Everyone at the Commission is quite confused. The current offer to the UK is a deal in which IF we align, we get full access. IF, in future, we diverge they limit access or put up (some) tariffs. The UK choosing to go to NO access and FULL tariffs NOW, is incomprehensible.
No, the current offer to the UK is this. It's a deal in which IF we continue to align, we get full access to their market in goods without tariffs etc, and they get full access to continue to sell twice that volume of goods to our market without tariffs etc. IF, in future, THEY choose to change their rules so that we diverge, THEY can choose to limit access or put up (some) tariffs at THEIR discretion, while they will still continue to enjoy tariff-free access to our market.
Meanwhile, if WE choose to change our rules to require higher standards, even higher than the already much lower minimum standards often in place within the EU, then we can't limit access or put up (some) tariffs at OUR discretion.
Their proposals are totally one-sided and really do amount to something that only a vassal state would sign up to.
Yes, but my understanding is that the EU (VDL this morning) has now conceded the latter - so we could now do the same as them - and both parties will need to do it proportionately to the scope of the change and impact on the LPF, and not punitively to force alignment.
Quite possibly, Northern Ireland is staying in the single market and customs union effectively while also being assured of having minimal checks on goods going to and from GB, so if we go to No Deal Northern Ireland may see the highest growth rate not only in the UK but Europe as a whole.
You are one of my key sources on this quest I'm on to work out WHY Johnson will No Deal if he does.
The Tory Party. He can't do any LPF deal because many of his MPs would rebel and he'd be relying on Labour votes and losing the grass roots and putting his position in peril.
How does that sound to you as a thought?
If he does do a Deal yes the ERG will vote against and some Red Wall Tory voting Leavers will go to Farage, if he doesn't do a deal then as Doug Seal states the Tories will get wiped out in most of London next May by Starmer Labour and in much of the Home Counties by the LDs
Right. Thanks. Immediate grief with ERG and Hard Leavers if he Deals, or slower burning but probably deeper grief with moderate floaters if he No Deals.
Toughie for our Boris. So, which way does he jump iyo?
No bet or anything, no money or kudos at stake, just tell me what you think please. Maybe give me what you see as the approx % chance of No Deal, right now as we speak.
98% chance of No Deal.
Ok! Thanks. Feeding into my machine right now. Has the merit of being the outcome we get if we assume the absolute worst about the "Boris" character and his motivations. Will have to discount slightly, though, due to your observed (by me) tendency to ALWAYS expect the worst.
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
I like the word sclerotic - but not enough to read it seemingly dozens of times a day as I read the threads. Everybody knows by now what you think of the EU - some agree with you, some don't. But do you really need to repeat it so often? I ask courteously.
Yes I do. Because it's a good word that describes the EU well and answered the direct question that Stuart asked me. Stuart asked a question and I provided an answer, that is how conversations progress.
So much so that they got their response to Brexit in place well before we had even started to think about it, and have been way better prepared than we are for a long time now. The contrast in maturity and competence between their leading figures and our own top politicians is embarrassing for us whenever they appear together.
They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year.
We are in a far better prepared position than we were twelve months ago. What May, Hammond, Fox and co did while they were in charge is unforgivable. It's a shame May still sits as a Tory MP.
Ah, so the EU is in a different time-space continuum than the UK? Did Dom accelerate the island to a significant fraction of c or something?
No. Hammond refused to fund preparations, May didn't get on with or insist upon preparations, Fox chose to engage in vanity trips taking to the USA etc rather than rolling over our established deals. Meanwhile the EU got on with the fundamentals while we had a national psychodrama that only ended in December last year when Boris won a majority.
Right, so in other words, the UK had exactly as much time to prepare as the EU did but chose not to do so. That is not the same as saying "They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year."
Yes.
The UK had four years to prepare but May and the Remainer 2017-19 Parliament combined to piss away three of those.
We have only had the current government and current Parliament for 12 months. And the preparations now have been done in those twelve months.
I don't consider May and Hammond to be a part of we anymore than you might consider Boris to be we. Different government that I opposed and a different Parliament.
You guys are just shameless in your blaming of others, for everything.
Take some damn responsibility. For once.
Who are we guys?
And why should I take responsibility for the actions of a government and a PM I opposed?
If Corbyn had won in 2019 would you have taken responsibility for May's actions and May's years?
The key take away from that is that 62% of the population hold the UK Govt responsible to some degree. That 52% hold the EU responsible to some degree is neither here nor there - we can't vote to leave AGAIN.
I'm sure we can get pineapple from elsewhere than the EU so why did he bother?
Hmm, it's the cheese that might be the problem. I'm reminded of wartime memoirs of Land Girls and the like being given beetroot sandwiches for lunch day in day out.
Everyone at the Commission is quite confused. The current offer to the UK is a deal in which IF we align, we get full access. IF, in future, we diverge they limit access or put up (some) tariffs. The UK choosing to go to NO access and FULL tariffs NOW, is incomprehensible.
No, the current offer to the UK is this. It's a deal in which IF we continue to align, we get full access to their market in goods without tariffs etc, and they get full access to continue to sell twice that volume of goods to our market without tariffs etc. IF, in future, THEY choose to change their rules so that we diverge, THEY can choose to limit access or put up (some) tariffs at THEIR discretion, while they will still continue to enjoy tariff-free access to our market.
Meanwhile, if WE choose to change our rules to require higher standards, even higher than the already much lower minimum standards often in place within the EU, then we can't limit access or put up (some) tariffs at OUR discretion.
Their proposals are totally one-sided and really do amount to something that only a vassal state would sign up to.
So you'd rather have full and general tariffs now in preference to the possibility of limited selective tariffs at some point in the medium to far future.
That's just not credible, and if the EU believe it they are absolute cretins. Boris was riding high early in the year and has a huge majority, if he didn't want a deal he didn't need to string anyone along. Added to that, it would be an awful lot of work to pretend to want a deal this whole time, and does putting in that effort sound like Boris to you?
The failure to get a deal, and failure it would be, would be down to competence and competing politics (that 'standing up to Britain' plays well in the EU demonstrates that politics are in play there as much as here when the government stands up 'for' Britain), not machiavellian scheming.
Why people imply Boris is some mastermind I do not know. Does that seem likely?
Sounds extremely credible. His chief advisor and the architect of Brexit was known to be dead against a deal but Boris knew he would would lose the election if he let it be known he wanted 'no deal' (not to mention that he would have been regailed with 'Oven Ready and the rest of his inanities during the campaign). You don't need to be a 'mastermind' just a simple liar. Fits like a glove.
