I appreciate that Mr Tusk has been blunt. I appreciate that his message has not been well-received by Leavers. Could one of those outraged Leavers articulate what it is about what he says that they find so upsetting?
I'm not upset as I think it works in favour of support for leaving the EU. However if Theresa May said that those EU bigwigs and Europhiles responsible for the mess Europe is in belong in hell then I expect she'd get a battering from the public and the media.
If you want to be taken seriously as a politician of some stature then you use the language of Merkel. If you want to make waves on social media but undermine your seniority then use the language of Tusk.
What bit of what he said do you think is either untrue or unfair comment?
When you boil it down, the death cult's only point is "we don't like what he said".
That's a different question to the one you asked me. The bit I think is untrue is that there's a place in hell for politicians with views different to his.
Then again I don't believe in hell nor do I think religion and politics make good bedfellows.
He was not objecting to their views. He was objecting to their lack of preparedness. What's your next delusion?
I don't think there was a lack of preparedness. I think he objects in reality to leavers not capitulating to the EU's insane backstop demands.
So you're outraged by what you imagine he thinks rather than what he actually said? How Brexit.
You have previously expressed outrage at what you imagine leavers think rather than what they say here. Just saying.
Horrible as the discussion is that seems a perfectly fair demand from Nantes and given the amount of money involved they can hardly afford to just ignore it.
While they are right to expect some kind of fee they should probably be waiting a lot longer. They are no longer paying his wages, the transfer window is shut so best wait for a salvaging effort or any inquest before going down this route. It's not as if Nantes are some non league club living hand to mouth. It's very poor PR and I'm not surprised if Cardiff have leaked this to the press.
I don't think this reflects well on Cardiff at all, Nantes are due his fee.
Horrible as the discussion is that seems a perfectly fair demand from Nantes and given the amount of money involved they can hardly afford to just ignore it.
While they are right to expect some kind of fee they should probably be waiting a lot longer. They are no longer paying his wages, the transfer window is shut so best wait for a salvaging effort or any inquest before going down this route. It's not as if Nantes are some non league club living hand to mouth. It's very poor PR and I'm not surprised if Cardiff have leaked this to the press.
Surely there must be standard insurance policies in place for expensive players, and surely also the transfer contracts must include a clause specifying exactly when risk passes from one club to another. I expect that Nantes has to formally make the request to trigger the insurance claim.
I'm still waiting for a single Leaver to explain to me why anyone should be upset by Donald Tusk's comments. I'm putting it down to a toxic combination of bluntness and foreignness.
Horrible as the discussion is that seems a perfectly fair demand from Nantes and given the amount of money involved they can hardly afford to just ignore it.
I suppose it would be like a fire on the day of a house sale. At what point is the transaction complete?
The transaction was complete before he made the trip.
Mr Meeks, I said I thought he was incorrect because I believe it was perfectly clear no deal Brexit was a possibility of the leave vote and I don't believe Tusk has exactly excelled himself in trying to improve EU UK relations. I also don't believe these people will go to hell. I also disagree with your suggestion that all leavers are 'upset'. I can disagree with someone and not be upset, in fact I'd only be upset if we remained in the EU.
In fact it's looking to me increasingly likely that however we leave (even with no deal), the UK will over the following year grow faster than the Eurozone. We will probably be the fastest growing European G7 economy.
But I doubt even that will make many people eat humble pie.
The funny thing is, I find it difficult to imagine those on the other side of the argument admitting they were wrong, no matter what the evidence.
But it shouldn't be beyond the ingenuity of the people here to agree an objective measure of how bad, or how not bad, a No Deal Brexit would be. Who knows, perhaps bets could even be placed on it.
Would you accept the value of the pound as a criterion, or is the idea that the lower it goes the better?
No I would not as I see the value of the pound as largely meaningless in and of itself and it acts as a freely floating stabiliser and shock absorber (and no deal would be a shock so I expect the pound would fall).
I think a far better metric would be a comparator between UK and EU real GDP per capita growth 10-20 years after Brexit.
10-20 years seems rather a long time.
If you're talking about the Millennium Bug as an analogy, we should know within the next three months whether you're right or not, shouldn't we? We just need to fix an objective criterion of disaster for this April.
Well 10-20 years is to see over the long term if it was good or bad.
Over the short term if it is a disaster as foreseen then I think that would show up as an immediate recession, an immediate surge in unemployment etc. You know the sort of things Osborne warned us about if we voted to leave.
So are you willing to put a precise figure to it? Say a prediction about unemployment by the end of May? (I mean the month, not the prime minister.)
The Treasury prediction was that if we voted to Leave the EU then jobs would fall under all scenarios but if we did so without a deal it would fall by 820k. Employment at the time was 31.58 million. So if the Treasury were right employment should fall to 30.76 million.
I appreciate that Mr Tusk has been blunt. I appreciate that his message has not been well-received by Leavers. Could one of those outraged Leavers articulate what it is about what he says that they find so upsetting?
For those of us who supported Remain it is extremely disappointing that this is the attitude shown in a negotiation with one of the largest and most influential nations in the world. If we were seeking a trade deal from the outside language like this would no be used.
He resisted calling her 'little rocket woman'..... If you spent two years negotiating an agreement and having reached one were told it's back to the drawing board because the negotiators had no authority to reach agreement I doubt you'd think you'd been dealing with one of the most influential countries in the world. Possibly a banana republic
You think Tusk, Barnier and Juncker believed their deal would get HoC approval? If so, they were astonishingly badly briefed. If not - what were they playing at?
You think Theresa May believed the deal she negotiated would get HoC approval? If so, she was not only badly briefed but she failed to understand her own MP's. If not - what was she playing at?
In fact it's looking to me increasingly likely that however we leave (even with no deal), the UK will over the following year grow faster than the Eurozone. We will probably be the fastest growing European G7 economy.
But I doubt even that will make many people eat humble pie.
Would you like a bet on that?
I'll even offer you 3-1.
In the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal, the UK's GDP growth will exceed that of the Eurozone.
Horrible as the discussion is that seems a perfectly fair demand from Nantes and given the amount of money involved they can hardly afford to just ignore it.
While they are right to expect some kind of fee they should probably be waiting a lot longer. They are no longer paying his wages, the transfer window is shut so best wait for a salvaging effort or any inquest before going down this route. It's not as if Nantes are some non league club living hand to mouth. It's very poor PR and I'm not surprised if Cardiff have leaked this to the press.
Surely there must be standard insurance policies in place for expensive players, and surely also the transfer contracts must include a clause specifying exactly when risk passes from one club to another. I expect that Nantes has to formally make the request to trigger the insurance claim.
You would think so, but the case of dean ashton showed it certainly not a given. His career was ended while training with England, but so you think England insurance would pay, but they didn’t. His own club insurance wouldn’t and Chelsea who was Shaun wright Philips (the player who injuries him) club at the time wouldn’t.
In the end he had to personally sue Shaun Wright Philips (despite not wanting to) to get money he was rightfully owed. It was settled 3/4 years after the incident, but who ultimately paid out in the end was not made public.
Horrible as the discussion is that seems a perfectly fair demand from Nantes and given the amount of money involved they can hardly afford to just ignore it.
While they are right to expect some kind of fee they should probably be waiting a lot longer. They are no longer paying his wages, the transfer window is shut so best wait for a salvaging effort or any inquest before going down this route. It's not as if Nantes are some non league club living hand to mouth. It's very poor PR and I'm not surprised if Cardiff have leaked this to the press.
Surely there must be standard insurance policies in place for expensive players, and surely also the transfer contracts must include a clause specifying exactly when risk passes from one club to another. I expect that Nantes has to formally make the request to trigger the insurance claim.
