual voter and the outcome of voting.
it will get sorted because it has to
it could and should have been done quietly away from the glare and not turned in to an issue
instead Leo thought he'd grandstand on 3700 graves and kick the sleeping dogs as he has an election to win
https://emma.best/2019/01/07/140-things-youre-not-allowed-to-say-about-assange-or-wikileaks/
That's two senators for 40 million people, and you just said that's impossible. Maybe you should ping Kamala and tell her you've done the math and she doesn't exist.
Sometimes rightly, often wrongly, we blame our elected officials when things do not turn out as we would like. It's much easier than blaming ourselves.
Fundamentally, the EU failed to understand that many people in the UK saw the EU as a threat to its national independence, being both unwilling to either listen or reform, and also being unstoppable.
It could have dealt with those concerns and worries, and averted Brexit, but it chose not to.
Fortunately, most people who follow you on Twitter and read your posts on pb.com are now wise to it, and simply ignore you.
Very, very few people in the UK are “real Nazis”. On either side. Not even Aaron Banks or Nigel Farage.
I accept Thomas Mair may have been.
It became clear to me the EU wasn’t serious about meaningful reform, unless it was More Europe.
The issue is the willingness of European countries to spend and invest seriously in defence. Not the structures.
You’re the sort of dogmatic europhile who’d have hated it.
Meanwhile Salmond enquiry rolls on
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/3712895/alex-salmond-sex-probe-scandal-staff-contact/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmond-sex-inquiry-police-interview-former-snp-staff-wzs275s0t
Britain is unusual in aspiring to have MPs whom you can meet personally with minimal effort, and the effect of that is the enormous personal caseload which is so often criticised as "not what the job is about". Some favour reducing the number of MPs, which will accentuate the issue.
Clearly the EU Parliament is somewhat anonymous, because it's so little reported in the British media and because the candidates are elected by the list system. I'd like to see the President elected multinationally - a Merkel vs Blair vs Orban election, say, would engage people right across the continent.
But I don't think most people in Britain feel "truly part of" Westminster democracy either - sadly. Still less of local councils, where the proportionality is not far over 1500 but the bodies are powerless over most things that matter to people. The reason why the European institutions matter is that increasingly they can affect outcomes globally that we can't affect on our own.
Opt outs are not concessions it is the EU going in a different direction to us, without us, that marginalises us. If that happens it is a concession to those who wanted to go in the different direction, not those left behind.
The Euro forming without us was no concession to the UK. It was a concession to those who wanted a Single Currency with us left with a dilemma to join something we don't want or be left ostracised outside it.
[ducks]
But he didn't. He chose to try and bank a quick win.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/european-union-priorities-in-2019-by-michel-barnier-2019-01
It strikes me as the very first step of realising one must change but having either no idea or real desire to do much about it.
Whats the world coming to ?
Germany comes to a stop because of a bit of snow
https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article186706320/Unwetterwarnungen-Die-Schnee-Situation-im-Alpenraum-wird-immer-dramatischer.html
Nevertheless, I saw, and still don’t see, any appetite in the EU for this reform. Cameron couldn’t even get Juncker blocked when he wanted to.
If Corbyn fails to oppose Brexit Labour's voteshare in London would plummet to just 30% behind the Tories on 37% while the LDs would surge to 24%
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/corbyn-risks-votes-disaster-if-he-fails-to-fight-brexit-poll-shows-a4032256.html
It is false and defamatory to suggest that I have ever suggested that Apple is an evil company who produce inferior products. Oh no.
Instead replace the EU with the EA (European Alliance) which would exist to pool the sovereignty of European countries in selected areas to the extent that both they and their citizens wished to do so, to increase their coordination and clout.
Such pooling of powers would be both joinable and leavable.
Not as fishy as Sturgeon though...
It's amazing how many programmers feel that way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga6-gcfZXzs
I agree the EU is diminished in several ways by the UK's exit. Also that the EU response lacks imagination. But I'm unsure what realistically the EU should have done differently given the nature of the EU, and the circumstances of the UK's departure.
The EU is above all a legal structure. It is in fact a legalistic one .It is such to compensate for it not being the superstate that no EU member wants it to be. The EU has no interest or capacity to offer bespoke deals that give flexibility it doesn't offer to members. As a membership organisation it needs clarity on the value of membership so no other member will pretend that cancellation has no impact.
The EU could (and should in my view) appeal to emotion, that the EU is the Europe of values, that appeal would fall on deaf British ears, given how transactional we have been.
The EU approach to Brexit is extremely focused. To get the UK out with the least additional damage to themselves. It has been ruthless and ultimately probably effective.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/07/mueller-probe-concord-management-1085285
I'll get my coat...
Which is fine if that is truly what they want. It's better for them if we are not in there messing about.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/07/brexit-end-boom-in-farmland-prices-forecasts-say
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6565067/May-denies-wasting-month-delaying-crunch-vote-Brexit-deal.html