You're hatred is blinding you and insisting there must be malevolence. It isn't being 'a simple liar', it would require massive amounts of effort, even on his own part, across much of a year at the least. He could have made a bunch of impossible demands that essentially led to immediate no deal in the first few months, whilst pretending he wanted a deal, if that was his intention, and would give him many more months to prepare the ground for no deal he wanted.
So the proposition requires a lot more than being a simple liar, it requires him also to work a lot harder for no deal, whilst making handling no deal much harder for himself. If we consider Boris is self interested more than anything else, why on earth would he do that?
The far simpler explanation is that he does want a deal, but his desires, and the requirements of the EU, have made it hard to reach one. And that doesn't require any praise of him, but the sinister scenario just doesn't hold up given how much it requires him to have done.
The effort invested in faking a desire for a deal is less by OsOM than the effort which should have been put into preparing for no deal brexit, and hasn't. And anyway he won the election on the assumption that there would be a deal.
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
I like the word sclerotic - but not enough to read it seemingly dozens of times a day as I read the threads. Everybody knows by now what you think of the EU - some agree with you, some don't. But do you really need to repeat it so often? I ask courteously.
Yes I do. Because it's a good word that describes the EU well and answered the direct question that Stuart asked me. Stuart asked a question and I provided an answer, that is how conversations progress.
So much so that they got their response to Brexit in place well before we had even started to think about it, and have been way better prepared than we are for a long time now. The contrast in maturity and competence between their leading figures and our own top politicians is embarrassing for us whenever they appear together.
They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year.
We are in a far better prepared position than we were twelve months ago. What May, Hammond, Fox and co did while they were in charge is unforgivable. It's a shame May still sits as a Tory MP.
Ah, so the EU is in a different time-space continuum than the UK? Did Dom accelerate the island to a significant fraction of c or something?
No. Hammond refused to fund preparations, May didn't get on with or insist upon preparations, Fox chose to engage in vanity trips taking to the USA etc rather than rolling over our established deals. Meanwhile the EU got on with the fundamentals while we had a national psychodrama that only ended in December last year when Boris won a majority.
Right, so in other words, the UK had exactly as much time to prepare as the EU did but chose not to do so. That is not the same as saying "They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year."
Yes.
The UK had four years to prepare but May and the Remainer 2017-19 Parliament combined to piss away three of those.
We have only had the current government and current Parliament for 12 months. And the preparations now have been done in those twelve months.
I don't consider May and Hammond to be a part of we anymore than you might consider Boris to be we. Different government that I opposed and a different Parliament.
You guys are just shameless in your blaming of others, for everything.
Take some damn responsibility. For once.
Who are we guys?
And why should I take responsibility for the actions of a government and a PM I opposed?
If Corbyn had won in 2019 would you have taken responsibility for May's actions and May's years?
You guys are the people who voted for Brexit. Even ignoring the May government, you've been in power with a huge majority for a whole year, with the full power of the British state behind you.
You've had opportunities to compromise and opportunities to delay.
The outcome, whatever it is, is entirely down to you. The outcome is entirely owned by Brexiteers.
This is what you wanted so own it, whatever happens.
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
I like the word sclerotic - but not enough to read it seemingly dozens of times a day as I read the threads. Everybody knows by now what you think of the EU - some agree with you, some don't. But do you really need to repeat it so often? I ask courteously.
Yes I do. Because it's a good word that describes the EU well and answered the direct question that Stuart asked me. Stuart asked a question and I provided an answer, that is how conversations progress.
So much so that they got their response to Brexit in place well before we had even started to think about it, and have been way better prepared than we are for a long time now. The contrast in maturity and competence between their leading figures and our own top politicians is embarrassing for us whenever they appear together.
They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year.
We are in a far better prepared position than we were twelve months ago. What May, Hammond, Fox and co did while they were in charge is unforgivable. It's a shame May still sits as a Tory MP.
Ah, so the EU is in a different time-space continuum than the UK? Did Dom accelerate the island to a significant fraction of c or something?
No. Hammond refused to fund preparations, May didn't get on with or insist upon preparations, Fox chose to engage in vanity trips taking to the USA etc rather than rolling over our established deals. Meanwhile the EU got on with the fundamentals while we had a national psychodrama that only ended in December last year when Boris won a majority.
‘There were useless Tories before the clown’ shocker
Absolutely. Boris is infinitely better than May.
Truss, Gove, Sunak etc are a far superior cabinet too.
For hanging clothes in, yes not for anything else.
Everyone at the Commission is quite confused. The current offer to the UK is a deal in which IF we align, we get full access. IF, in future, we diverge they limit access or put up (some) tariffs. The UK choosing to go to NO access and FULL tariffs NOW, is incomprehensible.
No, the current offer to the UK is this. It's a deal in which IF we continue to align, we get full access to their market in goods without tariffs etc, and they get full access to continue to sell twice that volume of goods to our market without tariffs etc. IF, in future, THEY choose to change their rules so that we diverge, THEY can choose to limit access or put up (some) tariffs at THEIR discretion, while they will still continue to enjoy tariff-free access to our market.
Meanwhile, if WE choose to change our rules to require higher standards, even higher than the already much lower minimum standards often in place within the EU, then we can't limit access or put up (some) tariffs at OUR discretion.
Their proposals are totally one-sided and really do amount to something that only a vassal state would sign up to.
Yes, but my understanding is that the EU (VDL this morning) has now conceded the latter - so we could now do the same as them - and both parties will need to do it proportionately to the scope of the change and impact on the LPF, and not punitively to force alignment.
This is equity, IMHO, and acceptable.
All later reports seem to indicate as I feared that was just spin and in the words of May "nothing has changed".
Sovereignty fans. What's your view of this text that requires the UK to go to war at the whim of another country, normally a sovereign prerogative of a nation state, if that country is attacked even when the attack does not affect the UK?
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Who or what is the 'it' in the second bold section?
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
Presumably you think Germany would be better off outside the EU, and if not, why not?
Germany controls the EU. They run it and they run the Euro. The EU doesn't do anything Germany doesn't want to do.
That's not been the case with the UK since before German Unification.
So does that make Germany a "slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution"?
The EU is a "sclerotic" faceless unaccountable bureaucracy doing with red tape and diktats what Hitler tried and failed to do with tanks and planes - bend and subjugate us to the Teutonic will.
This is quite a common view in places. You'd be surprised. I always am.
You were doing so well with your first seven words.
Then you changed it into a pantomime and it all went absurd.
I can't think of a single person ever to express such thoughts. Partially because they are two opposing viewpoints you've mashed together.
You don't hang out with the right crowd then. I assure you that view is not uncommon down at the Brexit Arms. You should pop down there. You'd fit right in.
