In all seriousness, leaving aside that people cheering on the rightness of Tusk's comments would never, in a million years, accept such language from those on the other side as being good diplomacy, what was the point of him saying it? How does it help him get what he wants? Being right or not doesn't make something more effective, so what did he hope to achieve with it?
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!
Your wrong!
Harold Wilson
Jim Callaghan
Two PM's between Heath and Thatcher.
Ok, fine. It's still a bit of a non-statement. It's not like saying 'the best dressed since Horace Walpole' or something like that.
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.
I can vouch for that for a fact, I saw it in the late 90s and it very much failed to wow me.
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.
That is an epic fail now going back decades.
That's correct.
The referendum was phoney in that it did not offer two implementable choices. Those who voted for Leave were opting for something that simply couldn't be delivered.
If I'd voted Leave, I'd be feeling pretty peed about that now.
In all seriousness, leaving aside that people cheering on the rightness of Tusk's comments would never, in a million years, accept such language from those on the other side as being good diplomacy, what was the point of him saying it? How does it help him get what he wants? Being right or not doesn't make something more effective, so what did he hope to achieve with it?
I think he's exasperated by it all now.
The backstop was designed by us.
He said a while back there's going to be no winners from Brexit.
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
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?
The comparison is obvious. Per capita GDP growth in the UK should be better than that in our peer group of EU nations - France, Germany, Holland, Sweden and Denmark. If we drop a bit initially but bounce back to overtake them then we are doing well.
In all seriousness, leaving aside that people cheering on the rightness of Tusk's comments would never, in a million years, accept such language from those on the other side as being good diplomacy, what was the point of him saying it? How does it help him get what he wants? Being right or not doesn't make something more effective, so what did he hope to achieve with it?
Given that his press secretary made a point of transcribing it after he said it, and citing it specifically on Twitter, we must conclude that this wasn't a "gaffe" but a deliberate act.
The most convincing explanation I've heard is that the EU wants to signal that it's at the end of its tether with this charade, and is tired of playing May's stupid displacement-activity games. Deliberately overshadowing May's visit, and signalling publicly how far-from-seriously she's now being treated.
lol. To be fair when you put it like that you almost persuade. You do a much better job at selling it than the ridiculous TMay. You should ask for a job at Number 10, FFS. ...
You are right that Theresa May has done a God-awful job selling the deal. As with the 'Dementia Tax', she let her opponents frame the narrative before anyone had actually looked at the facts, and she is hopeless at carrying people with her even when she is right.
So May goes to Dublin and gets their agreement to support a time limit or more likely a minimum notice period on the backstop. They agree because some backstop is better than none which is what they get with a no deal.
The EU are relaxed about accepting that if Ireland are on board. Possibly agree an extended transition period (with further payments) so that it is even more unlikely that the backstop never comes into force.
The UK Parliament is still fairly finely balanced but just supports the deal with the revision to the back stop.
Parliament finally pulls the finger out and gets the legislation required for the deal through.
The UK leaves on 28th March as planned.
Simples. What could possibly go wrong? ;-)
That double negative in the second para?
Ah, I'd like to claim that was because I wrote it on my phone or something but the truth is I am an idiot. It should of course have said "ever comes into force".
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 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.
lol. To be fair when you put it like that you almost persuade. You do a much better job at selling it than the ridiculous TMay. You should ask for a job at Number 10, FFS.
I still disagree though. Because of the backstop. We can't lock ourselves into a CU where we have no unilateral right to leave. What if the CU becomes a much less pleasant place to be, which it might do quite quickly, as the EU negotiates trade deals - using the UK market as bait - which nonetheless disfavour us badly?
Could we simply abrogate? That would be even more damaging to us than a shoddy Brexit.
Anyway, work. MUST WORK.
Later.
The last couple of weeks have made me seriously question whether the EU's commitment to supersede the backstop with mutually acceptable arrangements was made in good faith.
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
Tusk today reminds me of Mourinho a few months ago.
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.
Exiting the ERM enabled the UK to follow monetary policy that was beneficial to the UK economy rather than following an artificial market rate at which sterling could be exchanged against the D-mark or a basket of currencies. This is why I have always been against joining the Euro, which staying in the ERM would have logically led too.
Being in the EU is a completely different ball game and it is all about the ease of doing business within a single market over much of geographical Europe. Leaving a free trade area will damage UK competitiveness in selling into that market their is no doubt compared to those that stay within it. If you compare 1992 and now, exiting the ERM allowed a more supportive economic framework for the UK to emerge. In comparison we are leaving an existing framework for potentially none at all or at best something not as good as we have at the moment. The fundamental ability of the economy to grow will be detrimentally affected at least in the short-term and I would argue in the longer run.
In all seriousness, leaving aside that people cheering on the rightness of Tusk's comments would never, in a million years, accept such language from those on the other side as being good diplomacy, what was the point of him saying it? How does it help him get what he wants? Being right or not doesn't make something more effective, so what did he hope to achieve with it?
I think he's exasperated by it all now.
The backstop was designed by us.
He said a while back there's going to be no winners from Brexit.
That's hardly an explanation. He very deliberately said it and then retweeted it as well, and people in his position don't just do things like that because they are irritated, unless they're Donald Trump, especially when we are repeatedly assured how the EU are so bloody great. And 'designed by us' is irrelevant to finding a way forward, it's on par with those preposterous comments about us reneging. Parliament may have stupidly refused to accept it, so some way forward is needed. He, like me, thinks we're still chasing unicorns, that's fine, no reason they need to reopen things. But unless he and the EU are liars they do want something other than no deal, and his comments seem to aid that outcome.
And just because one believes there are winners doesn't mean people need to ensure every one loses as much as possible, so unless you think Tusk does want things to be as bad as possible for both sides, or simply doesn't care anymore (in which case he's an idiot), he must want something to happen and thinks his comments get toward that goal somehow.
The last couple of weeks have made me seriously question whether the EU's commitment to supersede the backstop with mutually acceptable arrangements was made in good faith.
That's what I've said all along and why I've opposed it all along.
If the EU genuinely didn't want us stuck in the backstop, if they genuinely didn't like it, then they would be less adamant at locking us in without an exit.
In another memorable pithy remark, Tusk referred to David Cameron's 'stupid referendum'. I don't think it's stretching things too far to suggest that in doing so he was implying DC was a stupid politician. He probably thinks much the same of the other UK politicians who have traipsed over to Brussels in the name of Brexit.
You can sense the exasperation. How could any responsible politican engage in such a venture without the semblance of a plan? You can argue with the manner and timing of his remarks, but it's a fair question, and for all the outrage expressed in response it's one to which no answer is likely to be forthcoming.
The EU heads seem incredibly rattled at the moment.
I wonder if they are beginning to realise that their underpinning negotiation tenet of punishing UK citizens for voting to leave the bloc has been a counter-productive one.
I used to believe that a cordial exit, followed by a period of reflection within the country, and a careful exploration of the benefits of fully rejoining the project would lead us back in to the centre of the EU within 10 years.
The political earth has been salted so badly now that I think it will be decades, if indeed ever, before we will rejoin.
The extremists on both ends of the divide, from the ERG through to Grieve, are responsible.
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.
Do we have to remind once again that given that we have a large BOP deficit with ROEU, surely it is primarily the EU who would benefit from continued access to our market? One of the most ridiculous aspects of remainerism is touting single market acess as an unalloyed gain.
I had planned to write an article this week comparing Brexit to the Glorious Revolution.
I had been toying with casting Donald Tusk as the modern day William of Orange.
Who is James II? Cameron?
Are you really sure that Malgorzata Tusk will make a good queen of the UK? I suppose with Brexit anything is possible but Accession Day seems a bad time to propose it, (67 years today and counting). Anyway I am fairly sure she is not descended from the Earl of Clarendon so she could hardly stand in for Mary.
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.
Exiting the ERM enabled the UK to follow monetary policy that was beneficial to the UK economy rather than following an artificial market rate at which sterling could be exchanged against the D-mark or a basket of currencies. This is why I have always been against joining the Euro, which staying in the ERM would have logically led too.
Being in the EU is a completely different ball game and it is all about the ease of doing business within a single market over much of geographical Europe. Leaving a free trade area will damage UK competitiveness in selling into that market their is no doubt compared to those that stay within it. If you compare 1992 and now, exiting the ERM allowed a more supportive economic framework for the UK to emerge. In comparison we are leaving an existing framework for potentially none at all or at best something not as good as we have at the moment. The fundamental ability of the economy to grow will be detrimentally affected at least in the short-term and I would argue in the longer run.
Exiting the EU allows us to set regulatory and legal frameworks that suit us.
In some ways I think being outside but next door to the Euro has helped the UK. It means we get all the benefits of having our own currency while simultaneously only needing to worry about one other when travelling/trading with our neighbours.