The relevant insurance policy will surely be Cardiff's I think.
Horrible as the discussion is that seems a perfectly fair demand from Nantes and given the amount of money involved they can hardly afford to just ignore it.
While they are right to expect some kind of fee they should probably be waiting a lot longer. They are no longer paying his wages, the transfer window is shut so best wait for a salvaging effort or any inquest before going down this route. It's not as if Nantes are some non league club living hand to mouth. It's very poor PR and I'm not surprised if Cardiff have leaked this to the press.
Surely there must be standard insurance policies in place for expensive players, and surely also the transfer contracts must include a clause specifying exactly when risk passes from one club to another. I expect that Nantes has to formally make the request to trigger the insurance claim.
Insurance will surely depend on the circumstances of the accident and who approved the claim. A lot of footballers have clauses in their contract that use of motorbikes/playing football outside of the club for pleasure can result in cancelled deals. The same will apply for insurance companies if you partake in certain risks.
I don't think it would be too much to ask if Nantes waited a few weeks to ask for the first installment.
In fact it's looking to me increasingly likely that however we leave (even with no deal), the UK will over the following year grow faster than the Eurozone. We will probably be the fastest growing European G7 economy.
But I doubt even that will make many people eat humble pie.
The Millennium Bug analogy is a good one. If we had started preparing for the Millenium bug about three months before the end of 1999, then there would have been severe problems. Instead, there was a concentrated - and expensive - effort to get everything ready for 1/1/2000.
OT. Talking of SeanT...I've just seen 'Can You Ever Forgive Me' about a failed author who forged letters from well known writers set in New York. When I heard that Richard E Grant had been nominated for an Oscar for his part in it I was intrigued. Apart from an interesting showing in 'Withnail and I' i've never seen him be less than irritating in anything else. Sometimes even spoiling an OK film with his clunky performance.
Going to court hatred and ridicule -
Did not love Withnail and I. Had heard loads about it, watched it, was almost floored by the disappointment.
And going to court some more -
I do like just about anything with Richard Gere in it. Especially if it's a relationship drama.
In fact it's looking to me increasingly likely that however we leave (even with no deal), the UK will over the following year grow faster than the Eurozone. We will probably be the fastest growing European G7 economy.
But I doubt even that will make many people eat humble pie.
The Millennium Bug analogy is a good one. If we had started preparing for the Millenium bug about three months before the end of 1999, then there would have been severe problems. Instead, there was a concentrated - and expensive - effort to get everything ready for 1/1/2000.
The big difference is that if you fix the millennium bug, the date change had no impact. All the mitigation in the world wouldn’t turn a no deal Brexit into a non-event.
I would just like to say that the millennium bug was a problem with computer code that was overcome by changing the code that so many functions are dependent upon. Billions were spent on updating technology to alleviate any problems over several years running up to 2000. That is why "nothing happened".
In contrast Brexit is not just a software glitch that needs recoding or can be rendered obsolete by changing the hardware. Brexit is a fundamental change to the economy, business and trade, which means for the process to be smooth the new framework has to be viable. Nothing I have seen in the Brexit process looks like producing a viable new framework supported by parliament.
Parliament has not even passed all the relevant regulation to enable a smooth Brexit as yet. Hopes that this will be the same as 2000 and the Y2K bug are wide of the mark and I would conclude that Brexit is not dissimilar to instigating sanctions on the UK. It is a shock to business and the economy that will on a No Deal basis cause hardship to many with only a perverted few enjoying the outcome.
In fact it's looking to me increasingly likely that however we leave (even with no deal), the UK will over the following year grow faster than the Eurozone. We will probably be the fastest growing European G7 economy.
But I doubt even that will make many people eat humble pie.
Would you like a bet on that?
I'll even offer you 3-1.
In the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal, the UK's GDP growth will exceed that of the Eurozone.
Horrible as the discussion is that seems a perfectly fair demand from Nantes and given the amount of money involved they can hardly afford to just ignore it.
While they are right to expect some kind of fee they should probably be waiting a lot longer. They are no longer paying his wages, the transfer window is shut so best wait for a salvaging effort or any inquest before going down this route. It's not as if Nantes are some non league club living hand to mouth. It's very poor PR and I'm not surprised if Cardiff have leaked this to the press.
Surely there must be standard insurance policies in place for expensive players, and surely also the transfer contracts must include a clause specifying exactly when risk passes from one club to another. I expect that Nantes has to formally make the request to trigger the insurance claim.
It sounds like the insurers from Nantes are happy he wasn’t their responsibility, and their lawyers are happy that Cardiff signed the transfer contract, so they’re due the contractually agreed money for the transfer fee.
Cardiff now need to pass the request for payment to their insurers and lawyers, who will either cough up or argue their case.
In fact it's looking to me increasingly likely that however we leave (even with no deal), the UK will over the following year grow faster than the Eurozone. We will probably be the fastest growing European G7 economy.
But I doubt even that will make many people eat humble pie.
The funny thing is, I find it difficult to imagine those on the other side of the argument admitting they were wrong, no matter what the evidence.
But it shouldn't be beyond the ingenuity of the people here to agree an objective measure of how bad, or how not bad, a No Deal Brexit would be. Who knows, perhaps bets could even be placed on it.
Would you accept the value of the pound as a criterion, or is the idea that the lower it goes the better?
No I would not as I see the value of the pound as largely meaningless in and of itself and it acts as a freely floating stabiliser and shock absorber (and no deal would be a shock so I expect the pound would fall).
I think a far better metric would be a comparator between UK and EU real GDP per capita growth 10-20 years after Brexit.
10-20 years seems rather a long time.
If you're talking about the Millennium Bug as an analogy, we should know within the next three months whether you're right or not, shouldn't we? We just need to fix an objective criterion of disaster for this April.
Well 10-20 years is to see over the long term if it was good or bad.
Over the short term if it is a disaster as foreseen then I think that would show up as an immediate recession, an immediate surge in unemployment etc. You know the sort of things Osborne warned us about if we voted to leave.
So are you willing to put a precise figure to it? Say a prediction about unemployment by the end of May? (I mean the month, not the prime minister.)
The Treasury prediction was that if we voted to Leave the EU then jobs would fall under all scenarios but if we did so without a deal it would fall by 820k. Employment at the time was 31.58 million. So if the Treasury were right employment should fall to 30.76 million.
Satisfied?
Wasn't that a prediction of what would happen by mid-2018?
Are some Buccaneers who likened the EU27 to Nazis and the Soviet Union getting upset because someone pointed out they never had a plan for how to leave? Poor lambs, poor snowflakey lambs.
Those of us who were around at the time and involved in any way know that the reason the "Millennium Bug" didn't cause problems was because a hell of a lot of work went into fixing things in advance. The trouble with no-deal Brexit is that nobody has done the work.
So are you willing to put a precise figure to it? Say a prediction about unemployment by the end of May? (I mean the month, not the prime minister.)
The Treasury prediction was that if we voted to Leave the EU then jobs would fall under all scenarios but if we did so without a deal it would fall by 820k. Employment at the time was 31.58 million. So if the Treasury were right employment should fall to 30.76 million.
Satisfied?
Wasn't that a prediction of what would happen by mid-2018?
Well indeed. But that was based on an immediate invocation of A50. A50 invocation was delayed so lets give them the benefit of the doubt and give until Mid-2019 for this to take place.
Horrible as the discussion is that seems a perfectly fair demand from Nantes and given the amount of money involved they can hardly afford to just ignore it.