Everyone at the Commission is quite confused. The current offer to the UK is a deal in which IF we align, we get full access. IF, in future, we diverge they limit access or put up (some) tariffs. The UK choosing to go to NO access and FULL tariffs NOW, is incomprehensible.
No, the current offer to the UK is this. It's a deal in which IF we continue to align, we get full access to their market in goods without tariffs etc, and they get full access to continue to sell twice that volume of goods to our market without tariffs etc. IF, in future, THEY choose to change their rules so that we diverge, THEY can choose to limit access or put up (some) tariffs at THEIR discretion, while they will still continue to enjoy tariff-free access to our market.
Meanwhile, if WE choose to change our rules to require higher standards, even higher than the already much lower minimum standards often in place within the EU, then we can't limit access or put up (some) tariffs at OUR discretion.
Their proposals are totally one-sided and really do amount to something that only a vassal state would sign up to.
So you'd rather have full and general tariffs now in preference to the possibility of limited selective tariffs at some point in the medium to far future.
Why is that?
Yes. The EU would face full and general tariffs to the UK too. So we would be in a reciprocal situation until they agree a fair and reciprocal deal.
I'm sorry but I feel that the BBC has gone completely over the top reporting Barbara Windsor's death; it was the lead item on Breakfast News and again the lead on the Six O'Clock News. More important than BREXIT talks, really? There is also a tribute to her on The One Show and a special tribute programme this evening which will push HIGNFY back half an hour.
I am especially annoyed as when Liz Fraser (who was a friend of a friend) died, the BBC didn't even bother to report it. Neither did the BBC bother to report Tim Brooke-Taylor's death until people complained and then it was about the fourth item on the news.
The key take away from that is that 62% of the population hold the UK Govt responsible to some degree. That 52% hold the EU responsible to some degree is neither here nor there - we can't vote to leave AGAIN.
To be honest that poll is closer than I expected and the key to it is both sides need to do a deal
Everyone at the Commission is quite confused. The current offer to the UK is a deal in which IF we align, we get full access. IF, in future, we diverge they limit access or put up (some) tariffs. The UK choosing to go to NO access and FULL tariffs NOW, is incomprehensible.
No, the current offer to the UK is this. It's a deal in which IF we continue to align, we get full access to their market in goods without tariffs etc, and they get full access to continue to sell twice that volume of goods to our market without tariffs etc. IF, in future, THEY choose to change their rules so that we diverge, THEY can choose to limit access or put up (some) tariffs at THEIR discretion, while they will still continue to enjoy tariff-free access to our market.
Meanwhile, if WE choose to change our rules to require higher standards, even higher than the already much lower minimum standards often in place within the EU, then we can't limit access or put up (some) tariffs at OUR discretion.
Their proposals are totally one-sided and really do amount to something that only a vassal state would sign up to.
Yes, but my understanding is that the EU (VDL this morning) has now conceded the latter - so we could now do the same as them - and both parties will need to do it proportionately to the scope of the change and impact on the LPF, and not punitively to force alignment.
This is equity, IMHO, and acceptable.
Yep. Can you take over from Johnson please. And pronto. Could be too late soon.
I'm sorry but I feel that the BBC has gone completely over the top reporting Barbara Windsor's death; it was the lead item on Breakfast News and again the lead on the Six O'Clock News. More important than BREXIT talks, really? There is also a tribute to her on The One Show and a special tribute programme this evening which will push HIGNFY back half an hour.
I am especially annoyed as when Liz Fraser (who was a friend of a friend) died, the BBC didn't even bother to report it. Neither did the BBC bother to report Tim Brooke-Taylor's death until people complained and then it was about the fourth item on the news.
Reporting of dead actors in general is totally OTT anyway. I'm sure Barbara Windsor was nice enough, but if it hadn't been her it would have been someone else.
Sovereignty fans. What's your view of this text that requires the UK to go to war at the whim of another country, normally a sovereign prerogative of a nation state, if that country is attacked even when the attack does not affect the UK?
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Necessary to keep the large angry bear safely on its leash.
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
I like the word sclerotic - but not enough to read it seemingly dozens of times a day as I read the threads. Everybody knows by now what you think of the EU - some agree with you, some don't. But do you really need to repeat it so often? I ask courteously.
Yes I do. Because it's a good word that describes the EU well and answered the direct question that Stuart asked me. Stuart asked a question and I provided an answer, that is how conversations progress.
So much so that they got their response to Brexit in place well before we had even started to think about it, and have been way better prepared than we are for a long time now. The contrast in maturity and competence between their leading figures and our own top politicians is embarrassing for us whenever they appear together.
They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year.
We are in a far better prepared position than we were twelve months ago. What May, Hammond, Fox and co did while they were in charge is unforgivable. It's a shame May still sits as a Tory MP.
Ah, so the EU is in a different time-space continuum than the UK? Did Dom accelerate the island to a significant fraction of c or something?
No. Hammond refused to fund preparations, May didn't get on with or insist upon preparations, Fox chose to engage in vanity trips taking to the USA etc rather than rolling over our established deals. Meanwhile the EU got on with the fundamentals while we had a national psychodrama that only ended in December last year when Boris won a majority.
Right, so in other words, the UK had exactly as much time to prepare as the EU did but chose not to do so. That is not the same as saying "They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year."
Yes.
The UK had four years to prepare but May and the Remainer 2017-19 Parliament combined to piss away three of those.
We have only had the current government and current Parliament for 12 months. And the preparations now have been done in those twelve months.
I don't consider May and Hammond to be a part of we anymore than you might consider Boris to be we. Different government that I opposed and a different Parliament.
You guys are just shameless in your blaming of others, for everything.
Take some damn responsibility. For once.
Who are we guys?
And why should I take responsibility for the actions of a government and a PM I opposed?
If Corbyn had won in 2019 would you have taken responsibility for May's actions and May's years?
You guys are the people who voted for Brexit. Even ignoring the May government, you've been in power with a huge majority for a whole year, with the full power of the British state behind you.
You've had opportunities to compromise and opportunities to delay.
The outcome, whatever it is, is entirely down to you. The outcome is entirely owned by Brexiteers.
This is what you wanted so own it, whatever happens.
Anything else is just pure shamelessness.
Indeed and in that twelve months I think the government has done a fantastic job. While dealing with a once in a century pandemic too.
Particular stars are Sunak, Truss and Gove.
This has to be the best cabinet we've had as a country in decades and what they've achieved in just twelve months should fill May and her entourage with a deep sense of shame.
Also leaves me feeling confident for the future. If they can achieve all this in just twelve months with a pandemic going on what more can be achieved in three and a bit years before the next election following a clean Brexit?