In some ways being outside but next door to the EU will again be the best of both worlds. Domestically we can set whatever regulations and laws that suit us best while our exporters trading within our continent only need to worry about one other set of regulations.
In another memorable pithy remark, Tusk referred to David Cameron's 'stupid referendum'. I don't think it's stretching things too far to suggest that in doing so he was implying DC was a stupid politician. He probably thinks much the same of the other UK politicians who have traipsed over to Brussels in the name of Brexit.
You can sense the exasperation. How could any responsible politican engage in such a venture without the semblance of a plan? You can argue with the manner and timing of his remarks, but it's a fair question, and for all the outrage expressed in response it's one to which no answer is likely to be forthcoming.
Remainers need to detach opinions they agree with - which poses its own problems, but that's for another post - with the wisdom of uttering them in a highly emotional and unadulterated manner in the midst of a delicate international negotiation.
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
The point about a second referendum seems to have been lost of late (They have gone quite).
I think if a No Deal happens those responsible should be held accountable as things have not worked out to be as simple as they claimed. Farage could not give a shit though as long as he gets Brexit he will just continue his city career and follow his perplexing personal life.
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
Tusk today reminds me of Mourinho a few months ago.
The BBC have just reported that Tusk does not speak for all the EU and they consider his statement a serious misjudgement. They do not want a no deal and their door is open
Unfortunately for Tusk, the Leave response to his tweet was already perfectly formulated 350 years ago by Milton's Satan:
Is this the Region, this the Soil, the Clime, Said then the lost Arch-Angel, this the seat That we must change for Heav’n, this mournful gloom For that celestial light? Be it so, since he Who now is Sovran can dispose and bid What shall be right: fardest from him is best Whom reason hath equald, force hath made supream Above his equals. Farewel happy Fields Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings A mind not to be chang’d by Place or Time. The mind is its own place, and in it self Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n. What matter where, if I be still the same, And what I should be, all but less then he Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n.
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
The point about a second referendum seems to have been lost of late (They have gone quite).
I think if a No Deal happens those responsible should be held accountable
The last couple of weeks have made me seriously question whether the EU's commitment to supersede the backstop with mutually acceptable arrangements was made in good faith.
That's what I've said all along and why I've opposed it all along.
If the EU genuinely didn't want us stuck in the backstop, if they genuinely didn't like it, then they would be less adamant at locking us in without an exit.
Judge people on what they do not what they say.
This could be resolved by a clearer joint statement of intent by both the UK-EU on what they will work to supersede the backstop with by a specific date in the future with some details.
The political declaration is too light on this and the mood music on the EU side far too instransigent to make it believable either.
The last couple of weeks have made me seriously question whether the EU's commitment to supersede the backstop with mutually acceptable arrangements was made in good faith.
Judge people on what they do not what they say.
Absolutely right. And frankly no one comes out of that looking very great. The PM and LOTO purportedly seek certain outcomes even as their actions point to another outcome being more likely as a result, and the EU says they want a deal while deliberately choosing to mock and insult (and no, being right doesn't matter, since this is not about right or wrong but reaching a settlement, even if that settlement is us capitulating), rather than stick to what would be principled refusals, which it is hard to see as aiding anyone other than the side they claim they do not want to aid.
Triggering A50 without a plan was a bloody stupid thing to do. Still having no plan as of June last year was stupider still. Putting off decisions endlessly for party reasons is even stupider, if that is possible. The EU assisting, even if only by not making things even worse, would not be 'doing us a favour' as some people ludicrously fall back on (part of the 'we started it' childishness), but even if they don't care to do anything at this point, which is fine, what good does aggravation do for them?
Crocodile tears about how sad they are about all this does not stack up against their actions, anymore than the whinges about no deal from so many of our MPs stack up against their actions.
In all seriousness, leaving aside that people cheering on the rightness of Tusk's comments would never, in a million years, accept such language from those on the other side as being good diplomacy, what was the point of him saying it? How does it help him get what he wants? Being right or not doesn't make something more effective, so what did he hope to achieve with it?
Given that his press secretary made a point of transcribing it after he said it, and citing it specifically on Twitter, we must conclude that this wasn't a "gaffe" but a deliberate act.
The most convincing explanation I've heard is that the EU wants to signal that it's at the end of its tether with this charade, and is tired of playing May's stupid displacement-activity games. Deliberately overshadowing May's visit, and signalling publicly how far-from-seriously she's now being treated.
Judging by the BBC report tonight it is Tusk in the dock with the EU, not TM
In all seriousness, leaving aside that people cheering on the rightness of Tusk's comments would never, in a million years, accept such language from those on the other side as being good diplomacy, what was the point of him saying it? How does it help him get what he wants? Being right or not doesn't make something more effective, so what did he hope to achieve with it?
Given that his press secretary made a point of transcribing it after he said it, and citing it specifically on Twitter, we must conclude that this wasn't a "gaffe" but a deliberate act.
The most convincing explanation I've heard is that the EU wants to signal that it's at the end of its tether with this charade, and is tired of playing May's stupid displacement-activity games. Deliberately overshadowing May's visit, and signalling publicly how far-from-seriously she's now being treated.
In all seriousness, leaving aside that people cheering on the rightness of Tusk's comments would never, in a million years, accept such language from those on the other side as being good diplomacy, what was the point of him saying it? How does it help him get what he wants? Being right or not doesn't make something more effective, so what did he hope to achieve with it?
I think he's exasperated by it all now.
The backstop was designed by us.
He said a while back there's going to be no winners from Brexit.
He's exasperated because he's realised his master ploy to make us revoke isn't going to work, and now he's losing his shit as he knows this will be his legacy.
If he wants to understand why so many people in the UK are willing to pay the price of Brexit then perhaps he should take a good hard look at the EU's behaviour over the last 20-30 years and do some seriously hard thinking.
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
The point about a second referendum seems to have been lost of late (They have gone quite).
I think if a No Deal happens those responsible should be held accountable
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
Tusk today reminds me of Mourinho a few months ago.
The BBC have just reported that Tusk does not speak for all the EU and they consider his statement a serious misjudgement. They do not want a no deal and their door is open
Damage limitation by the EU
Judge by what people do and not what they say. When so many here and in the EU dancing with joy about his comments, rolling back those comments officially is just part of the game. That way you get to say the inflammatory thing and then get huffy if anyone tries to criticise you about it, since you already withdrew those comments.
It's painfully transparent. If not for him tweeting it as well as saying it I might believe it was not a deliberate strategy, but instead it is pretty obvious they were happy for him to say it, and still are, hence the friendly responses about how right he was.
A 'bollocks to this, no deal it is' then reaction would clearly be disproportionate merely in relation to his comments, but they are indicative of what the EU wants - no deal. And that is clear because they are not idiots, they know politics means the deal doesn't get through without changes. They can clearly live with that, with no change, but like our own government are working on the blame game.
The last couple of weeks have made me seriously question whether the EU's commitment to supersede the backstop with mutually acceptable arrangements was made in good faith.
That's what I've said all along and why I've opposed it all along.
If the EU genuinely didn't want us stuck in the backstop, if they genuinely didn't like it, then they would be less adamant at locking us in without an exit.
Judge people on what they do not what they say.
This could be resolved by a clearer joint statement of intent by both the UK-EU on what they will work to supersede the backstop with by a specific date in the future with some details.
The political declaration is too light on this and the mood music on the EU side far too instransigent to make it believable either.
The political declaration is likely to evolve into something like Norway Plus in the course of negotiations. The reason it's not specific is so that May can avoid explicitly crossing her red lines.
In all seriousness, leaving aside that people cheering on the rightness of Tusk's comments would never, in a million years, accept such language from those on the other side as being good diplomacy, what was the point of him saying it? How does it help him get what he wants? Being right or not doesn't make something more effective, so what did he hope to achieve with it?
I think he's exasperated by it all now.
The backstop was designed by us.
He said a while back there's going to be no winners from Brexit.
That's hardly an explanation. He very deliberately said it and then retweeted it as well, and people in his position don't just do things like that because they are irritated, unless they're Donald Trump, especially when we are repeatedly assured how the EU are so bloody great. And 'designed by us' is irrelevant to finding a way forward, it's on par with those preposterous comments about us reneging. Parliament may have stupidly refused to accept it, so some way forward is needed. He, like me, thinks we're still chasing unicorns, that's fine, no reason they need to reopen things. But unless he and the EU are liars they do want something other than no deal, and his comments seem to aid that outcome.
And just because one believes there are winners doesn't mean people need to ensure every one loses as much as possible, so unless you think Tusk does want things to be as bad as possible for both sides, or simply doesn't care anymore (in which case he's an idiot), he must want something to happen and thinks his comments get toward that goal somehow.