While they are right to expect some kind of fee they should probably be waiting a lot longer. They are no longer paying his wages, the transfer window is shut so best wait for a salvaging effort or any inquest before going down this route. It's not as if Nantes are some non league club living hand to mouth. It's very poor PR and I'm not surprised if Cardiff have leaked this to the press.
Surely there must be standard insurance policies in place for expensive players, and surely also the transfer contracts must include a clause specifying exactly when risk passes from one club to another. I expect that Nantes has to formally make the request to trigger the insurance claim.
Insurance will surely depend on the circumstances of the accident and who approved the claim. A lot of footballers have clauses in their contract that use of motorbikes/playing football outside of the club for pleasure can result in cancelled deals. The same will apply for insurance companies if you partake in certain risks.
I don't think it would be too much to ask if Nantes waited a few weeks to ask for the first installment.
Ricky activities have always been a nightmare for insurance of valuable people, whether it’s sportsmen, actors or CEOs.
For example, F1 drivers are now more likely to miss a race through some injury picked up outside F1, than they are doing the ‘day job’
OT. Talking of SeanT...I've just seen 'Can You Ever Forgive Me' about a failed author who forged letters from well known writers set in New York. When I heard that Richard E Grant had been nominated for an Oscar for his part in it I was intrigued. Apart from an interesting showing in 'Withnail and I' i've never seen him be less than irritating in anything else. Sometimes even spoiling an OK film with his clunky performance.
Going to court hatred and ridicule -
Did not love Withnail and I. Had heard loads about it, watched it, was almost floored by the disappointment.
And going to court some more -
I do like just about anything with Richard Gere in it. Especially if it's a relationship drama.
You do worry me sometimes....
Edit: Although Primal Fear was an excellent film but that was mostly because of Edward Norton's astonishing performance.
I'm still waiting for a single Leaver to explain to me why anyone should be upset by Donald Tusk's comments. I'm putting it down to a toxic combination of bluntness and foreignness.
I'm still waiting for a single leaver to claim to be upset.
I'm not upset. Mr Tusk demonstrated once again that he has not negotiated in good faith - even at this late stage he wants us to overturn the decision and laments that we won't/can't before insulting half the cabinet, and implicitly a good chunk of leave voters.
His comments are designed to further that aim and provide succour to the remainers. His brief however is to negotiate an orderly Brexit on behalf of the EU27.
At this late stage when 95%+ is agreed, he is contributing to a low-trust and low respect environment, when positive relationships, flexibility and consensus are needed to get this over the line.
He needs to grow up. He needs to learn some manners. If he and Mr Vradkar think their schoolboy chortles are bringing us closer to agreement and avoiding a no-deal/hard border, then they are not very bright.
This is the absolute key point which MPs and no-dealers need to get their tiny little heads round:
A senior EU official rejected suggestions the agreement on citizens’ rights could be easily salvaged from the wreckage of a no-deal Brexit.
‘[No-deal] will be a hard landing, it will cause considerable disruption,” the official told the Guardian. “There will be no quick fixes to pick up the pieces.”
The 585-page withdrawal agreement has been negotiated under the EU’s article 50, an “exceptional” clause, the official said, which will no longer apply once the UK ceases to be a member. Any new agreement would have to be ratified by national parliaments, in line with EU standard practice when concluding international agreements that affect national policies.
“We are in a different legal scenario,” the EU official said. “Normally when we have a mixed agreement [ where policy competences are shared between the EU institutions and member states] the whole agreement takes a couple of years to ratify.”
The article specifically relates to citizens' rights, but the same issue applies to everything else as well. The idea of crashing out and then trying to do a deal is out with the fairies. This is not the EU being difficult, it's an unavoidable consequence of the legal structures which govern the EU.
In fact it's looking to me increasingly likely that however we leave (even with no deal), the UK will over the following year grow faster than the Eurozone. We will probably be the fastest growing European G7 economy.
But I doubt even that will make many people eat humble pie.
Would you like a bet on that?
I'll even offer you 3-1.
In the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal, the UK's GDP growth will exceed that of the Eurozone.
£50 from you £150 from me
I assume bet void in the event of the deal? What period would we look at? I would propose the first 4 full quarters after Brexit (Ie Q2 2019 - Q1 2020 in the event of a deal).
If you're happy with that then I'm happy to shake on that and exchange details (though you can probably already see my email address).
Got to say that Tusk's comments were very ill advised - what was he trying to achieve ? Even Leo looked a little nervous at the off-Mic chit/chat with Tusk, he probably has more political nous for how it was going to play out.
Those of us who were around at the time and involved in any way know that the reason the "Millennium Bug" didn't cause problems was because a hell of a lot of work went into fixing things in advance. The trouble with no-deal Brexit is that nobody has done the work.
Actually I think a lot of people have done a lot of work. What's all the talk of stockpiling that's happened already meant to be for if not preparations?
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
This is the absolute key point which MPs and no-dealers need to get their tiny little heads round:
A senior EU official rejected suggestions the agreement on citizens’ rights could be easily salvaged from the wreckage of a no-deal Brexit.
‘[No-deal] will be a hard landing, it will cause considerable disruption,” the official told the Guardian. “There will be no quick fixes to pick up the pieces.”
The 585-page withdrawal agreement has been negotiated under the EU’s article 50, an “exceptional” clause, the official said, which will no longer apply once the UK ceases to be a member. Any new agreement would have to be ratified by national parliaments, in line with EU standard practice when concluding international agreements that affect national policies.
“We are in a different legal scenario,” the EU official said. “Normally when we have a mixed agreement [ where policy competences are shared between the EU institutions and member states] the whole agreement takes a couple of years to ratify.”
The article specifically relates to citizens' rights, but the same issue applies to everything else as well. The idea of crashing out and then trying to do a deal is out with the fairies. This is not the EU being difficult, it's an unavoidable consequence of the legal structures which govern the EU.
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
Ensuring a no deal is not in their interests either. and it is silly to pretend otherwise and therefore that any obstructive behaviour on their part is merely a 'we started this, not them' sort of situation, which is beyond childish for an organisation such as the EU. It is not impossible both that we have behaved unreaslitically and are constrained unrealistically by our politics and that the EU's reluctance to make any moves, thus ensuring the thing they pretend they don't want, is not a wise move either. Ireland and the EU, despite their protestations otherwise, clearly relish a no deal.
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
Because they're supposed to be allies. Allies look for mutually-beneficial deals, they're acting instead with all the panache of Donald J Trump.
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
Sometimes mutual co-operation beats browbeating in the long run - look up game theory and the 'tit for tat' algorithm.
OT. Talking of SeanT...I've just seen 'Can You Ever Forgive Me' about a failed author who forged letters from well known writers set in New York. When I heard that Richard E Grant had been nominated for an Oscar for his part in it I was intrigued. Apart from an interesting showing in 'Withnail and I' i've never seen him be less than irritating in anything else. Sometimes even spoiling an OK film with his clunky performance.
Going to court hatred and ridicule -
Did not love Withnail and I. Had heard loads about it, watched it, was almost floored by the disappointment.
And going to court some more -
I do like just about anything with Richard Gere in it. Especially if it's a relationship drama.
Richard Gere? I think we all have acting irritants. I don't 'get' John Malkovich. Especially in anything where he's asked to do his woeful 'allo allo' continental accent. As far as I can see he can't act.
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
Because they're supposed to be allies. Allies look for mutually-beneficial deals, they're acting instead with all the panache of Donald J Trump.
It takes two to refuse to tango. At the moment the refusal is entirely caused by an unholy alliance of the ERG and a few other Tory MPs, the DUP, SNP, LibDems and a cynical Labour Party.