Quite possibly, Northern Ireland is staying in the single market and customs union effectively while also being assured of having minimal checks on goods going to and from GB, so if we go to No Deal Northern Ireland may see the highest growth rate not only in the UK but Europe as a whole.
You are one of my key sources on this quest I'm on to work out WHY Johnson will No Deal if he does.
The Tory Party. He can't do any LPF deal because many of his MPs would rebel and he'd be relying on Labour votes and losing the grass roots and putting his position in peril.
How does that sound to you as a thought?
If he does do a Deal yes the ERG will vote against and some Red Wall Tory voting Leavers will go to Farage, if he doesn't do a deal then as Doug Seal states the Tories will get wiped out in most of London next May by Starmer Labour and in much of the Home Counties by the LDs
Right. Thanks. Immediate grief with ERG and Hard Leavers if he Deals, or slower burning but probably deeper grief with moderate floaters if he No Deals.
Toughie for our Boris. So, which way does he jump iyo?
No bet or anything, no money or kudos at stake, just tell me what you think please. Maybe give me what you see as the approx % chance of No Deal, right now as we speak.
98% chance of No Deal.
Ok! Thanks. Feeding into my machine right now. Has the merit of being the outcome we get if we assume the absolute worst about the "Boris" character and his motivations. Will have to discount slightly, though, due to your observed (by me) tendency to ALWAYS expect the worst.
I believe there will be measures put in place to mitigate a no deal so a strict no deal with a complete stop is very unlikely
10% in my opinion so maybe no deal needs defining and does it exclude side deals and/ or temporary mitigation
You wrote 'Would you care to provide any evidence whatsoever that any hedge fund made money out of influencing the referendum result?'
I've provided evidence Odey substantially backed and directly benefited from the outcome. What he lost in other 'informed bets' is not relevant.
No, you've shown that:
(a) Odey backed Vote Leave, which of course I knew
(b) That the nominal value of his bearish fund increased on the day after the referendum, when stocks fell, which is true.
You haven't shown the slightest connection between the two - are you seriously arguing that he backed Vote Leave not because he believed that Brexit was a good thing, but because he hoped that if it were to win, share prices would temporarily fall and he could make money by betting on that outcome?
It's batshit-crazy as a conspiracy theory, isn't it? Especially since there's no evidence that he did bet on the outcome any more than he was betting before (and after) on markets falling; it's been his consistent theme for several years.
But let's assume it's right. For the sake of argument we'll assume he engineered a share-price fall. Unfortunately, at least for himself and his investors, in his delight he seems to have forgotten to close his position, so the fund lost it all again (and more) when prices rapidly adjusted. No money was made by him on it, so he didn't benefit from it. In fact he doubled down and lost more by betting on continuing price falls:
I agree it is difficult to directly link Crispin's donation and his subsequent (unrealised) profit making. All I can do is infer that his timely donation of £14 million to the Leave campaign had a direct influence on the outcome of the referendum. This donation was a substantial amount of the Leave funding and must have helped the campaign reach many potential voters.
I cannot say he directly engineered the share price fall, only that he played his part as did the other money men.
His lack of profit taking IMO does not excuse his influence on the campaign. We have to infer he believed that share values would continue to decline as the full Brexit dividend was realised and thus he doubled down on his previous bets.
So yes as of your previous question: Crispin attempted to make money out of the referendum result. And he tried to influence the result by providing Leave with ~£14 million. Yes, Its tricky to say he conspired to make money from his influence. But he would be a very incompetent fund manager if he had not realised the influence his donation could have on the markets.
Isn't 14 milllion around the cost of that uk government decided to invest in the mailshot too persuade people to vote remain? Money forcibly extracted from people via hmrc and used to bolster the remain vote regardless of whether those same voters wanted to vote remain. If you want dishonesty in the referendum funding look no further.
In addition the remain side spent much more on their campaign than the leave camp so obviously money spent doesn't equate that tightly to votes cast else remain would have got double the votes of leave
I'm not trying to argue either campaigns merits (although the mailshot was <£10m ).
Only that Odey attempted to influence the result of the referendum and his fund was evidently well placed to capitalise on the result he favoured. Although like a lot of Gamblers he tried to push his luck too far.
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
I like the word sclerotic - but not enough to read it seemingly dozens of times a day as I read the threads. Everybody knows by now what you think of the EU - some agree with you, some don't. But do you really need to repeat it so often? I ask courteously.
Yes I do. Because it's a good word that describes the EU well and answered the direct question that Stuart asked me. Stuart asked a question and I provided an answer, that is how conversations progress.
So much so that they got their response to Brexit in place well before we had even started to think about it, and have been way better prepared than we are for a long time now. The contrast in maturity and competence between their leading figures and our own top politicians is embarrassing for us whenever they appear together.
They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year.
We are in a far better prepared position than we were twelve months ago. What May, Hammond, Fox and co did while they were in charge is unforgivable. It's a shame May still sits as a Tory MP.
Ah, so the EU is in a different time-space continuum than the UK? Did Dom accelerate the island to a significant fraction of c or something?
No. Hammond refused to fund preparations, May didn't get on with or insist upon preparations, Fox chose to engage in vanity trips taking to the USA etc rather than rolling over our established deals. Meanwhile the EU got on with the fundamentals while we had a national psychodrama that only ended in December last year when Boris won a majority.
Right, so in other words, the UK had exactly as much time to prepare as the EU did but chose not to do so. That is not the same as saying "They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year."
Yes.
The UK had four years to prepare but May and the Remainer 2017-19 Parliament combined to piss away three of those.
We have only had the current government and current Parliament for 12 months. And the preparations now have been done in those twelve months.
I don't consider May and Hammond to be a part of we anymore than you might consider Boris to be we. Different government that I opposed and a different Parliament.
So, who is "we" to you? Unless you are actually a member of the current administration, wasting time on PB because actually governing is soooo boring (you being so actually would make a lot of sense to me), then it can only mean "hard-line Brexit ultras". But if that's the case, as @Gallowgate says, you have to take the responsibility for this clusterfuck of an omnishambles. It's all very well blaming May, or Hammond, or Remainers, or the lizard people from Mars, but they all (except for the lizard people) tried to make the best of the Brexit conundrum. All you ultras did was continually block every option considered as not being hard enough a Brexit for your tastes. Well, now you've got the rock-hard ultra-Brexit of your dreams hoving into view. Suck it up. You won. Deal with it. Own it.
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
I like the word sclerotic - but not enough to read it seemingly dozens of times a day as I read the threads. Everybody knows by now what you think of the EU - some agree with you, some don't. But do you really need to repeat it so often? I ask courteously.