It took publicly humiliating May to get her to move on from Chequers. If insulting May and the ERG types she's pandering to gets her to give up on changes to the backstop earlier, that's a kind of progress.
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
But what he said was true, Big G.
Believe it or not, I do have a friend who is a hard-boiled, extreme No Deal Brexiteer, and he said to me very recently exactly the same as Tusk just said, only in fruitier language.
In all seriousness, leaving aside that people cheering on the rightness of Tusk's comments would never, in a million years, accept such language from those on the other side as being good diplomacy, what was the point of him saying it? How does it help him get what he wants? Being right or not doesn't make something more effective, so what did he hope to achieve with it?
Given that his press secretary made a point of transcribing it after he said it, and citing it specifically on Twitter, we must conclude that this wasn't a "gaffe" but a deliberate act.
The most convincing explanation I've heard is that the EU wants to signal that it's at the end of its tether with this charade, and is tired of playing May's stupid displacement-activity games. Deliberately overshadowing May's visit, and signalling publicly how far-from-seriously she's now being treated.
Judging by the BBC report tonight it is Tusk in the dock with the EU, not TM
My view is that there are fanatics and ideologues in both the EU institutions and in the UK, particularly in the ERG and UKIP, and they both feed off each other. Both are obssessed with windy rhetoric and WWII. Both are Hyperemotional, dogmatic and uncompromising. And all are very media savvy. They are often in surprisingly key positions. And they see democracy as only an obstacle to be navigated to get what it is they really want.
The obvious middle ground answer here would have been for the UK to have negotiated a form of associate membership of the EU, if we were living in a world of sane rational people.
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
Tusk today reminds me of Mourinho a few months ago.
The BBC have just reported that Tusk does not speak for all the EU and they consider his statement a serious misjudgement. They do not want a no deal and their door is open
Damage limitation by the EU
LOL. Their damage limitation efforts might get somewhere if this were an isolated off-message comment, but it was clearly deliberate, and just the latest in a serious of such issues coming from the EU side. Last week it was Barnier and Junker with the high fives, boasting about how they'd screwed the UK in the regotiations.
As Casino and others have said, there's mounting evidence that the EU have no intention of acting in good faith over the backstop, which is in part why the deal was considered unacceptable to 432 MPs.
Unfortunately for Tusk, the Leave response to his tweet was already perfectly formulated 350 years ago by Milton's Satan:
Is this the Region, this the Soil, the Clime, Said then the lost Arch-Angel, this the seat That we must change for Heav’n, this mournful gloom For that celestial light? Be it so, since he Who now is Sovran can dispose and bid What shall be right: fardest from him is best Whom reason hath equald, force hath made supream Above his equals. Farewel happy Fields Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings A mind not to be chang’d by Place or Time. The mind is its own place, and in it self Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n. What matter where, if I be still the same, And what I should be, all but less then he Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n.
I'm a pretty convinced remainer but even I would baulk at comparing leaving the EU to being ejected from the Garden of Eden.
But if we are quoting Milton, this is my favourite.
I may assert eternal providence, And justify the ways of God to Morris Dancer.
Unfortunately for Tusk, the Leave response to his tweet was already perfectly formulated 350 years ago by Milton's Satan:
Is this the Region, this the Soil, the Clime, Said then the lost Arch-Angel, this the seat That we must change for Heav’n, this mournful gloom For that celestial light? Be it so, since he Who now is Sovran can dispose and bid What shall be right: fardest from him is best Whom reason hath equald, force hath made supream Above his equals. Farewel happy Fields Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings A mind not to be chang’d by Place or Time. The mind is its own place, and in it self Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n. What matter where, if I be still the same, And what I should be, all but less then he Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n.
Excellent quote!
There seems to be many too who consider the EU to be our Paradise Lost.
I'm not annoyed by what Tusk has said. What does irritate is the suggestion that Britain has an obligation not inconvenience the EU on the way out. Sorry, that's not our problem.
In all seriousness, leaving aside that people cheering on the rightness of Tusk's comments would never, in a million years, accept such language from those on the other side as being good diplomacy, what was the point of him saying it? How does it help him get what he wants? Being right or not doesn't make something more effective, so what did he hope to achieve with it?
I think he's exasperated by it all now.
The backstop was designed by us.
He said a while back there's going to be no winners from Brexit.
That's hardly an explanation. He very deliberately said it and then retweeted it as well, and people in his position don't just do things like that because they are irritated, unless they're Donald Trump, especially when we are repeatedly assured how the EU are so bloody great. And 'designed by us' is irrelevant to finding a way forward, it's on par with those preposterous comments about us reneging. Parliament may have stupidly refused to accept it, so some way forward is needed. He, like me, thinks we're still chasing unicorns, that's fine, no reason they need to reopen things. But unless he and the EU are liars they do want something other than no deal, and his comments seem to aid that outcome.
And just because one believes there are winners doesn't mean people need to ensure every one loses as much as possible, so unless you think Tusk does want things to be as bad as possible for both sides, or simply doesn't care anymore (in which case he's an idiot), he must want something to happen and thinks his comments get toward that goal somehow.
It took publicly humiliating May to get her to move on from Chequers. If insulting May and the ERG types she's pandering to gets her to give up on changes to the backstop earlier, that's a kind of progress.
No it isn't, because May is not one they need to convince. She's only pursuing this option because it's the only thing parliament could sort of agree on. Seemingly insulting Brexit itself (even if more on the lack of planning) in such a way strengthens opposition to the deal, it doesn't aid it in the slightest. Are Labour about to change stance and back the deal? Because if not insulting the ERG isn't going to get them agree anything.
Which is fine if he wants no deal. There was nothing wrong with maintaining a firm, clear no. The message would get through parliament's head eventually, simply because they have votes coming up and if there are no changes and the EU won't delay for no reason they have to get it.
But appearing to be an openly hostile EU just makes the ERG types even more convinced they are right to never back down. That's helpful to Tusk? Again, only if he wants no deal.
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
I’m an ardent Remainer and don’t want another EU ref and that’s why if people like me don’t want it there’s no chance of it happening anyway .
The EU needs to move on and so does the UK. Strangely today’s Tusk tirade means the EU has given up completely on the UK staying . So bizarely I think there’s now more chance of a compromise .
I don’t disagree with Tusks sentiments , I think he’s had enough and echoes what many Remainers think . I still think there will be a deal as it suits both sides and today’s drama will be forgotten in a few days .
The last couple of weeks have made me seriously question whether the EU's commitment to supersede the backstop with mutually acceptable arrangements was made in good faith.
That's what I've said all along and why I've opposed it all along.
If the EU genuinely didn't want us stuck in the backstop, if they genuinely didn't like it, then they would be less adamant at locking us in without an exit.
Judge people on what they do not what they say.
Perhaps I have misunderstood. But we're not locked in without an exit, are we? The exit is the FTA which we and the EU want.
So we stay in the backstop if there's no FTA. But the moment there is an FTA we're out of it.
What exactly is the problem with that? Why would we want to leave a transition deal into uncertainty?
In another memorable pithy remark, Tusk referred to David Cameron's 'stupid referendum'. I don't think it's stretching things too far to suggest that in doing so he was implying DC was a stupid politician. He probably thinks much the same of the other UK politicians who have traipsed over to Brussels in the name of Brexit.
You can sense the exasperation. How could any responsible politican engage in such a venture without the semblance of a plan? You can argue with the manner and timing of his remarks, but it's a fair question, and for all the outrage expressed in response it's one to which no answer is likely to be forthcoming.
David Davis spent two years posing in front of cameras (when he could be bothered) doing we now know absolutely nothing then just as we expected to hear the fruits of his labour he resigned.....Wouldn't anyone think they were dealing with a bunch of fruitcakes?
At this stage, where the UK government is looking at backstop alternatives, but is committed to no hard border (#2 is the bottom line), there are essentially 3 variables to the issue: enforcement, location and alignment
We can be sure that any non or reduced enforcement is localised on Ireland, quite reasonably nothing else is going to fly with the EU.
In location we have everything from a border at Gretna Green, through Larne, cyberspace to Rosslare and combinations thereof.
All alignment reduces the need for the other two.
Both the transition, post transition and ultimate deal need to define these 3 parameters.
The backstop was a temporary high alignment (for UK read high access), mainly cyber plus Larne minimal border (Larne already being the biosecurity border), decent enforcement border. If the sort of informal alignment Leave envisaged in 2016 was accepted, it worked very well for the UK, to drive a high access, low commitment cakeist WA, and ultimate deal. The Leavers have blown this cake apart.
I think Philip Thomson's Anglo-Irish arrangement of some sort, suggesting some level of Rosslare boundary, is a just about possible in extremis, geography over history alternative.But what you have to understand then is that using the Irish border to obtain cake is dead, and the ultimate deal will be much the tougher on us for it.