The EU and the UK have to realise that we are going to have to live together post Exit (whatever that is). Some of these remarks are going to lead to long term bad feelings and a loss of Trade and Political goodwill. Believe it or not there will be people Today who will say ...I am going to stop buying European Products, full-stop....who does that benefit ? Tusk and UK others should reflect at this time
This is the absolute key point which MPs and no-dealers need to get their tiny little heads round:
A senior EU official rejected suggestions the agreement on citizens’ rights could be easily salvaged from the wreckage of a no-deal Brexit.
‘[No-deal] will be a hard landing, it will cause considerable disruption,” the official told the Guardian. “There will be no quick fixes to pick up the pieces.”
The 585-page withdrawal agreement has been negotiated under the EU’s article 50, an “exceptional” clause, the official said, which will no longer apply once the UK ceases to be a member. Any new agreement would have to be ratified by national parliaments, in line with EU standard practice when concluding international agreements that affect national policies.
“We are in a different legal scenario,” the EU official said. “Normally when we have a mixed agreement [ where policy competences are shared between the EU institutions and member states] the whole agreement takes a couple of years to ratify.”
The article specifically relates to citizens' rights, but the same issue applies to everything else as well. The idea of crashing out and then trying to do a deal is out with the fairies. This is not the EU being difficult, it's an unavoidable consequence of the legal structures which govern the EU.
That is an extremely dishonest headline by the Guardian.
The UK has already said that in the event of a No Deal they will still implement the Settlement Scheme that they have put in place under the WA exactly as if the WA had been agreed.
"To achieve this, the UK will continue to run the EU Settlement Scheme for those resident in the UK by 29 March 2019 in a ‘no deal’ scenario. The basis for qualifying for status under the scheme will remain the same as proposed in a ‘deal’ scenario and will be focused on residence in the UK. This means that any EU citizen living in the UK by 29 March 2019 will be eligible to apply to this scheme, securing their status in UK law."
It won't help UK citizens in the EU of course but for the Guardian to claim that EU citizens are going to lose these rights because of a No Deal is simply not true as they should know.
I'm still waiting for a single Leaver to explain to me why anyone should be upset by Donald Tusk's comments. I'm putting it down to a toxic combination of bluntness and foreignness.
I'm still waiting for a single leaver to claim to be upset.
I'm not upset. Mr Tusk demonstrated once again that he has not negotiated in good faith - even at this late stage he wants us to overturn the decision and laments that we won't/can't before insulting half the cabinet, and implicitly a good chunk of leave voters.
His comments are designed to further that aim and provide succour to the remainers. His brief however is to negotiate an orderly Brexit on behalf of the EU27.
At this late stage when 95%+ is agreed, he is contributing to a low-trust and low respect environment, when positive relationships, flexibility and consensus are needed to get this over the line.
He needs to grow up. He needs to learn some manners. If he and Mr Vradkar think their schoolboy chortles are bringing us closer to agreement and avoiding a no-deal/hard border, then they are not very bright.
Well said
The people who actually need to be convinced, are the 432 MPs who voted against the deal. I don’t see how his comments make any of them more likely to support it. Conversely it may shift a few reluctant supporters of the deal against it, on the basis that the EU give the impression of being actively hostile to the UK during the transition period if the deal is agreed. Tusk’s comments today make it sound like he will be desperate to add a “f*** the UK” clause to every piece of EU legislation from the day we leave.
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
We shouldn't, at all, but we should be prepared to do the same. No-one since Thatcher has realised this basic truth.
I think that this could all be like the “Millenium bug” that so dominated the news ahead of 1999 move to the year 2000
I don’t think this is true. Even if the economy isn’t unduly affected overall (something of an heroic assumption), there will be aignificant winners and loser. The losers will not be forgiving.
That is an extremely dishonest headline by the Guardian.
The UK has already said that in the event of a No Deal they will still implement the Settlement Scheme that they have put in place under the WA exactly as if the WA had been agreed.
"To achieve this, the UK will continue to run the EU Settlement Scheme for those resident in the UK by 29 March 2019 in a ‘no deal’ scenario. The basis for qualifying for status under the scheme will remain the same as proposed in a ‘deal’ scenario and will be focused on residence in the UK. This means that any EU citizen living in the UK by 29 March 2019 will be eligible to apply to this scheme, securing their status in UK law."
It won't help UK citizens in the EU of course but for the Guardian to claim that EU citizens are going to lose these rights because of a No Deal is simply not true as they should know.
That's true but it's no consolation to the UK ex-pats who could get shafted as collateral damage.
So are you willing to put a precise figure to it? Say a prediction about unemployment by the end of May? (I mean the month, not the prime minister.)
The Treasury prediction was that if we voted to Leave the EU then jobs would fall under all scenarios but if we did so without a deal it would fall by 820k. Employment at the time was 31.58 million. So if the Treasury were right employment should fall to 30.76 million.
Satisfied?
Wasn't that a prediction of what would happen by mid-2018?
Well indeed. But that was based on an immediate invocation of A50. A50 invocation was delayed so lets give them the benefit of the doubt and give until Mid-2019 for this to take place.
You're suggesting we judge the post-Brexit period on the basis of a projection for the pre-Brexit period made nearly 3 years ago, which we already know didn't turn out to be correct?
OT. Talking of SeanT...I've just seen 'Can You Ever Forgive Me' about a failed author who forged letters from well known writers set in New York. When I heard that Richard E Grant had been nominated for an Oscar for his part in it I was intrigued. Apart from an interesting showing in 'Withnail and I' i've never seen him be less than irritating in anything else. Sometimes even spoiling an OK film with his clunky performance.
Going to court hatred and ridicule -
Did not love Withnail and I. Had heard loads about it, watched it, was almost floored by the disappointment.
And going to court some more -
I do like just about anything with Richard Gere in it. Especially if it's a relationship drama.
I'm slightly with you on Richard Gere. He's been in some good films and give or take the 'Gere frown' I'm never put off a film because he's in it. Withnail and I had to be seen at the time it was made. If you saw it more than a decade later it'll look very dated.
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
Because they're supposed to be allies. Allies look for mutually-beneficial deals, they're acting instead with all the panache of Donald J Trump.
It takes two to refuse to tango. At the moment the refusal is entirely caused by an unholy alliance of the ERG and a few other Tory MPs, the DUP, SNP, LibDems and a cynical Labour Party.
The ERG and DUP voted to back the deal if there's a compromise on one matter only a few days ago. They're agreeing to tango despite their other concerns. Where's the EU's efforts to find a compromise?
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
We shouldn't, at all, but we should be prepared to do the same. No-one since Thatcher has realised this basic truth.
She had a veto over the EU budget and no need to pander to a cynical hung parliament. That made it rather easier than negotiating from a position of weakness as we are now.
So are you willing to put a precise figure to it? Say a prediction about unemployment by the end of May? (I mean the month, not the prime minister.)
The Treasury prediction was that if we voted to Leave the EU then jobs would fall under all scenarios but if we did so without a deal it would fall by 820k. Employment at the time was 31.58 million. So if the Treasury were right employment should fall to 30.76 million.
Satisfied?
Wasn't that a prediction of what would happen by mid-2018?
Well indeed. But that was based on an immediate invocation of A50. A50 invocation was delayed so lets give them the benefit of the doubt and give until Mid-2019 for this to take place.
You're suggesting we judge the post-Brexit period on the basis of a projection for the pre-Brexit period made nearly 3 years ago, which we already know didn't turn out to be correct?
What would be the point of that?
No, mid-2018 was supposed to be post-Brexit. A50 invoked mid-2016, Brexit happens by mid-2018.