Yes I do. Because it's a good word that describes the EU well and answered the direct question that Stuart asked me. Stuart asked a question and I provided an answer, that is how conversations progress.
So much so that they got their response to Brexit in place well before we had even started to think about it, and have been way better prepared than we are for a long time now. The contrast in maturity and competence between their leading figures and our own top politicians is embarrassing for us whenever they appear together.
They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year.
We are in a far better prepared position than we were twelve months ago. What May, Hammond, Fox and co did while they were in charge is unforgivable. It's a shame May still sits as a Tory MP.
Ah, so the EU is in a different time-space continuum than the UK? Did Dom accelerate the island to a significant fraction of c or something?
No. Hammond refused to fund preparations, May didn't get on with or insist upon preparations, Fox chose to engage in vanity trips taking to the USA etc rather than rolling over our established deals. Meanwhile the EU got on with the fundamentals while we had a national psychodrama that only ended in December last year when Boris won a majority.
Right, so in other words, the UK had exactly as much time to prepare as the EU did but chose not to do so. That is not the same as saying "They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year."
Yes.
The UK had four years to prepare but May and the Remainer 2017-19 Parliament combined to piss away three of those.
We have only had the current government and current Parliament for 12 months. And the preparations now have been done in those twelve months.
I don't consider May and Hammond to be a part of we anymore than you might consider Boris to be we. Different government that I opposed and a different Parliament.
You guys are just shameless in your blaming of others, for everything.
Take some damn responsibility. For once.
Who are we guys?
And why should I take responsibility for the actions of a government and a PM I opposed?
If Corbyn had won in 2019 would you have taken responsibility for May's actions and May's years?
You guys are the people who voted for Brexit. Even ignoring the May government, you've been in power with a huge majority for a whole year, with the full power of the British state behind you.
You've had opportunities to compromise and opportunities to delay.
The outcome, whatever it is, is entirely down to you. The outcome is entirely owned by Brexiteers.
This is what you wanted so own it, whatever happens.
Anything else is just pure shamelessness.
Indeed and in that twelve months I think the government has done a fantastic job. While dealing with a once in a century pandemic too.
Particular stars are Sunak, Truss and Gove.
This has to be the best cabinet we've had as a country in decades and what they've achieved in just twelve months should fill May and her entourage with a deep sense of shame.
Also leaves me feeling confident for the future. If they can achieve all this in just twelve months with a pandemic going on what more can be achieved in three and a bit years before the next election following a clean Brexit?
Exciting times ahead.
That's all very well and good. Just don't go blaming May and the "Remainer Parliament" if things go wrong. Ultimately if we are not ready for "no deal" then we shouldn't be doing it, and that decision has nothing to do with May or the "Remainer Parliament".
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
I like the word sclerotic - but not enough to read it seemingly dozens of times a day as I read the threads. Everybody knows by now what you think of the EU - some agree with you, some don't. But do you really need to repeat it so often? I ask courteously.
Yes I do. Because it's a good word that describes the EU well and answered the direct question that Stuart asked me. Stuart asked a question and I provided an answer, that is how conversations progress.
So much so that they got their response to Brexit in place well before we had even started to think about it, and have been way better prepared than we are for a long time now. The contrast in maturity and competence between their leading figures and our own top politicians is embarrassing for us whenever they appear together.
They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year.
We are in a far better prepared position than we were twelve months ago. What May, Hammond, Fox and co did while they were in charge is unforgivable. It's a shame May still sits as a Tory MP.
Ah, so the EU is in a different time-space continuum than the UK? Did Dom accelerate the island to a significant fraction of c or something?
No. Hammond refused to fund preparations, May didn't get on with or insist upon preparations, Fox chose to engage in vanity trips taking to the USA etc rather than rolling over our established deals. Meanwhile the EU got on with the fundamentals while we had a national psychodrama that only ended in December last year when Boris won a majority.
Right, so in other words, the UK had exactly as much time to prepare as the EU did but chose not to do so. That is not the same as saying "They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year."
Yes.
The UK had four years to prepare but May and the Remainer 2017-19 Parliament combined to piss away three of those.
We have only had the current government and current Parliament for 12 months. And the preparations now have been done in those twelve months.
I don't consider May and Hammond to be a part of we anymore than you might consider Boris to be we. Different government that I opposed and a different Parliament.
You guys are just shameless in your blaming of others, for everything.
Take some damn responsibility. For once.
Who are we guys?
And why should I take responsibility for the actions of a government and a PM I opposed?
If Corbyn had won in 2019 would you have taken responsibility for May's actions and May's years?
You guys are the people who voted for Brexit. Even ignoring the May government, you've been in power with a huge majority for a whole year, with the full power of the British state behind you.
You've had opportunities to compromise and opportunities to delay.
The outcome, whatever it is, is entirely down to you. The outcome is entirely owned by Brexiteers.
This is what you wanted so own it, whatever happens.
Anything else is just pure shamelessness.
Indeed and in that twelve months I think the government has done a fantastic job. While dealing with a once in a century pandemic too.
Particular stars are Sunak, Truss and Gove.
This has to be the best cabinet we've had as a country in decades and what they've achieved in just twelve months should fill May and her entourage with a deep sense of shame.
Also leaves me feeling confident for the future. If they can achieve all this in just twelve months with a pandemic going on what more can be achieved in three and a bit years before the next election following a clean Brexit?
Exciting times ahead.
It's very difficult sometimes to detect sarcasm and irony on social media sans emoticons, but fortunately I have succeeded (I think).
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
I like the word sclerotic - but not enough to read it seemingly dozens of times a day as I read the threads. Everybody knows by now what you think of the EU - some agree with you, some don't. But do you really need to repeat it so often? I ask courteously.
Yes I do. Because it's a good word that describes the EU well and answered the direct question that Stuart asked me. Stuart asked a question and I provided an answer, that is how conversations progress.
So much so that they got their response to Brexit in place well before we had even started to think about it, and have been way better prepared than we are for a long time now. The contrast in maturity and competence between their leading figures and our own top politicians is embarrassing for us whenever they appear together.
They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year.
We are in a far better prepared position than we were twelve months ago. What May, Hammond, Fox and co did while they were in charge is unforgivable. It's a shame May still sits as a Tory MP.
Ah, so the EU is in a different time-space continuum than the UK? Did Dom accelerate the island to a significant fraction of c or something?
No. Hammond refused to fund preparations, May didn't get on with or insist upon preparations, Fox chose to engage in vanity trips taking to the USA etc rather than rolling over our established deals. Meanwhile the EU got on with the fundamentals while we had a national psychodrama that only ended in December last year when Boris won a majority.