The obvious middle ground answer here would have been for the UK to have negotiated a form of associate membership of the EU, if we were living in a world of sane rational people.
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
But what he said was true, Big G.
Believe it or not, I do have a friend who is a hard-boiled, extreme No Deal Brexiteer, and he said to me very recently exactly the same as Tusk just said, only in fruitier language.
Being true is not the point. He has embarrassed the EU, himself and is now headlining every news channel with an unnecessary attack at the key moment of negotiations
How many more voters in the UK, hearing his remarks tonight, are going to say on 'your bike' Tusk we are off
And I am being polite. He has just dialled up no deal by quite a margin.
I had planned to write an article this week comparing Brexit to the Glorious Revolution.
I had been toying with casting Donald Tusk as the modern day William of Orange.
Who is James II? Cameron?
Am still working on that.
I prefer a Wars of the Roses:
Tusk - Louis XI. Juncker - Francis II of Brittany Barnier - Guilleame de Rochefort Selmayr - Charles the Bold
And on our side:
Boris - Edward IV May - William Hastings Fox - Clarence Rees-Mogg - Buckingham (the younger) Davis - Dorset Hammond - John Morton Corbyn - OK, anachronistic but he's got to be Henry VI. Hunt - Richard III Javid - Edward V Exeter - Dominic Raab
With supporting cast: Northumberland - Yvette Cooper Margaret Beaufort - Dominic Grieve Stanley - Geoffrey Cox Ratcliffe - Laura Pidcock Brackenbury - Emily Thornberry Catesby - Rebecca Long Bailey
The whole thing falls down when I try to identify a Henry VII who can sort out the whole bloody mess the rest of them have caused.
The last couple of weeks have made me seriously question whether the EU's commitment to supersede the backstop with mutually acceptable arrangements was made in good faith.
That's what I've said all along and why I've opposed it all along.
If the EU genuinely didn't want us stuck in the backstop, if they genuinely didn't like it, then they would be less adamant at locking us in without an exit.
Judge people on what they do not what they say.
This could be resolved by a clearer joint statement of intent by both the UK-EU on what they will work to supersede the backstop with by a specific date in the future with some details.
The political declaration is too light on this and the mood music on the EU side far too instransigent to make it believable either.
Unless it is legally-binding or there is a unilateral exit it would be too little too late.
Why not similarly replace the backstop with a joint declation of specific intent to keep an open border? That's not considered enough by them even with them maintaining veto rights over any future deal otherwise, so why should a mere declaration of intent be enough for us?
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
But what he said was true, Big G.
Believe it or not, I do have a friend who is a hard-boiled, extreme No Deal Brexiteer, and he said to me very recently exactly the same as Tusk just said, only in fruitier language.
Not the point though. I too think so much about triggering and pursuing leave before we knew what to even ask for was stupid and has led to this terrible situation. But what does Tusk gain by saying what he said? Nothing that the EU claims to want, demonstrating the lie of what they claim to want.
Tusk is a politician, not some arbiter of moral truth, how right he was is irrelevant to whether he is assisting in getting what the EU wants. If they want no deal then he helped them today. If they want a deal (even if that requires us to back down and accept May's deal already) he actively undermined it and was a bad political move.
I had planned to write an article this week comparing Brexit to the Glorious Revolution.
I had been toying with casting Donald Tusk as the modern day William of Orange.
Who is James II? Cameron?
Am still working on that.
I prefer a Wars of the Roses:
Tusk - Louis XI. Juncker - Francis II of Brittany Barnier - Guilleame de Rochefort Selmayr - Charles the Bold
And on our side:
Boris - Edward IV May - William Hastings Fox - Clarence Rees-Mogg - Buckingham (the younger) Davis - Dorset Hammond - John Morton Corbyn - OK, anachronistic but he's got to be Henry VI. Hunt - Richard III Javid - Edward V Exeter - Dominic Raab
With supporting cast: Northumberland - Yvette Cooper Margaret Beaufort - Dominic Grieve Stanley - Geoffrey Cox Ratcliffe - Laura Pidcock Brackenbury - Emily Thornberry Catesby - Rebecca Long Bailey
The whole thing falls down when I try to identify a Henry VII who can sort out the whole bloody mess the rest of them have caused.
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
Tusk today reminds me of Mourinho a few months ago.
The BBC have just reported that Tusk does not speak for all the EU and they consider his statement a serious misjudgement. They do not want a no deal and their door is open
Damage limitation by the EU
LOL. Their damage limitation efforts might get somewhere if this were an isolated off-message comment, but it was clearly deliberate, and just the latest in a serious of such issues coming from the EU side. Last week it was Barnier and Junker with the high fives, boasting about how they'd screwed the UK in the regotiations.
As Casino and others have said, there's mounting evidence that the EU have no intention of acting in good faith over the backstop, which is in part why the deal was considered unacceptable to 432 MPs.
I should say the damage limitation exercise might get somewhere if the remarks were not true.
I'm not annoyed by what Tusk has said. What does irritate is the suggestion that Britain has an obligation not inconvenience the EU on the way out. Sorry, that's not our problem.
On the whole, I think it a good idea to try not to inconvenience people with whom you want to have a continuing relationship, even when you're on the way out of one relationship with them to another one.
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
The point about a second referendum seems to have been lost of late (They have gone quite).
I think if a No Deal happens those responsible should be held accountable
The EU?
Should 'holding those responsible for a No Deal accountable' be a process starting with those engaged in European politics after 1945 or should it start earlier than that?
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
I’m an ardent Remainer and don’t want another EU ref and that’s why if people like me don’t want it there’s no chance of it happening anyway .
The EU needs to move on and so does the UK. Strangely today’s Tusk tirade means the EU has given up completely on the UK staying . So bizarely I think there’s now more chance of a compromise .
I don’t disagree with Tusks sentiments , I think he’s had enough and echoes what many Remainers think . I still think there will be a deal as it suits both sides and today’s drama will be forgotten in a few days .
I think the EU still hadn't accepted we were really leaving. Maybe they still haven't.
You've got to remember these people live in a bubble where they only ever talk to people who they vehmently agree with and consider Brexiteers the antichrist. There's no listening, no dialogue, only tactics to defeat and cut out the cancer. Or so they thought.
It's a tragic tragic miscalculation that's going to have big consequences for us all.
I had planned to write an article this week comparing Brexit to the Glorious Revolution.
I had been toying with casting Donald Tusk as the modern day William of Orange.
Who is James II? Cameron?
Am still working on that.
I prefer a Wars of the Roses:
Tusk - Louis XI. Juncker - Francis II of Brittany Barnier - Guilleame de Rochefort Selmayr - Charles the Bold
And on our side:
Boris - Edward IV May - William Hastings Fox - Clarence Rees-Mogg - Buckingham (the younger) Davis - Dorset Hammond - John Morton Corbyn - OK, anachronistic but he's got to be Henry VI. Hunt - Richard III Javid - Edward V Exeter - Dominic Raab
With supporting cast: Northumberland - Yvette Cooper Margaret Beaufort - Dominic Grieve Stanley - Geoffrey Cox Ratcliffe - Laura Pidcock Brackenbury - Emily Thornberry Catesby - Rebecca Long Bailey
The whole thing falls down when I try to identify a Henry VII who can sort out the whole bloody mess the rest of them have caused.
I had planned to write an article this week comparing Brexit to the Glorious Revolution.
I had been toying with casting Donald Tusk as the modern day William of Orange.
Who is James II? Cameron?
Am still working on that.
I prefer a Wars of the Roses:
Tusk - Louis XI. Juncker - Francis II of Brittany Barnier - Guilleame de Rochefort Selmayr - Charles the Bold
And on our side:
Boris - Edward IV May - William Hastings Fox - Clarence Rees-Mogg - Buckingham (the younger) Davis - Dorset Hammond - John Morton Corbyn - OK, anachronistic but he's got to be Henry VI. Hunt - Richard III Javid - Edward V Exeter - Dominic Raab
With supporting cast: Northumberland - Yvette Cooper Margaret Beaufort - Dominic Grieve Stanley - Geoffrey Cox Ratcliffe - Laura Pidcock Brackenbury - Emily Thornberry Catesby - Rebecca Long Bailey
The whole thing falls down when I try to identify a Henry VII who can sort out the whole bloody mess the rest of them have caused.
Clearly the one Brexiteer you have failed to mention. Your favourite politician, Michael Gove
I had planned to write an article this week comparing Brexit to the Glorious Revolution.
I had been toying with casting Donald Tusk as the modern day William of Orange.
Who is James II? Cameron?
Am still working on that.