I'm suggesting we judge the post-Brexit period on the pre-referendum predictions of the post-Brexit period.
Mr. Sandpit, yeah. It's ironic Schumacher would likely be fine now if he's stayed in F1, since he never skied whilst he was a driver.
Indeed, he probably wasn’t allowed to. The insurance companies tightened things up again after Grosjean was injured at the Race of Champions a couple of years ago, missed I think three or four races. Astonishingly, and a great future pub quiz question, the same 20 driver / team combos started every race last season - first time it’s ever happened.
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
We shouldn't, at all, but we should be prepared to do the same. No-one since Thatcher has realised this basic truth.
She had a veto over the EU budget and no need to pander to a cynical hung parliament. That made it rather easier than negotiating from a position of weakness as we are now.
I have some admiration for TMay, but to what degree the position was weak and to what degree the negotiation was weak is something we're unlikely to agree on.
Those of us who were around at the time and involved in any way know that the reason the "Millennium Bug" didn't cause problems was because a hell of a lot of work went into fixing things in advance. The trouble with no-deal Brexit is that nobody has done the work.
The correct analogy is more like crashing out of the ERM. Widely considered a disaster at the time but in the long run crashing out was beneficial to the economy, and now looking back in time you wonder what we were doing in the thing in the first place.
That is an extremely dishonest headline by the Guardian.
The UK has already said that in the event of a No Deal they will still implement the Settlement Scheme that they have put in place under the WA exactly as if the WA had been agreed.
"To achieve this, the UK will continue to run the EU Settlement Scheme for those resident in the UK by 29 March 2019 in a ‘no deal’ scenario. The basis for qualifying for status under the scheme will remain the same as proposed in a ‘deal’ scenario and will be focused on residence in the UK. This means that any EU citizen living in the UK by 29 March 2019 will be eligible to apply to this scheme, securing their status in UK law."
It won't help UK citizens in the EU of course but for the Guardian to claim that EU citizens are going to lose these rights because of a No Deal is simply not true as they should know.
That's true but it's no consolation to the UK ex-pats who could get shafted as collateral damage.
Indeed. My comment was on the unnecessary fear and upset that a dishonest headline like that will cause to EU citizens in the UK. Bad show by the Guardian. But I suppose
"No Deal Brexit Rights of 1.6 million UK citizens under threat"
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
We disagree. You are being surprisingly naive.
The EU's stated aim was to police their red lines, protect the Single Market, be tough on the British if necessary, all in the self-interests of the EU27. And that as an aim is perfectly fair. That's how trade deals and political agreements are made. Countries negotiate selfishly, then reach a deal.
But when you take Barnier's quote in 2016 ("make the deal so bad the British will want to Remain") and marry them to Tusk's remarks today - where he explicitly admits he wants to reverse Brexit - i.e. subvert our democratic decision - then you see the EU's real intent.
They wanted the Brexit deal to be SO bad we would abandon it, debauch our own democracy, and come limping back into the EU. They are prepared to menace the integrity of the UK to get their way.
That is NOT "normal and unsurprising" in a negotiation. It is downright hostile, the behaviour of an enemy power. We are, or we were, being brought to heel.
But they haven't come up with a Brexit deal so bad we would abandon it. They've agreed a perfectly reasonable deal, including changing the backstop to meet our original objections.
Now, as it happens, I agree that their insistence on the backstop makes no sense, and that the whole negotiation has been backwards. Clearly though they don't see it that way, and they are maintaining solidarity with a member state which is not leaving, rather than with the one which is. Hardly a surprise.
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
We shouldn't, at all, but we should be prepared to do the same. No-one since Thatcher has realised this basic truth.
Thatcher’s actual record was the most integrationist since Heath, and she gave Ireland a role in the government of Northern Ireland.
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
We disagree. You are being surprisingly naive.
The EU's stated aim was to police their red lines, protect the Single Market, be tough on the British if necessary, all in the self-interests of the EU27. And that as an aim is perfectly fair. That's how trade deals and political agreements are made. Countries negotiate selfishly, then reach a deal.
But when you take Barnier's quote in 2016 ("make the deal so bad the British will want to Remain") and marry them to Tusk's remarks today - where he explicitly admits he wants to reverse Brexit - i.e. subvert our democratic decision - then you see the EU's real intent.
They wanted the Brexit deal to be SO bad we would abandon it, debauch our own democracy, and come limping back into the EU. They are prepared to menace the integrity of the UK to get their way.
That is NOT "normal and unsurprising" in a negotiation. It is downright hostile, the behaviour of an enemy power. We are, or we were, being brought to heel.
But they haven't come up with a Brexit deal so bad we would abandon it. They've agreed a perfectly reasonable deal, including changing the backstop to meet our original objections.
Now, as it happens, I agree that their insistence on the backstop makes no sense, and that the whole negotiation has been backwards. Clearly though they don't see it that way, and they are maintaining solidarity with a member state which is not leaving, rather than with the one which is. Hardly a surprise.
They have come up with a Brexit deal so bad we will abandon it as 432 MP votes shows.
But push come to shove will they really choose No Deal (which means No Backstop) over the rest of the deal minus the backstop? And if so how was that rational or reasonable behaviour?
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
We disagree. You are being surprisingly naive.
The EU's stated aim was to police their red lines, protect the Single Market, be tough on the British if necessary, all in the self-interests of the EU27. And that as an aim is perfectly fair. That's how trade deals and political agreements are made. Countries negotiate selfishly, then reach a deal.
But when you take Barnier's quote in 2016 ("make the deal so bad the British will want to Remain") and marry them to Tusk's remarks today - where he explicitly admits he wants to reverse Brexit - i.e. subvert our democratic decision - then you see the EU's real intent.
They wanted the Brexit deal to be SO bad we would abandon it, debauch our own democracy, and come limping back into the EU. They are prepared to menace the integrity of the UK to get their way.
That is NOT "normal and unsurprising" in a negotiation. It is downright hostile, the behaviour of an enemy power. We are, or we were, being brought to heel.
Dear me isn’t this a bit hysterical.
Theresa May put down her red lines and those mean the EU can only offer so much . And of course the EU did prefer the UK to change it’s mind . But really this enemy stuff is typical of the Leave mind set . Always blame someone else and not your vote . You voted to be treated like a third country and that’s what you’re going to get . Ireland who is the EU member will be supported against the departing country . And Irish voters are hugely behind Varadkars stance . Leavers can’t stomach the fact that the lies of Vote Leave have been shown up and that the EU , huge trade block of 500 million is always going to win out against 65 million. Good luck begging for scraps from the lunatic in the White House !
The most entertaining part of the Brexiteers reaction to Tusk, is that exactly the same people who are personally mortally offended by the comments are the ones who see no offence in the "citizens of nowhere" speech...
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
We shouldn't, at all, but we should be prepared to do the same. No-one since Thatcher has realised this basic truth.
Thatcher’s actual record was the most integrationist since Heath, and she gave Ireland a role in the government of Northern Ireland.
Correct me if I'm wrong but there was only one PM between Thatcher and Heath!
The most entertaining part of the Brexiteers reaction to Tusk, is that exactly the same people who are personally mortally offended by the comments are the ones who see no offence in the "citizens of nowhere" speech...
Snowflakes
Can you name one commenter on this site who is "personally mortally offended"?
Or are you making up what people think rather than quoting what they say like @AlastairMeeks ?
They have come up with a Brexit deal so bad we will abandon it as 432 MP votes shows.
But push come to shove will they really choose No Deal (which means No Backstop) over the rest of the deal minus the backstop? And if so how was that rational or reasonable behaviour?