Right, so in other words, the UK had exactly as much time to prepare as the EU did but chose not to do so. That is not the same as saying "They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year."
Yes.
The UK had four years to prepare but May and the Remainer 2017-19 Parliament combined to piss away three of those.
We have only had the current government and current Parliament for 12 months. And the preparations now have been done in those twelve months.
I don't consider May and Hammond to be a part of we anymore than you might consider Boris to be we. Different government that I opposed and a different Parliament.
You guys are just shameless in your blaming of others, for everything.
Take some damn responsibility. For once.
But wait a minute, maybe he has a point. Maybe it would be a good idea to get another 3 years to prepare. How on earth could that be done?
I'm sorry but I feel that the BBC has gone completely over the top reporting Barbara Windsor's death; it was the lead item on Breakfast News and again the lead on the Six O'Clock News. More important than BREXIT talks, really? There is also a tribute to her on The One Show and a special tribute programme this evening which will push HIGNFY back half an hour.
I am especially annoyed as when Liz Fraser (who was a friend of a friend) died, the BBC didn't even bother to report it. Neither did the BBC bother to report Tim Brooke-Taylor's death until people complained and then it was about the fourth item on the news.
The BBC is London centric and there is your answer
That's just not credible, and if the EU believe it they are absolute cretins. Boris was riding high early in the year and has a huge majority, if he didn't want a deal he didn't need to string anyone along. Added to that, it would be an awful lot of work to pretend to want a deal this whole time, and does putting in that effort sound like Boris to you?
The failure to get a deal, and failure it would be, would be down to competence and competing politics (that 'standing up to Britain' plays well in the EU demonstrates that politics are in play there as much as here when the government stands up 'for' Britain), not machiavellian scheming.
Why people imply Boris is some mastermind I do not know. Does that seem likely?
Not saying I cred it but it is credible. He would not have said early on that he wanted No Deal because he won the election on the basis of getting one. Much of his rhetoric when seeking our votes was along those lines.
All he'd have had to do was make a bunch of impossible demands early on, which the EU would reject, and then say he was leaving the door open for them to be reasonable. He was so high in the polls he'd have gotten away with it, too.
Another factor is the stringing things out to this extent. Even if he has been faking it this whole time, why keep the pretence going right into mid December? I think having 'tried' for 9 months, things could have been 'reluctantly' called off due to EU 'intransigence' in, say, October, with him being able to maintain plausible deniability he gave it his best shot. Instead, he is still personally now making entreaties to EU leaders and jetting off to Brussells (enabling oh so hilarious jokes about him being a supplicant). Really, just why?
So it looks like he's gone to the wire battling for Britain. It's credible. As in not at all incredible. You don't have to believe it but a reasonable person could. That's what credible means.
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
I like the word sclerotic - but not enough to read it seemingly dozens of times a day as I read the threads. Everybody knows by now what you think of the EU - some agree with you, some don't. But do you really need to repeat it so often? I ask courteously.
Yes I do. Because it's a good word that describes the EU well and answered the direct question that Stuart asked me. Stuart asked a question and I provided an answer, that is how conversations progress.
So much so that they got their response to Brexit in place well before we had even started to think about it, and have been way better prepared than we are for a long time now. The contrast in maturity and competence between their leading figures and our own top politicians is embarrassing for us whenever they appear together.
They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year.
We are in a far better prepared position than we were twelve months ago. What May, Hammond, Fox and co did while they were in charge is unforgivable. It's a shame May still sits as a Tory MP.
Ah, so the EU is in a different time-space continuum than the UK? Did Dom accelerate the island to a significant fraction of c or something?
No. Hammond refused to fund preparations, May didn't get on with or insist upon preparations, Fox chose to engage in vanity trips taking to the USA etc rather than rolling over our established deals. Meanwhile the EU got on with the fundamentals while we had a national psychodrama that only ended in December last year when Boris won a majority.
Right, so in other words, the UK had exactly as much time to prepare as the EU did but chose not to do so. That is not the same as saying "They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year."
Yes.
The UK had four years to prepare but May and the Remainer 2017-19 Parliament combined to piss away three of those.
We have only had the current government and current Parliament for 12 months. And the preparations now have been done in those twelve months.
I don't consider May and Hammond to be a part of we anymore than you might consider Boris to be we. Different government that I opposed and a different Parliament.
You guys are just shameless in your blaming of others, for everything.
Take some damn responsibility. For once.
Who are we guys?
And why should I take responsibility for the actions of a government and a PM I opposed?
If Corbyn had won in 2019 would you have taken responsibility for May's actions and May's years?
You guys are the people who voted for Brexit. Even ignoring the May government, you've been in power with a huge majority for a whole year, with the full power of the British state behind you.
You've had opportunities to compromise and opportunities to delay.
The outcome, whatever it is, is entirely down to you. The outcome is entirely owned by Brexiteers.
This is what you wanted so own it, whatever happens.
Anything else is just pure shamelessness.
Indeed and in that twelve months I think the government has done a fantastic job. While dealing with a once in a century pandemic too.
Particular stars are Sunak, Truss and Gove.
This has to be the best cabinet we've had as a country in decades and what they've achieved in just twelve months should fill May and her entourage with a deep sense of shame.
Also leaves me feeling confident for the future. If they can achieve all this in just twelve months with a pandemic going on what more can be achieved in three and a bit years before the next election following a clean Brexit?
Exciting times ahead.
LOL!
Phillip, you need help, medical help. Go seek it my friend!
Indeed and in that twelve months I think the government has done a fantastic job. While dealing with a once in a century pandemic too.
Particular stars are Sunak, Truss and Gove.
This has to be the best cabinet we've had as a country in decades and what they've achieved in just twelve months should fill May and her entourage with a deep sense of shame.
Also leaves me feeling confident for the future. If they can achieve all this in just twelve months with a pandemic going on what more can be achieved in three and a bit years before the next election following a clean Brexit?
Exciting times ahead.
Is this satire? We have one of the worst per capita death rates from Covid in the world. They are about to commit what the Johnson themselves described as a "failure of statecraft" only last year. They are impoverisihing millions already ( https://www.standard.co.uk/news/foodforlondon/food-for-london-now-middle-class-graduates-b242987.html ) - a situation that will only become worse when we erect tariff barriers to the sourse of 40% of our food next month. It is a complete shower.
I'm sorry but I feel that the BBC has gone completely over the top reporting Barbara Windsor's death; it was the lead item on Breakfast News and again the lead on the Six O'Clock News. More important than BREXIT talks, really? There is also a tribute to her on The One Show and a special tribute programme this evening which will push HIGNFY back half an hour.