I prefer a Wars of the Roses:
Tusk - Louis XI. Juncker - Francis II of Brittany Barnier - Guilleame de Rochefort Selmayr - Charles the Bold
And on our side:
Boris - Edward IV May - William Hastings Fox - Clarence Rees-Mogg - Buckingham (the younger) Davis - Dorset Hammond - John Morton Corbyn - OK, anachronistic but he's got to be Henry VI. Hunt - Richard III Javid - Edward V Exeter - Dominic Raab
With supporting cast: Northumberland - Yvette Cooper Margaret Beaufort - Dominic Grieve Stanley - Geoffrey Cox Ratcliffe - Laura Pidcock Brackenbury - Emily Thornberry Catesby - Rebecca Long Bailey
The whole thing falls down when I try to identify a Henry VII who can sort out the whole bloody mess the rest of them have caused.
George Osborne as Henry VII
George Osborne as Jasper Tudor, maybe. Or even as Oxford. But as Henry VII, no way José!
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
The point about a second referendum seems to have been lost of late (They have gone quite).
I think if a No Deal happens those responsible should be held accountable
The EU?
All!
You're not wrong there.
I'm not offended by Tusk's comments, I suspect he was making a joke and the humour just doesn't translate.
What I want to see is both sides actually back round the table to hammer out a deal. Unfortunately it seems like the headbangers on both sides will take us out without a deal. Hopefully with as little damage as possible, but I'm of the view that remaining would be more damaging in the long run.
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
Tusk today reminds me of Mourinho a few months ago.
The BBC have just reported that Tusk does not speak for all the EU and they consider his statement a serious misjudgement. They do not want a no deal and their door is open
Damage limitation by the EU
Was that an opinion by the BBC's journo, or was he/she relaying an EU statement, off-the-record quote etc?
If it is the latter, then it is interesting, and it implies Tusk went off-piste and it was a gaffe, albeit planned and deliberate.
Anyway, what he said clearly does not help. It hinders, it goads and alienates. Stupid politics from a slightly odd man. There are other ways he could have forced TMay to make her mind up, if that was the intention.
The first paragraph was reported by Katya Adler on the 6.00pm BBC news tonight
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.
Secondly it overlooks the nature of the vote. If he had said Cameron should have a special place in hell then perhaps that would be justified in his world view, however Cameron structured the vote in a way he could not see losing, and the government back d his position. Cameron thought that if he asked for people to vote for a nebulous idea, that brought out the racists like Farage on one wing, and the free traders on the other side that this would not have been successful. Europe clearly didn’t think we would vote to leave or they would have given Cameron something after his negotiations - instead they humiliated him, and by association the whole country, and he now expects the country to be grateful for continued supplication. I suspect after this we will see a further increase in support for no deal, supposedly what the EU don’t want.
So you're outraged. What is it, precisely, that outrages you about what he said? People advocated Leave, telling us that it would be the easiest deal in human history. None of them claimed that a deal would not be struck. But none of them had a plan to deal with the questions that came up, even in outline.
I’ll put it simply for you. I supported Remain. However anyone with a reasonable mind - not easy I know - will admit that the pack was stacked against Leave. The entire weight of the government and the EU supporting remain. Obama got roped in. Cameron set the rules and left the question vague so as to stoke project fear. And leave reasonably in the circumstances decided not to play. They didn’t have te weight of the civil service behind them to help.
So In effect leave did what they had to. I’m not outraged but offended by Tusk language and behaviour. If he wants to ape his namesake Trump then fine, but I expect better and more civilised language from political leaders. His comments are likely to harden opinion egainst the EU rather than endear, and as such I think his words are irresponsible. I equally think the same of the brexiteers invoking ww2 and Dday or saying we sorted out two world wars. None of this should be language of any mainstream politician.
The last couple of weeks have made me seriously question whether the EU's commitment to supersede the backstop with mutually acceptable arrangements was made in good faith.
That's what I've said all along and why I've opposed it all along.
If the EU genuinely didn't want us stuck in the backstop, if they genuinely didn't like it, then they would be less adamant at locking us in without an exit.
Judge people on what they do not what they say.
This could be resolved by a clearer joint statement of intent by both the UK-EU on what they will work to supersede the backstop with by a specific date in the future with some details.
The political declaration is too light on this and the mood music on the EU side far too instransigent to make it believable either.
Unless it is legally-binding or there is a unilateral exit it would be too little too late.
Why not similarly replace the backstop with a joint declation of specific intent to keep an open border? That's not considered enough by them even with them maintaining veto rights over any future deal otherwise, so why should a mere declaration of intent be enough for us?
There are all sorts of solutions open here to do this.
Unfortunately the EU and Eire isn't really interested in them. At least I'll get the pleasure of seeing the smile wiped off Varakhar's face as he stiffs his own country and is held accountable for it.
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
Tusk today reminds me of Mourinho a few months ago.
The BBC have just reported that Tusk does not speak for all the EU and they consider his statement a serious misjudgement. They do not want a no deal and their door is open
Damage limitation by the EU
LOL. Their damage limitation efforts might get somewhere if this were an isolated off-message comment, but it was clearly deliberate, and just the latest in a serious of such issues coming from the EU side. Last week it was Barnier and Junker with the high fives, boasting about how they'd screwed the UK in the regotiations.
As Casino and others have said, there's mounting evidence that the EU have no intention of acting in good faith over the backstop, which is in part why the deal was considered unacceptable to 432 MPs.
I should say the damage limitation exercise might get somewhere if the remarks were not true.
It's precisely because it will play well in certain quarters he should have kept his stupid trap shut. When you have got somebody looking for an excuse to give in, gloating and sneering is he one sure way to disaster.
I'm not annoyed by what Tusk has said. What does irritate is the suggestion that Britain has an obligation not inconvenience the EU on the way out. Sorry, that's not our problem.
On the whole, I think it a good idea to try not to inconvenience people with whom you want to have a continuing relationship, even when you're on the way out of one relationship with them to another one.
Yes, and frankly while many of our side pay far too little attention to such an idea, the EU are hardly blameless there. You see it with some over enthusiastic EU defenders when they talk about how the EU doesn't care what we do because we're leaving, showing a level of stupidity I don't think the EU possesses. Although Tusk perhaps does, now he is deliberately aiding no deal because, if those defending his rightness are correct, because he cares more about speaking truths than politics.
I'm not annoyed by what Tusk has said. What does irritate is the suggestion that Britain has an obligation not inconvenience the EU on the way out. Sorry, that's not our problem.
On the whole, I think it a good idea to try not to inconvenience people with whom you want to have a continuing relationship, even when you're on the way out of one relationship with them to another one.
Well, we're not the ones who will be putting up a border on the island of Ireland.
The obvious middle ground answer here would have been for the UK to have negotiated a form of associate membership of the EU, if we were living in a world of sane rational people.
Like Dave's deal you mean?
That wasn't Dave's deal.
Had it been and formalized in a legal treaty I would have voted for it.
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.
Exiting the ERM enabled the UK to follow monetary policy that was beneficial to the UK economy rather than following an artificial market rate at which sterling could be exchanged against the D-mark or a basket of currencies. This is why I have always been against joining the Euro, which staying in the ERM would have logically led too.
Being in the EU is a completely different ball game and it is all about the ease of doing business within a single market over much of geographical Europe. Leaving a free trade area will damage UK competitiveness in selling into that market their is no doubt compared to those that stay within it. If you compare 1992 and now, exiting the ERM allowed a more supportive economic framework for the UK to emerge. In comparison we are leaving an existing framework for potentially none at all or at best something not as good as we have at the moment. The fundamental ability of the economy to grow will be detrimentally affected at least in the short-term and I would argue in the longer run.
Exiting the EU allows us to set regulatory and legal frameworks that suit us.
In some ways I think being outside but next door to the Euro has helped the UK. It means we get all the benefits of having our own currency while simultaneously only needing to worry about one other when travelling/trading with our neighbours.
In some ways being outside but next door to the EU will again be the best of both worlds. Domestically we can set whatever regulations and laws that suit us best while our exporters trading within our continent only need to worry about one other set of regulations.
Unless a deal is implemented we lose the advantage of competing on a level playing field and even with a deal on a less good deal than we have at the moment. Being outside is different to being inside.
A fundamental dishonesty is being peddled by Brexit supporters about this. A whole spectrum of economic activity, whether it is in finance, manufacturing or even services will be affected by being outside. Supply chains within the EU are likely going to be more cost affective in time and money than one that crosses it or lives outside it and wants to sell into it externally. When Brexiteers claim that leaving the EU will have no impact, one wonders why we have any international trade deals at all to follow it to its intellectual end?
I had planned to write an article this week comparing Brexit to the Glorious Revolution.
I had been toying with casting Donald Tusk as the modern day William of Orange.
Who is James II? Cameron?
Am still working on that.