Well no, a large number of those MPs rejected the deal because they will reject any deal (LibDems, SNP, ERG) or because they will reject any deal negotiated by a Tory government (Labour). It has zilch to do with whether it's a good deal or not. In fact there is absolutely no reason other than party-political manoeuvring for Labour not to agree it today.
As for who will blink first: I think the EU will blink slightly with some small concession. But they won't remove the backstop altogether. One of the principal reasons for this is that they have correctly assessed that no change they could make would make the headbangers happy or be relevant to Labour's position.
I expect #2 not to be true. Just as much as its not true that there's no corporation tax border between NI/IE. Just as much as its not true that there's no VAT border between NI/IE. Plenty of taxes are different between NI/IE, so why not customs?
Edit: Although Primal Fear was an excellent film but that was mostly because of Edward Norton's astonishing performance.
:-) ... kind ... I like to be worried about.
But Gere, yes, it's odd. He is not a good actor (not even close) but for me he's the greatest mediocre actor that there has ever been. His banality and woodenness (as an actor) somehow adds to his performances. And put him in some torrid relationship drama, as I say, and it is never less than watchable.
PS: But to show I'm no groupie, there is a glaring exception to all this. I absolutely do NOT like him in any sort of costume drama. He looks ridiculous in anything except modern (or no) clothing.
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
We shouldn't, at all, but we should be prepared to do the same. No-one since Thatcher has realised this basic truth.
Thatcher’s actual record was the most integrationist since Heath, and she gave Ireland a role in the government of Northern Ireland.
Correct me if I'm wrong but there was only one PM between Thatcher and Heath!
I'm still waiting for a single Leaver to explain to me why anyone should be upset by Donald Tusk's comments. I'm putting it down to a toxic combination of bluntness and foreignness.
I'm still waiting for a single leaver to claim to be upset.
I'm not upset. Mr Tusk demonstrated once again that he has not negotiated in good faith - even at this late stage he wants us to overturn the decision and laments that we won't/can't before insulting half the cabinet, and implicitly a good chunk of leave voters.
His comments are designed to further that aim and provide succour to the remainers. His brief however is to negotiate an orderly Brexit on behalf of the EU27.
At this late stage when 95%+ is agreed, he is contributing to a low-trust and low respect environment, when positive relationships, flexibility and consensus are needed to get this over the line.
He needs to grow up. He needs to learn some manners. If he and Mr Vradkar think their schoolboy chortles are bringing us closer to agreement and avoiding a no-deal/hard border, then they are not very bright.
Well said
The people who actually need to be convinced, are the 432 MPs who voted against the deal. I don’t see how his comments make any of them more likely to support it. Conversely it may shift a few reluctant supporters of the deal against it, on the basis that the EU give the impression of being actively hostile to the UK during the transition period if the deal is agreed. Tusk’s comments today make it sound like he will be desperate to add a “f*** the UK” clause to every piece of EU legislation from the day we leave.
Given that it has always been the case that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and the draft agreement was subject to each party's constitutional ratification process, their intransigence at this stage is baffling.
I can't help but contrast Mrs May's approach in (somewhat belatedly perhaps) spending time with each party in NI and the Commons at least trying to understand what the common position might be that also respects the referendum decision, with the approach of Mr Tusk, Barnier and Verhofstadt - which is to be truculent, insulting and bullying.
This is only the withdrawal agreement. It doesn't bode well for the negotiations on the future relationship.
Um They have chosen. They want the first and third and don't care about the second. That is 2 of 3. The trouble is the EU won't let them have that.
I think Mr Neale should have thought about his rather daft tweet a little bit more.
Yes. And we want a customs border that doesn't involve a Trump-esque wall, barbed wire, watchtowers, and lots of other assorted juicy IRA targets. Doesn't seem like it should be impossible.
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
We shouldn't, at all, but we should be prepared to do the same. No-one since Thatcher has realised this basic truth.
Thatcher’s actual record was the most integrationist since Heath, and she gave Ireland a role in the government of Northern Ireland.
Correct me if I'm wrong but there was only one PM between Thatcher and Heath!
Which of the PMs since could match some of her pro-European rhetoric? Even Blair might have tempered this a bit:
We can take pride in the distance travelled. But we must also remember how far we still have to go. The Community is now launching itself on a course for the 1990s, a course which must make it possible for Europe to compete on equal terms with the United States and Japan. As individual countries we have the talent, we have the skills, we have the resourcefulness. What we need are strengths which we can only find together. We must be stronger in new technologies. We must have the full benefit of a single large market.
OT. Talking of SeanT...I've just seen 'Can You Ever Forgive Me' about a failed author who forged letters from well known writers set in New York. When I heard that Richard E Grant had been nominated for an Oscar for his part in it I was intrigued. Apart from an interesting showing in 'Withnail and I' i've never seen him be less than irritating in anything else. Sometimes even spoiling an OK film with his clunky performance.
Going to court hatred and ridicule -
Did not love Withnail and I. Had heard loads about it, watched it, was almost floored by the disappointment.
And going to court some more -
I do like just about anything with Richard Gere in it. Especially if it's a relationship drama.
I'm slightly with you on Richard Gere. He's been in some good films and give or take the 'Gere frown' I'm never put off a film because he's in it. Withnail and I had to be seen at the time it was made. If you saw it more than a decade later it'll look very dated.
He was pretty good as a deeply sleazy cop in Internal Affairs; otherwise curiously unconvincing/wooden.
Withnail is very much of its time, but nonetheless a classic.
They have come up with a Brexit deal so bad we will abandon it as 432 MP votes shows.
But push come to shove will they really choose No Deal (which means No Backstop) over the rest of the deal minus the backstop? And if so how was that rational or reasonable behaviour?
Well no, a large number of those MPs rejected the deal because they will reject any deal (LibDems, SNP, ERG) or because they will reject any deal negotiated by a Tory government (Labour). It has zilch to do with whether it's a good deal or not. In fact there is absolutely no reason other than party-political manoeuvring for Labour not to agree it today.
As for who will blink first: I think the EU will blink slightly with some small concession. But they won't remove the backstop altogether. One of the principal reasons for this is that they have correctly assessed that no change they could make would make the headbangers happy or be relevant to Labour's position.
Indeed I agree that a large number of those MPs rejected the deal for those reasons but some didn't. Specifically in a recent vote a majority set down a path to how a deal could be ratified. With a tweak that will happen anyway if there's no deal!
The only headbangers who voted against a deal under those terms were the following:
Heidi Allen
Guto Bebb
Ken Clarke
Dominic Grieve
Phillip Lee
Anne Marie Morris
Anna Soubry
Sarah Wollaston
Obviously those 8 are the most extreme headbangers in the government but they're not enough to prevent ratification of a deal.
I have some admiration for TMay, but to what degree the position was weak and to what degree the negotiation was weak is something we're unlikely to agree on.
Due to the profoudly open way the EU conducted the negotiations, via its publicly published position statements, we can see the evolution of their position, in particular the major concessions they made to get a deal.
The single hugest concession they made was agreeing to the May backstop. It took a huge amount of political goodwill to agree "suspend" the four freedoms for rUK during the backstop. So the fact that May welched on her backstop and puked it back in their faces probably goes a long way to explaining why the EU are at the end of their tether with her and in no mood whatsoever to go out on a limb for her AGAIN.
Not after what she did last time they tried to help.
The EU was always out to punish us by giving us a terrible deal, a deal so shite we would Remain, as Donald Tusk clearly expected (which is one reason, Mr Meeks, why Tusk's remarks are so ridiculous - he is just angry that this punitive approach maybe hasn't worked)
The EU is acting as an enemy, and has been, all along. It cannot be trusted, it is only interested in giving us pain. It wants to hurt us, pour encourager les autres, and just because.