I am especially annoyed as when Liz Fraser (who was a friend of a friend) died, the BBC didn't even bother to report it. Neither did the BBC bother to report Tim Brooke-Taylor's death until people complained and then it was about the fourth item on the news.
Given all that is going on with COVID and EU, it did seem rather out of whack. Not exactly a quiet news day and so happens to get top billing.
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
Presumably you think Germany would be better off outside the EU, and if not, why not?
Germany controls the EU. They run it and they run the Euro. The EU doesn't do anything Germany doesn't want to do.
That's not been the case with the UK since before German Unification.
So does that make Germany a "slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution"?
The EU is a "sclerotic" faceless unaccountable bureaucracy doing with red tape and diktats what Hitler tried and failed to do with tanks and planes - bend and subjugate us to the Teutonic will.
This is quite a common view in places. You'd be surprised. I always am.
You were doing so well with your first seven words.
Then you changed it into a pantomime and it all went absurd.
I can't think of a single person ever to express such thoughts. Partially because they are two opposing viewpoints you've mashed together.
You don't hang out with the right crowd then. I assure you that view is not uncommon down at the Brexit Arms. You should pop down there. You'd fit right in.
Can you name someone at the Brexit Arms who thinks the EU is heir to Hitler trying to subjugate us who would use the word sclerotic to describe the EU?
There are people who think that but they're not the sort of people to think the EU is sclerotic are they?
I'm sorry but I feel that the BBC has gone completely over the top reporting Barbara Windsor's death; it was the lead item on Breakfast News and again the lead on the Six O'Clock News. More important than BREXIT talks, really? There is also a tribute to her on The One Show and a special tribute programme this evening which will push HIGNFY back half an hour.
I am especially annoyed as when Liz Fraser (who was a friend of a friend) died, the BBC didn't even bother to report it. Neither did the BBC bother to report Tim Brooke-Taylor's death until people complained and then it was about the fourth item on the news.
Given all that is going on with COVID and EU, it did seem rather out of whack. Not exactly a quiet news day and so happens to get top billing.
It's something that ordinary mortals can understand, ladies' underwear flying across campsites.
I'm sorry but I feel that the BBC has gone completely over the top reporting Barbara Windsor's death; it was the lead item on Breakfast News and again the lead on the Six O'Clock News. More important than BREXIT talks, really? There is also a tribute to her on The One Show and a special tribute programme this evening which will push HIGNFY back half an hour.
I am especially annoyed as when Liz Fraser (who was a friend of a friend) died, the BBC didn't even bother to report it. Neither did the BBC bother to report Tim Brooke-Taylor's death until people complained and then it was about the fourth item on the news.
I guess that, if you'd done a name/photo recognition on each of these three at the start of this year, Barbara Windsor would've been a more recognised figure by a country mile than the others (albeit for me personally I'm sadder about Tim Brooke-Taylor).
Not sure I can raise myself to the level of "annoyed" but I tend to agree it seems a bit out of proportion for an 83 year old actor whose death was not unexpected, when there's a lot of more relevant news going on. In general, the appropriate place for these things does seem to be a respectful retrospective towards the end of the bulletin, with some form of programme a few weeks later.
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
I like the word sclerotic - but not enough to read it seemingly dozens of times a day as I read the threads. Everybody knows by now what you think of the EU - some agree with you, some don't. But do you really need to repeat it so often? I ask courteously.
Yes I do. Because it's a good word that describes the EU well and answered the direct question that Stuart asked me. Stuart asked a question and I provided an answer, that is how conversations progress.
So much so that they got their response to Brexit in place well before we had even started to think about it, and have been way better prepared than we are for a long time now. The contrast in maturity and competence between their leading figures and our own top politicians is embarrassing for us whenever they appear together.
They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year.
We are in a far better prepared position than we were twelve months ago. What May, Hammond, Fox and co did while they were in charge is unforgivable. It's a shame May still sits as a Tory MP.
Ah, so the EU is in a different time-space continuum than the UK? Did Dom accelerate the island to a significant fraction of c or something?
No. Hammond refused to fund preparations, May didn't get on with or insist upon preparations, Fox chose to engage in vanity trips taking to the USA etc rather than rolling over our established deals. Meanwhile the EU got on with the fundamentals while we had a national psychodrama that only ended in December last year when Boris won a majority.
Right, so in other words, the UK had exactly as much time to prepare as the EU did but chose not to do so. That is not the same as saying "They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year."
Yes.
The UK had four years to prepare but May and the Remainer 2017-19 Parliament combined to piss away three of those.
We have only had the current government and current Parliament for 12 months. And the preparations now have been done in those twelve months.
I don't consider May and Hammond to be a part of we anymore than you might consider Boris to be we. Different government that I opposed and a different Parliament.
You guys are just shameless in your blaming of others, for everything.
Take some damn responsibility. For once.
Who are we guys?
And why should I take responsibility for the actions of a government and a PM I opposed?
If Corbyn had won in 2019 would you have taken responsibility for May's actions and May's years?
You guys are the people who voted for Brexit. Even ignoring the May government, you've been in power with a huge majority for a whole year, with the full power of the British state behind you.
You've had opportunities to compromise and opportunities to delay.
The outcome, whatever it is, is entirely down to you. The outcome is entirely owned by Brexiteers.
This is what you wanted so own it, whatever happens.
Anything else is just pure shamelessness.
Indeed and in that twelve months I think the government has done a fantastic job. While dealing with a once in a century pandemic too.
Particular stars are Sunak, Truss and Gove.
This has to be the best cabinet we've had as a country in decades and what they've achieved in just twelve months should fill May and her entourage with a deep sense of shame.
Also leaves me feeling confident for the future. If they can achieve all this in just twelve months with a pandemic going on what more can be achieved in three and a bit years before the next election following a clean Brexit?
Exciting times ahead.
It's very difficult sometimes to detect sarcasm and irony on social media sans emoticons, but fortunately I have succeeded (I think).
< I agree it is difficult to directly link Crispin's donation and his subsequent (unrealised) profit making. All I can do is infer that his timely donation of £14 million to the Leave campaign had a direct influence on the outcome of the referendum. This donation was a substantial amount of the Leave funding and must have helped the campaign reach many potential voters.
I cannot say he directly engineered the share price fall, only that he played his part as did the other money men.
His lack of profit taking IMO does not excuse his influence on the campaign. We have to infer he believed that share values would continue to decline as the full Brexit dividend was realised and thus he doubled down on his previous bets.
So yes as of your previous question: Crispin attempted to make money out of the referendum result. And he tried to influence the result by providing Leave with ~£14 million. Yes, Its tricky to say he conspired to make money from his influence. But he would be a very incompetent fund manager if he had not realised the influence his donation could have on the markets.