I prefer a Wars of the Roses:
Tusk - Louis XI. Juncker - Francis II of Brittany Barnier - Guilleame de Rochefort Selmayr - Charles the Bold
And on our side:
Boris - Edward IV May - William Hastings Fox - Clarence Rees-Mogg - Buckingham (the younger) Davis - Dorset Hammond - John Morton Corbyn - OK, anachronistic but he's got to be Henry VI. Hunt - Richard III Javid - Edward V Exeter - Dominic Raab
With supporting cast: Northumberland - Yvette Cooper Margaret Beaufort - Dominic Grieve Stanley - Geoffrey Cox Ratcliffe - Laura Pidcock Brackenbury - Emily Thornberry Catesby - Rebecca Long Bailey
The whole thing falls down when I try to identify a Henry VII who can sort out the whole bloody mess the rest of them have caused.
Clearly the one Brexiteer you have failed to mention. Your favourite politician, Michael Gove
I cast Gove as Warwick, a treacherous backstabbing bastard with overwhelming arrogance and little administrative talent, who died horribly at Barnet in 1471 before the Treaty of Picquigny.
The last couple of weeks have made me seriously question whether the EU's commitment to supersede the backstop with mutually acceptable arrangements was made in good faith.
That's what I've said all along and why I've opposed it all along.
If the EU genuinely didn't want us stuck in the backstop, if they genuinely didn't like it, then they would be less adamant at locking us in without an exit.
Judge people on what they do not what they say.
This could be resolved by a clearer joint statement of intent by both the UK-EU on what they will work to supersede the backstop with by a specific date in the future with some details.
The political declaration is too light on this and the mood music on the EU side far too instransigent to make it believable either.
Unless it is legally-binding or there is a unilateral exit it would be too little too late.
Why not similarly replace the backstop with a joint declation of specific intent to keep an open border? That's not considered enough by them even with them maintaining veto rights over any future deal otherwise, so why should a mere declaration of intent be enough for us?
There are all sorts of solutions open here to do this.
Unfortunately the EU and Eire isn't really interested in them. At least I'll get the pleasure of seeing the smile wiped off Varakhar's face as he stiffs his own country and is held accountable for it.
A German politician was on the PM programme saying that the backstop wouldn’t be required if we had agreed the future trading. With no irony he seemed unaware that they stipulated WA then trade deal, not us.
This is why the Tuskery was so stupid. I cannot understand why Varadkar found it funny, unless he is genuinely relaxed about No Deal. If he is, he is a fucking retard. Ireland will probably hurt more than Britain.
We keep being told Ireland will suffer with no deal, but I'm generally of the view that because many effects are not immediate (though some are) and because there is a hefty blame factor in play, many of our politicians and people like Varadkar, may not be technically lying when they say they don't want no deal, but they also have little to lose politically if it happens, or at least they believe they have little to lose through no deal, and possibly much to gain (like Corbyn seeing a path to becoming PM).
People do not like compromises, and Varadkar seems to think that any further concession by him would be a humiliating political blunder. Viewed that way, he has no incentive to do anything other than resist the kind of last minute fudges that the EU generally likes. Leavers messed up big time rejecting the deal.
In all seriousness, leaving aside that people cheering on the rightness of Tusk's comments would never, in a million years, accept such language from those on the other side as being good diplomacy, what was the point of him saying it? How does it help him get what he wants? Being right or not doesn't make something more effective, so what did he hope to achieve with it?
I think he's exasperated by it all now.
The backstop was designed by us.
He said a while back there's going to be no winners from Brexit.
That's hardly an explanation. He very deliberately said it and then retweeted it as well, and people in his position don't just do things like that because they are irritated, unless they're Donald Trump, especially when we are repeatedly assured how the EU are so bloody great. And 'designed by us' is irrelevant to fiwant things to be as bad as possible for both sides, or simply doesn't care anymore (in which case he's an idiot), he must want something to happen and thinks his comments get toward that goal somehow.
It took publicly humiliating May to get her to move on from Chequers. If insulting May and the ERG types she's pandering to gets her to give up on changes to the backstop earlier, that's a kind of progress.
No it isn't, because May is not one they need to convince. She's only pursuing this option because it's the only thing parliament could sort of agree on. Seemingly insulting Brexit itself (even if more on the lack of planning) in such a way strengthens opposition to the deal, it doesn't aid it in the slightest. Are Labour about to change stance and back the deal? Because if not insulting the ERG isn't going to get them agree anything.
Which is fine if he wants no deal. There was nothing wrong with maintaining a firm, clear no. The message would get through parliament's head eventually, simply because they have votes coming up and if there are no changes and the EU won't delay for no reason they have to get it.
But appearing to be an openly hostile EU just makes the ERG types even more convinced they are right to never back down. That's helpful to Tusk? Again, only if he wants no deal.
May decided to spend a few more weeks in fantasy land rather than move on to an achievable plan B after her deal was rejected. In order for there to be any possible progress, she needs to stop pretending that renegotiation is possible.
It may well be that there's no possible deal both sides can agree on. If so, the sooner it's declared that we're proceeding on the basis of no deal, the better for both EU and UK
So, what, the real message here is "Johnny Foreigner insults Britain: we woz right to leave", even though frankly we as the UK have asked for this by being absolutely fucking incompetent as a country since the dust settled on the referendum result?
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
But what he said was true, Big G.
Believe it or not, I do have a friend who is a hard-boiled, extreme No Deal Brexiteer, and he said to me very recently exactly the same as Tusk just said, only in fruitier language.
Being true is not the point. He has embarrassed the EU, himself and is now headlining every news channel with an unnecessary attack at the key moment of negotiations
How many more voters in the UK, hearing his remarks tonight, are going to say on 'your bike' Tusk we are off
And I am being polite. He has just dialled up no deal by quite a margin.
It makes me despair with all of them
Precisely. The attitude of the EU is that the Greeks had a referendum the EU didn't respect so they took them to the abyss and the Greeks backed off. They expect the same from the UK.
Except two things are very different. The UK refusing to bend to foreign powers is considered part of our nations psyche (whether its right or not, hence the repeated WWII references). But more specifically the Greeks were supplicants who were broke and desperately needed money. We are net payers to the EU. We have an ability to say 'on your bike' [less politely] in a way Tsipiras lacked.
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.
Secondly it overlooks the nature of the vote. If he had said Cameron should have a special place in hell then perhaps that would be justified in his world view, however Cameron structured the vote in a way he could not see losing, and the government back d his position. Cameron thought that if he asked for people to vote for a nebulous idea, that brought out the racists like Farage on one wing, and the free traders on the other side that this would not have been successful. Europe clearly didn’t think we would vote to leave or they would have given Cameron something after his negotiations - instead they humiliated him, and by association the whole country, and he now expects the country to be grateful for continued supplication. I suspect after this we will see a further increase in support for no deal, supposedly what the EU don’t want.
So you're outraged. What is it, precisely, that outrages you about what he said? People advocated Leave, telling us that it would be the easiest deal in human history. None of them claimed that a deal would not be struck. But none of them had a plan to deal with the questions that came up, even in outline.
I’ll put it simply for you. I supported Remain. However anyone with a reasonable mind - not easy I know - will admit that the pack was stacked against Leave. The entire weight of the government and the EU supporting remain. Obama got roped in. Cameron set the rules and left the question vague so as to stoke project fear. And leave reasonably in the circumstances decided not to play. They didn’t have te weight of the civil service behind them to help.
So In effect leave did what they had to. I’m not outraged but offended by Tusk language and behaviour. If he wants to ape his namesake Trump then fine, but I expect better and more civilised language from political leaders. His comments are likely to harden opinion egainst the EU rather than endear, and as such I think his words are irresponsible. I equally think the same of the brexiteers invoking ww2 and Dday or saying we sorted out two world wars. None of this should be language of any mainstream politician.
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.
What utter nonsense.
It was a prediction for the change in the two years to mid-2018, on the assumption that Article 50 would be invoked in mid-2016. Obviously that's a prediction up to the date of Brexit, not a prediction for the post-Brexit period.
Unfortunately for Tusk, the Leave response to his tweet was already perfectly formulated 350 years ago by Milton's Satan:
Is this the Region, this the Soil, the Clime, Said then the lost Arch-Angel, this the seat That we must change for Heav’n, this mournful gloom For that celestial light? Be it so, since he Who now is Sovran can dispose and bid What shall be right: fardest from him is best Whom reason hath equald, force hath made supream Above his equals. Farewel happy Fields Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings A mind not to be chang’d by Place or Time. The mind is its own place, and in it self Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n. What matter where, if I be still the same, And what I should be, all but less then he Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n.
I hope someone can send this over to Tusk. Brilliant response, how wise and profound of Milton, timeless and yet so relevant.
In all seriousness, leaving aside that people cheering on the rightness of Tusk's comments would never, in a million years, accept such language from those on the other side as being good diplomacy, what was the point of him saying it? How does it help him get what he wants? Being right or not doesn't make something more effective, so what did he hope to achieve with it?