We are Lutherans, they are Jesuits.
They are not enemies, but they are pursuing their interests not our interests. Why should anyone be surprised or annoyed by that?
We shouldn't, at all, but we should be prepared to do the same. No-one since Thatcher has realised this basic truth.
Thatcher’s actual record was the most integrationist since Heath, and she gave Ireland a role in the government of Northern Ireland.
Correct me if I'm wrong but there was only one PM between Thatcher and Heath!
Unemployment hasn't increased by a million. House prices have declined modestly rather than collapsed. Economic growth is currently about the best for a large European country. The French ports and Eurostar seem to think they can handle the traffic.
The Deal potentially locks us into a CU (with no say in the rules or governance) for the rest of time, or until the EU gets so bored of milking our market to suit them, they decide to let us go. Also it divides the country down the Irish Sea, it menaces our integrity as a union.
No sane country would ever agree to that.
There are many other aspects to the Deal that are objectionable but let's stick to this bit.
I concede that you, almost uniquely, DO find it very acceptable, and you believe that the EU will want to let us go pronto, but clearly you are in a small minority. And what if you are wrong?
Either way, the EU being so smart and all that, must surely have guessed this Deal would be so awful we would reject it, and choose an alternative. After all, THAT WAS THEIR STATED AIM AT THE BEGINNING, as Barnier admitted in 2016.
It potentially locks us into a backstop where we have unlimited tariff-free barrier-free access to the Single Market in goods, without paying a penny of fees to the EU, without being subject to the CAP and CFP, without political union, without direct jurisdiction of the ECJ, and with a coach and horses driven through one of their sacred Four Freedoms and the one which was most important in the Leave vote . Frankly, any Eurosceptic at the start of this whole process would have bitten their hands off to be offered that.
The excellent Tom Newton Dunn is being a little unfair. Leaving the EU is a task for Government and Parliament. The campaigns could have said whatever they liked, they would have had no power to implement it. The responsibility lies with government (1) not to propose a choice of futures for which they do not have decent contingency plans and (2) having fulfilled the first responsibility, then to ensure that people who sincerely believe in the proposed future implement it.
At the moment this looks like an epic fail on every count, though I still think TM might get there in the end.
But the greatest responsibility of all is for Government, and Parliament, not to get us into things we can't get out involving issues of sovereignty without our direct and wholehearted consent.
The EU is clearly fed up and Tusk said what many think .
The Brexiters like to dish it out but can’t take it . The EU is moving on , and no one in Europe cares much for the UK soap opera .
An accurate post. It seems that only Leavers cant see how absurd we look to the rest of the world. Thank God for Trump or we'd be the laughing stock.
Thanks . I think there’s a view from some in the UK that mainland Europeans are following the Brexit soap opera . The press isn’t interested and most Brexit related stuff is stuck next to the personal ads !
As for the world looking in , yes laughing stock is right . I mean which country has ever torn up trade links with its biggest market . Even Trump just rebranded NAFTA and didn’t leave that so in essence the ERG nutjobs are even more insane than him.
I'm still waiting for a single Leaver to explain to me why anyone should be upset by Donald Tusk's comments. I'm putting it down to a toxic combination of bluntness and foreignness.
I am not a Leaver.
So.
What Tusk said was correct. Blunt but correct.
The question is whether it was wise to say it now. That is unrelated to the truth of his comments. It is possible to agree with what he says and the fact of him saying it. It is also possible to agree with what he says but think it unwise for him to say at this point.
Now I don't particularly care one way or the other. I am embarrassed by the way the British government is behaving. I did feel recently that the EU was trying to help Britain by pointing out what a good deal the WA was and by saying that they still wanted us to Remain and that there was a way back etc. I felt that they refrained from saying what could, in all justice, have been said about the dysfunctional way the British were handling things.
The fact that he has said it now makes me wonder whether it is calculated and if so to what end or whether he was just exasperated and did not think about the possible reactions to his comments.
I have some admiration for TMay, but to what degree the position was weak and to what degree the negotiation was weak is something we're unlikely to agree on.
Due to the profoudly open way the EU conducted the negotiations, via its publicly published position statements, we can see the evolution of their position, in particular the major concessions they made to get a deal.
The single hugest concession they made was agreeing to the May backstop. It took a huge amount of political goodwill to agree "suspend" the four freedoms for rUK during the backstop. So the fact that May welched on her backstop and puked it back in their faces probably goes a long way to explaining why the EU are at the end of their tether with her and in no mood whatsoever to go out on a limb for her AGAIN.
Not after what she did last time they tried to help.
If they'd paid an iota of attention they'd have known (that thanks to headbangers like Grieve) Parliament needed to give a meaningful vote on the deal and that headbangers like Grieve would never back the deal while the DUP and ERG wouldn't swallow the backstop.
Comments
Satisfied?
I'll even offer you 3-1.
In the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal, the UK's GDP growth will exceed that of the Eurozone.
£50 from you
£150 from me
In the end he had to personally sue Shaun Wright Philips (despite not wanting to) to get money he was rightfully owed. It was settled 3/4 years after the incident, but who ultimately paid out in the end was not made public.
I don't think it would be too much to ask if Nantes waited a few weeks to ask for the first installment.
Did not love Withnail and I. Had heard loads about it, watched it, was almost floored by the disappointment.
And going to court some more -
I do like just about anything with Richard Gere in it. Especially if it's a relationship drama.
In contrast Brexit is not just a software glitch that needs recoding or can be rendered obsolete by changing the hardware. Brexit is a fundamental change to the economy, business and trade, which means for the process to be smooth the new framework has to be viable. Nothing I have seen in the Brexit process looks like producing a viable new framework supported by parliament.
Parliament has not even passed all the relevant regulation to enable a smooth Brexit as yet. Hopes that this will be the same as 2000 and the Y2K bug are wide of the mark and I would conclude that Brexit is not dissimilar to instigating sanctions on the UK. It is a shock to business and the economy that will on a No Deal basis cause hardship to many with only a perverted few enjoying the outcome.
Cardiff now need to pass the request for payment to their insurers and lawyers, who will either cough up or argue their case.
"As a child, as a young man, I was a typical hooligan. We would roam the streets, you know, cruising for a bruising.”
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/feb/06/stansted-15-rights-campaigners-urge-judge-to-show-leniency
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1093195553620389888
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf
The Brexiters like to dish it out but can’t take it . The EU is moving on , and no one in Europe cares much for the UK soap opera .
For example, F1 drivers are now more likely to miss a race through some injury picked up outside F1, than they are doing the ‘day job’
Edit: Although Primal Fear was an excellent film but that was mostly because of Edward Norton's astonishing performance.
His comments are designed to further that aim and provide succour to the remainers. His brief however is to negotiate an orderly Brexit on behalf of the EU27.
At this late stage when 95%+ is agreed, he is contributing to a low-trust and low respect environment, when positive relationships, flexibility and consensus are needed to get this over the line.
He needs to grow up. He needs to learn some manners. If he and Mr Vradkar think their schoolboy chortles are bringing us closer to agreement and avoiding a no-deal/hard border, then they are not very bright.
A senior EU official rejected suggestions the agreement on citizens’ rights could be easily salvaged from the wreckage of a no-deal Brexit.
‘[No-deal] will be a hard landing, it will cause considerable disruption,” the official told the Guardian. “There will be no quick fixes to pick up the pieces.”
The 585-page withdrawal agreement has been negotiated under the EU’s article 50, an “exceptional” clause, the official said, which will no longer apply once the UK ceases to be a member. Any new agreement would have to be ratified by national parliaments, in line with EU standard practice when concluding international agreements that affect national policies.