I think he's exasperated by it all now.
The backstop was designed by us.
He said a while back there's going to be no winners from Brexit.
That's hardly an explanation. He very deliberately said it and then retweeted it as well, and people in his position don't just do things like that because they are irritated, unless they're Donald Trump, especially when we are repeatedly assured how the EU are so bloody great. And 'designed by us' is irrelevant to fiwant things to be as bad as possible for both sides, or simply doesn't care anymore (in which case he's an idiot), he must want something to happen and thinks his comments get toward that goal somehow.
It took publicly humiliating May to get her to move on from Chequers. If insulting May and the ERG types she's pandering to gets her to give up on changes to the backstop earlier, that's a kind of progress.
No it isn't, becausgoing to get them agree anything.
Which is fine if he wants no deal. There was nothing wrong with maintaining a firm, clear no. The message would get through parliament's head eventually, simply because they have votes coming up and if there are no changes and the EU won't delay for no reason they have to get it.
But appearing to be an openly hostile EU just makes the ERG types even more convinced they are right to never back down. That's helpful to Tusk? Again, only if he wants no deal.
May decided to spend a few more weeks in fantasy land rather than move on to an achievable plan B after her deal was rejected. In order for there to be any possible progress, she needs to stop pretending that renegotiation is possible.
It may well be that there's no possible deal both sides can agree on. If so, the sooner it's declared that we're proceeding on the basis of no deal, the better for both EU and UK
Maybe so, but that relies on assuming Tusk is a liar and does want no deal rather than officially still wanting us to accept the deal on the table. If he still wanted the latter, he didn't need to insult and mock anyone to hold firm to his position.
This is why the Tuskery was so stupid. I cannot understand why Varadkar found it funny, unless he is genuinely relaxed about No Deal. If he is, he is a fucking retard. Ireland will probably hurt more than Britain.
Goodness me. I might have guessed of all the triggered Brexity snowflakes I've encountered today, you'd be the one clutching your pearls in shock tightest.
The last couple of weeks have made me seriously question whether the EU's commitment to supersede the backstop with mutually acceptable arrangements was made in good faith.
That's what I've said all along and why I've opposed it all along.
If the EU genuinely didn't want us stuck in the backstop, if they genuinely didn't like it, then they would be less adamant at locking us in without an exit.
Judge people on what they do not what they say.
This could be resolved by a clearer joint statement of intent by both the UK-EU on what they will work to supersede the backstop with by a specific date in the future with some details.
The political declaration is too light on this and the mood music on the EU side far too instransigent to make it believable either.
Unless it is legally-binding or there is a unilateral exit it would be too little too late.
Why not similarly replace the backstop with a joint declation of specific intent to keep an open border? That's not considered enough by them even with them maintaining veto rights over any future deal otherwise, so why should a mere declaration of intent be enough for us?
There are all sorts of solutions open here to do this.
Unfortunately the EU and Eire isn't really interested in them. At least I'll get the pleasure of seeing the smile wiped off Varakhar's face as he stiffs his own country and is held accountable for it.
A German politician was on the PM programme saying that the backstop wouldn’t be required if we had agreed the future trading. With no irony he seemed unaware that they stipulated WA then trade deal, not us.
The sequencing of the talks has been the EU's biggest blunder.
I'm not annoyed by what Tusk has said. What does irritate is the suggestion that Britain has an obligation not inconvenience the EU on the way out. Sorry, that's not our problem.
On the whole, I think it a good idea to try not to inconvenience people with whom you want to have a continuing relationship, even when you're on the way out of one relationship with them to another one.
Well, we're not the ones who will be putting up a border on the island of Ireland.
I wonder at what point it dawns on Varadkar that all the EU Presidents and Commissioners are due to retire in May, and that if there's no deal he's going be left on his own holding the baby of the border enforcement?
Each time the media shows Tusk's comments the more brexiteers will be satisfied with the massive own goal he has scored and many moderates on either side will be driven against the EU
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
Tusk today reminds me of Mourinho a few months ago.
The BBC have just reported that Tusk does not speak for all the EU and they consider his statement a serious misjudgement. They do not want a no deal and their door is open
Damage limitation by the EU
LOL. Their damage limitation efforts might get somewhere if this were an isolated off-message comment, but it was clearly deliberate, and just the latest in a serious of such issues coming from the EU side. Last week it was Barnier and Junker with the high fives, boasting about how they'd screwed the UK in the regotiations.
As Casino and others have said, there's mounting evidence that the EU have no intention of acting in good faith over the backstop, which is in part why the deal was considered unacceptable to 432 MPs.
I should say the damage limitation exercise might get somewhere if the remarks were not true.
It's precisely because it will play well in certain quarters he should have kept his stupid trap shut. When you have got somebody looking for an excuse to give in, gloating and sneering is he one sure way to disaster.
Yes, there is much that can be said about the timing, the manner, the wording etc, but not a word about him being wrong, because he wasn't.
This is why the Tuskery was so stupid. I cannot understand why Varadkar found it funny, unless he is genuinely relaxed about No Deal. If he is, he is a fucking retard. Ireland will probably hurt more than Britain.
So, what, the real message here is "Johnny Foreigner insults Britain: we woz right to leave", even though frankly we as the UK have asked for this by being absolutely fucking incompetent as a country since the dust settled on the referendum result?
No, the message is that Tusk (and the EU) seems to want no deal and so are assisting the ERG, unless we are to believe that high level politicians and diplomats have some sort of irresistible compulsion that they must tell the unvarnished truth in personally insulting ways.
Us 'asking for it' is the most ridiculousness way of looking at this. I remain baffled by this notion that because we did indeed ask to leave and have been ill prepared, suddenly undiplomatic behaviour which we would not accept from our own side, is suddenly ok.
Comments
The referendum was phoney in that it did not offer two implementable choices. Those who voted for Leave were opting for something that simply couldn't be delivered.
If I'd voted Leave, I'd be feeling pretty peed about that now.
The backstop was designed by us.
He said a while back there's going to be no winners from Brexit.
Some on here are almost pleased with Tusk today, but I expect that view is not shared by those who want a second referendum as this attitude will harden against another vote and sadly drive a no deal exit more likely
The most convincing explanation I've heard is that the EU wants to signal that it's at the end of its tether with this charade, and is tired of playing May's stupid displacement-activity games. Deliberately overshadowing May's visit, and signalling publicly how far-from-seriously she's now being treated.
Being in the EU is a completely different ball game and it is all about the ease of doing business within a single market over much of geographical Europe. Leaving a free trade area will damage UK competitiveness in selling into that market their is no doubt compared to those that stay within it. If you compare 1992 and now, exiting the ERM allowed a more supportive economic framework for the UK to emerge. In comparison we are leaving an existing framework for potentially none at all or at best something not as good as we have at the moment. The fundamental ability of the economy to grow will be detrimentally affected at least in the short-term and I would argue in the longer run.
And just because one believes there are winners doesn't mean people need to ensure every one loses as much as possible, so unless you think Tusk does want things to be as bad as possible for both sides, or simply doesn't care anymore (in which case he's an idiot), he must want something to happen and thinks his comments get toward that goal somehow.
If the EU genuinely didn't want us stuck in the backstop, if they genuinely didn't like it, then they would be less adamant at locking us in without an exit.
Judge people on what they do not what they say.
You can sense the exasperation. How could any responsible politican engage in such a venture without the semblance of a plan? You can argue with the manner and timing of his remarks, but it's a fair question, and for all the outrage expressed in response it's one to which no answer is likely to be forthcoming.
I wonder if they are beginning to realise that their underpinning negotiation tenet of punishing UK citizens for voting to leave the bloc has been a counter-productive one.
I used to believe that a cordial exit, followed by a period of reflection within the country, and a careful exploration of the benefits of fully rejoining the project would lead us back in to the centre of the EU within 10 years.
The political earth has been salted so badly now that I think it will be decades, if indeed ever, before we will rejoin.
The extremists on both ends of the divide, from the ERG through to Grieve, are responsible.
In some ways I think being outside but next door to the Euro has helped the UK. It means we get all the benefits of having our own currency while simultaneously only needing to worry about one other when travelling/trading with our neighbours.
In some ways being outside but next door to the EU will again be the best of both worlds. Domestically we can set whatever regulations and laws that suit us best while our exporters trading within our continent only need to worry about one other set of regulations.
I think if a No Deal happens those responsible should be held accountable as things have not worked out to be as simple as they claimed. Farage could not give a shit though as long as he gets Brexit he will just continue his city career and follow his perplexing personal life.