“We are in a different legal scenario,” the EU official said. “Normally when we have a mixed agreement [ where policy competences are shared between the EU institutions and member states] the whole agreement takes a couple of years to ratify.”
The article specifically relates to citizens' rights, but the same issue applies to everything else as well. The idea of crashing out and then trying to do a deal is out with the fairies. This is not the EU being difficult, it's an unavoidable consequence of the legal structures which govern the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/06/no-deal-brexit-rights-of-5-million-uk-and-eu-citizens-under-threat
As it happens I am conflicted on them. Both the very best person I have ever known and the very worst were lawyers.
If you're happy with that then I'm happy to shake on that and exchange details (though you can probably already see my email address).
The problem with Baubles for Brexiteers is that you can never give them enough. Look at the DUP. The UK really is starting to look tacky
I see that the excellent Greg Clark has been making the same point I've been making on this:
https://twitter.com/dansabbagh/status/1093088859389390848
The UK has already said that in the event of a No Deal they will still implement the Settlement Scheme that they have put in place under the WA exactly as if the WA had been agreed.
"To achieve this, the UK will continue to run the EU Settlement Scheme for those resident in the UK by 29 March 2019 in a ‘no deal’ scenario. The basis for qualifying for status under the scheme will remain the same as proposed in a ‘deal’ scenario and will be focused on residence in the UK. This means that any EU citizen living in the UK by 29 March 2019 will be eligible to apply to this scheme, securing their status in UK law."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policy-paper-on-citizens-rights-in-the-event-of-a-no-deal-brexit
It won't help UK citizens in the EU of course but for the Guardian to claim that EU citizens are going to lose these rights because of a No Deal is simply not true as they should know.
The people who actually need to be convinced, are the 432 MPs who voted against the deal. I don’t see how his comments make any of them more likely to support it. Conversely it may shift a few reluctant supporters of the deal against it, on the basis that the EU give the impression of being actively hostile to the UK during the transition period if the deal is agreed. Tusk’s comments today make it sound like he will be desperate to add a “f*** the UK” clause to every piece of EU legislation from the day we leave.
I don’t think this is true.
Even if the economy isn’t unduly affected overall (something of an heroic assumption), there will be aignificant winners and loser. The losers will not be forgiving.
What would be the point of that?
I'm suggesting we judge the post-Brexit period on the pre-referendum predictions of the post-Brexit period.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1093191032680972289
"No Deal Brexit Rights of 1.6 million UK citizens under threat"
doesn't have quite the same impact in their eyes.
Now, as it happens, I agree that their insistence on the backstop makes no sense, and that the whole negotiation has been backwards. Clearly though they don't see it that way, and they are maintaining solidarity with a member state which is not leaving, rather than with the one which is. Hardly a surprise.
But push come to shove will they really choose No Deal (which means No Backstop) over the rest of the deal minus the backstop? And if so how was that rational or reasonable behaviour?
Theresa May put down her red lines and those mean the EU can only offer so much . And of course the EU did prefer the UK to change it’s mind . But really this enemy stuff is typical of the Leave mind set . Always blame someone else and not your vote . You voted to be treated like a third country and that’s what you’re going to get . Ireland who is the EU member will be supported against the departing country . And Irish voters are hugely behind Varadkars stance . Leavers can’t stomach the fact that the lies of Vote Leave have been shown up and that the EU , huge trade block of 500 million is always going to win out against 65 million. Good luck begging for scraps from the lunatic in the White House !
Snowflakes
Or are you making up what people think rather than quoting what they say like @AlastairMeeks ?
I think Mr Neale should have thought about his rather daft tweet a little bit more.
As for who will blink first: I think the EU will blink slightly with some small concession. But they won't remove the backstop altogether. One of the principal reasons for this is that they have correctly assessed that no change they could make would make the headbangers happy or be relevant to Labour's position.
I expect #2 not to be true. Just as much as its not true that there's no corporation tax border between NI/IE. Just as much as its not true that there's no VAT border between NI/IE. Plenty of taxes are different between NI/IE, so why not customs?
But Gere, yes, it's odd. He is not a good actor (not even close) but for me he's the greatest mediocre actor that there has ever been. His banality and woodenness (as an actor) somehow adds to his performances. And put him in some torrid relationship drama, as I say, and it is never less than watchable.
PS: But to show I'm no groupie, there is a glaring exception to all this. I absolutely do NOT like him in any sort of costume drama. He looks ridiculous in anything except modern (or no) clothing.
I can't help but contrast Mrs May's approach in (somewhat belatedly perhaps) spending time with each party in NI and the Commons at least trying to understand what the common position might be that also respects the referendum decision, with the approach of Mr Tusk, Barnier and Verhofstadt - which is to be truculent, insulting and bullying.
This is only the withdrawal agreement. It doesn't bode well for the negotiations on the future relationship.
Lots of West Ham fans really are racist and bigots, all the way up to the top.
We can take pride in the distance travelled. But we must also remember how far we still have to go. The Community is now launching itself on a course for the 1990s, a course which must make it possible for Europe to compete on equal terms with the United States and Japan. As individual countries we have the talent, we have the skills, we have the resourcefulness. What we need are strengths which we can only find together. We must be stronger in new technologies. We must have the full benefit of a single large market.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106534
Withnail is very much of its time, but nonetheless a classic.
The only headbangers who voted against a deal under those terms were the following:
Heidi Allen
Guto Bebb
Ken Clarke
Dominic Grieve
Phillip Lee
Anne Marie Morris
Anna Soubry
Sarah Wollaston
Obviously those 8 are the most extreme headbangers in the government but they're not enough to prevent ratification of a deal.
The single hugest concession they made was agreeing to the May backstop. It took a huge amount of political goodwill to agree "suspend" the four freedoms for rUK during the backstop. So the fact that May welched on her backstop and puked it back in their faces probably goes a long way to explaining why the EU are at the end of their tether with her and in no mood whatsoever to go out on a limb for her AGAIN.
Not after what she did last time they tried to help.
Harold Wilson
Jim Callaghan
Two PM's between Heath and Thatcher.
It's outrageous.
Unemployment hasn't increased by a million.
House prices have declined modestly rather than collapsed.
Economic growth is currently about the best for a large European country.
The French ports and Eurostar seem to think they can handle the traffic.
No wonder the poor guy is fustrated.
At the moment this looks like an epic fail on every count, though I still think TM might get there in the end.
But the greatest responsibility of all is for Government, and Parliament, not to get us into things we can't get out involving issues of sovereignty without our direct and wholehearted consent.
That is an epic fail now going back decades.
As for the world looking in , yes laughing stock is right . I mean which country has ever torn up trade links with its biggest market . Even Trump just rebranded NAFTA and didn’t leave that so in essence the ERG nutjobs are even more insane than him.
I had been toying with casting Donald Tusk as the modern day William of Orange.
So.
What Tusk said was correct. Blunt but correct.
The question is whether it was wise to say it now. That is unrelated to the truth of his comments. It is possible to agree with what he says and the fact of him saying it. It is also possible to agree with what he says but think it unwise for him to say at this point.
Now I don't particularly care one way or the other. I am embarrassed by the way the British government is behaving. I did feel recently that the EU was trying to help Britain by pointing out what a good deal the WA was and by saying that they still wanted us to Remain and that there was a way back etc. I felt that they refrained from saying what could, in all justice, have been said about the dysfunctional way the British were handling things.
The fact that he has said it now makes me wonder whether it is calculated and if so to what end or whether he was just exasperated and did not think about the possible reactions to his comments.