Damage limitation by the EU
Is this the Region, this the Soil, the Clime,
Said then the lost Arch-Angel, this the seat
That we must change for Heav’n, this mournful gloom
For that celestial light? Be it so, since he
Who now is Sovran can dispose and bid
What shall be right: fardest from him is best
Whom reason hath equald, force hath made supream
Above his equals. Farewel happy Fields
Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail
Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell
Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings
A mind not to be chang’d by Place or Time.
The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less then he
Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n.
The political declaration is too light on this and the mood music on the EU side far too instransigent to make it believable either.
Triggering A50 without a plan was a bloody stupid thing to do. Still having no plan as of June last year was stupider still. Putting off decisions endlessly for party reasons is even stupider, if that is possible. The EU assisting, even if only by not making things even worse, would not be 'doing us a favour' as some people ludicrously fall back on (part of the 'we started it' childishness), but even if they don't care to do anything at this point, which is fine, what good does aggravation do for them?
Crocodile tears about how sad they are about all this does not stack up against their actions, anymore than the whinges about no deal from so many of our MPs stack up against their actions.
If he wants to understand why so many people in the UK are willing to pay the price of Brexit then perhaps he should take a good hard look at the EU's behaviour over the last 20-30 years and do some seriously hard thinking.
It's painfully transparent. If not for him tweeting it as well as saying it I might believe it was not a deliberate strategy, but instead it is pretty obvious they were happy for him to say it, and still are, hence the friendly responses about how right he was.
A 'bollocks to this, no deal it is' then reaction would clearly be disproportionate merely in relation to his comments, but they are indicative of what the EU wants - no deal. And that is clear because they are not idiots, they know politics means the deal doesn't get through without changes. They can clearly live with that, with no change, but like our own government are working on the blame game.
Obama - "Back of the queue"
Tusk - "Special place in hell"
Believe it or not, I do have a friend who is a hard-boiled, extreme No Deal Brexiteer, and he said to me very recently exactly the same as Tusk just said, only in fruitier language.
The obvious middle ground answer here would have been for the UK to have negotiated a form of associate membership of the EU, if we were living in a world of sane rational people.
As Casino and others have said, there's mounting evidence that the EU have no intention of acting in good faith over the backstop, which is in part why the deal was considered unacceptable to 432 MPs.
But if we are quoting Milton, this is my favourite.
I may assert eternal providence,
And justify the ways of God to Morris Dancer.
There seems to be many too who consider the EU to be our Paradise Lost.
Which is fine if he wants no deal. There was nothing wrong with maintaining a firm, clear no. The message would get through parliament's head eventually, simply because they have votes coming up and if there are no changes and the EU won't delay for no reason they have to get it.
But appearing to be an openly hostile EU just makes the ERG types even more convinced they are right to never back down. That's helpful to Tusk? Again, only if he wants no deal.
Tusk's comments were some of the worst I've heard an international statesman ever make. Worse than Trump.
The EU needs to move on and so does the UK. Strangely today’s Tusk tirade means the EU has given up completely on the UK staying . So bizarely I think there’s now more chance of a compromise .
I don’t disagree with Tusks sentiments , I think he’s had enough and echoes what many Remainers think . I still think there will be a deal as it suits both sides and today’s drama will be forgotten in a few days .
So we stay in the backstop if there's no FTA. But the moment there is an FTA we're out of it.
What exactly is the problem with that? Why would we want to leave a transition deal into uncertainty?
We can be sure that any non or reduced enforcement is localised on Ireland, quite reasonably nothing else is going to fly with the EU.
In location we have everything from a border at Gretna Green, through Larne, cyberspace to Rosslare and combinations thereof.
All alignment reduces the need for the other two.
Both the transition, post transition and ultimate deal need to define these 3 parameters.
The backstop was a temporary high alignment (for UK read high access), mainly cyber plus Larne minimal border (Larne already being the biosecurity border), decent enforcement border. If the sort of informal alignment Leave envisaged in 2016 was accepted, it worked very well for the UK, to drive a high access, low commitment cakeist WA, and ultimate deal. The Leavers have blown this cake apart.
I think Philip Thomson's Anglo-Irish arrangement of some sort, suggesting some level of Rosslare boundary, is a just about possible in extremis, geography over history alternative.But what you have to understand then is that using the Irish border to obtain cake is dead, and the ultimate deal will be much the tougher on us for it.
How many more voters in the UK, hearing his remarks tonight, are going to say on 'your bike' Tusk we are off
And I am being polite. He has just dialled up no deal by quite a margin.
It makes me despair with all of them
Tusk - Louis XI.
Juncker - Francis II of Brittany
Barnier - Guilleame de Rochefort
Selmayr - Charles the Bold
And on our side:
Boris - Edward IV
May - William Hastings
Fox - Clarence
Rees-Mogg - Buckingham (the younger)
Davis - Dorset
Hammond - John Morton
Corbyn - OK, anachronistic but he's got to be Henry VI.
Hunt - Richard III
Javid - Edward V
Exeter - Dominic Raab
With supporting cast:
Northumberland - Yvette Cooper
Margaret Beaufort - Dominic Grieve
Stanley - Geoffrey Cox
Ratcliffe - Laura Pidcock
Brackenbury - Emily Thornberry
Catesby - Rebecca Long Bailey
The whole thing falls down when I try to identify a Henry VII who can sort out the whole bloody mess the rest of them have caused.
Why not similarly replace the backstop with a joint declation of specific intent to keep an open border? That's not considered enough by them even with them maintaining veto rights over any future deal otherwise, so why should a mere declaration of intent be enough for us?
Tusk is a politician, not some arbiter of moral truth, how right he was is irrelevant to whether he is assisting in getting what the EU wants. If they want no deal then he helped them today. If they want a deal (even if that requires us to back down and accept May's deal already) he actively undermined it and was a bad political move.
You've got to remember these people live in a bubble where they only ever talk to people who they vehmently agree with and consider Brexiteers the antichrist. There's no listening, no dialogue, only tactics to defeat and cut out the cancer. Or so they thought.
It's a tragic tragic miscalculation that's going to have big consequences for us all.
I'm not offended by Tusk's comments, I suspect he was making a joke and the humour just doesn't translate.
What I want to see is both sides actually back round the table to hammer out a deal. Unfortunately it seems like the headbangers on both sides will take us out without a deal. Hopefully with as little damage as possible, but I'm of the view that remaining would be more damaging in the long run.
I added the second
So In effect leave did what they had to. I’m not outraged but offended by Tusk language and behaviour. If he wants to ape his namesake Trump then fine, but I expect better and more civilised language from political leaders. His comments are likely to harden opinion egainst the EU rather than endear, and as such I think his words are irresponsible. I equally think the same of the brexiteers invoking ww2 and Dday or saying we sorted out two world wars. None of this should be language of any mainstream politician.
Unfortunately the EU and Eire isn't really interested in them. At least I'll get the pleasure of seeing the smile wiped off Varakhar's face as he stiffs his own country and is held accountable for it.
Had it been and formalized in a legal treaty I would have voted for it.
A fundamental dishonesty is being peddled by Brexit supporters about this. A whole spectrum of economic activity, whether it is in finance, manufacturing or even services will be affected by being outside. Supply chains within the EU are likely going to be more cost affective in time and money than one that crosses it or lives outside it and wants to sell into it externally. When Brexiteers claim that leaving the EU will have no impact, one wonders why we have any international trade deals at all to follow it to its intellectual end?
I helped him save around £400 per holiday before roaming charges were abolished.
Brits Will Face Immediate Return Of Mobile Phone Roaming Charges Under No-Deal Brexit, Government Reveals.
Consumer group pleas ignored after phone firms warned off losses.
https://tinyurl.com/yc4n2kdn
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1093200394027761664
People do not like compromises, and Varadkar seems to think that any further concession by him would be a humiliating political blunder. Viewed that way, he has no incentive to do anything other than resist the kind of last minute fudges that the EU generally likes. Leavers messed up big time rejecting the deal.
It may well be that there's no possible deal both sides can agree on. If so, the sooner it's declared that we're proceeding on the basis of no deal, the better for both EU and UK
Except two things are very different. The UK refusing to bend to foreign powers is considered part of our nations psyche (whether its right or not, hence the repeated WWII references). But more specifically the Greeks were supplicants who were broke and desperately needed money. We are net payers to the EU. We have an ability to say 'on your bike' [less politely] in a way Tsipiras lacked.
It was a prediction for the change in the two years to mid-2018, on the assumption that Article 50 would be invoked in mid-2016. Obviously that's a prediction up to the date of Brexit, not a prediction for the post-Brexit period.
Goodness me. I might have guessed of all the triggered Brexity snowflakes I've encountered today, you'd be the one clutching your pearls in shock tightest.
Again, to make a point about power politics.
Us 'asking for it' is the most ridiculousness way of looking at this. I remain baffled by this notion that because we did indeed ask to leave and have been ill prepared, suddenly undiplomatic behaviour which we would not accept from our own side, is suddenly ok.