Isn't 14 milllion around the cost of that uk government decided to invest in the mailshot too persuade people to vote remain? Money forcibly extracted from people via hmrc and used to bolster the remain vote regardless of whether those same voters wanted to vote remain. If you want dishonesty in the referendum funding look no further.
In addition the remain side spent much more on their campaign than the leave camp so obviously money spent doesn't equate that tightly to votes cast else remain would have got double the votes of leave
I'm not trying to argue either campaigns merits (although the mailshot was <£10m ).
Only that Odey attempted to influence the result of the referendum and his fund was evidently well placed to capitalise on the result he favoured. Although like a lot of Gamblers he tried to push his luck too far. </p>
Yes since checked up as it was from memory it was actually 9.3 million
So total remain campaign spend was governement pro eu leaflet 9.3 million remain campaign spending 19.3 million total 28.6 million
There are people on this blog who actually think a No Deal Brexit is a GOOD thing? Seriously?
Yes, I know a few of you are right-wing, thick and ugly but coming on here and reading some of the stuff is pure comedy gold. Except of course, these comments were said in all seriousness.
Anyone with an iota of sense knows that a no-deal Brexit will severely cripple this country. Cannot see a filament of silver lining except the destruction of the Tory Party which most of us with a brain can raise a glass to.
I'm sorry but I feel that the BBC has gone completely over the top reporting Barbara Windsor's death; it was the lead item on Breakfast News and again the lead on the Six O'Clock News. More important than BREXIT talks, really? There is also a tribute to her on The One Show and a special tribute programme this evening which will push HIGNFY back half an hour.
I am especially annoyed as when Liz Fraser (who was a friend of a friend) died, the BBC didn't even bother to report it. Neither did the BBC bother to report Tim Brooke-Taylor's death until people complained and then it was about the fourth item on the news.
Reporting of dead actors in general is totally OTT anyway. I'm sure Barbara Windsor was nice enough, but if it hadn't been her it would have been someone else.
Barbara Windsor has been part of popular culture for decades, in the Carry On films and latterly in the BBC's flagship soap, Eastenders; famous enough for her own biopic, Babs (which one imagines will be reshown soon). Of course her death is newsworthy.
Everyone at the Commission is quite confused. The current offer to the UK is a deal in which IF we align, we get full access. IF, in future, we diverge they limit access or put up (some) tariffs. The UK choosing to go to NO access and FULL tariffs NOW, is incomprehensible.
Aren't they missing the bit about when the EU diverges, the UK has to follow suit or else?
That's right there in the tweet, Rob. Just not in your preferred Dirty Harry lingo.
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
Presumably you think Germany would be better off outside the EU, and if not, why not?
Germany controls the EU. They run it and they run the Euro. The EU doesn't do anything Germany doesn't want to do.
That's not been the case with the UK since before German Unification.
So does that make Germany a "slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution"?
The EU is a "sclerotic" faceless unaccountable bureaucracy doing with red tape and diktats what Hitler tried and failed to do with tanks and planes - bend and subjugate us to the Teutonic will.
This is quite a common view in places. You'd be surprised. I always am.
You were doing so well with your first seven words.
Then you changed it into a pantomime and it all went absurd.
I can't think of a single person ever to express such thoughts. Partially because they are two opposing viewpoints you've mashed together.
You don't hang out with the right crowd then. I assure you that view is not uncommon down at the Brexit Arms. You should pop down there. You'd fit right in.
Can you name someone at the Brexit Arms who thinks the EU is heir to Hitler trying to subjugate us who would use the word sclerotic to describe the EU?
There are people who think that but they're not the sort of people to think the EU is sclerotic are they?
Boris Johnson: Life outside the "sclerotic" European Union is an "attractive" option for Britain.
"Anthony Joshua has opted not to take a knee for the Black Lives Matters movement on Saturday night at Wembley Arena when he will defend his world heavyweight title belts against Bulgarian Kubrat Pulev."
At this rate, literally every event, somebody will be asked, well are you....why not.....what are you doing instead..
< I agree it is difficult to directly link Crispin's donation and his subsequent (unrealised) profit making. All I can do is infer that his timely donation of £14 million to the Leave campaign had a direct influence on the outcome of the referendum. This donation was a substantial amount of the Leave funding and must have helped the campaign reach many potential voters.
I cannot say he directly engineered the share price fall, only that he played his part as did the other money men.
His lack of profit taking IMO does not excuse his influence on the campaign. We have to infer he believed that share values would continue to decline as the full Brexit dividend was realised and thus he doubled down on his previous bets.
So yes as of your previous question: Crispin attempted to make money out of the referendum result. And he tried to influence the result by providing Leave with ~£14 million. Yes, Its tricky to say he conspired to make money from his influence. But he would be a very incompetent fund manager if he had not realised the influence his donation could have on the markets.
Isn't 14 milllion around the cost of that uk government decided to invest in the mailshot too persuade people to vote remain? Money forcibly extracted from people via hmrc and used to bolster the remain vote regardless of whether those same voters wanted to vote remain. If you want dishonesty in the referendum funding look no further.
In addition the remain side spent much more on their campaign than the leave camp so obviously money spent doesn't equate that tightly to votes cast else remain would have got double the votes of leave
I'm not trying to argue either campaigns merits (although the mailshot was <£10m ).
Only that Odey attempted to influence the result of the referendum and his fund was evidently well placed to capitalise on the result he favoured. Although like a lot of Gamblers he tried to push his luck too far. </p>
Yes since checked up as it was from memory it was actually 9.3 million
So total remain campaign spend was governement pro eu leaflet 9.3 million remain campaign spending 19.3 million total 28.6 million
Tough gig for remain when the biggest issue was immigration - no more foreigners and 'darkies' was Leave's rallying call. A combination of lying disingenuous politicians and a not too bright populace aligned perfectly.
That's just not credible, and if the EU believe it they are absolute cretins. Boris was riding high early in the year and has a huge majority, if he didn't want a deal he didn't need to string anyone along. Added to that, it would be an awful lot of work to pretend to want a deal this whole time, and does putting in that effort sound like Boris to you?
The failure to get a deal, and failure it would be, would be down to competence and competing politics (that 'standing up to Britain' plays well in the EU demonstrates that politics are in play there as much as here when the government stands up 'for' Britain), not machiavellian scheming.
Why people imply Boris is some mastermind I do not know. Does that seem likely?
Sounds extremely credible. His chief advisor and the architect of Brexit was known to be dead against a deal but Boris knew he would would lose the election if he let it be known he wanted 'no deal' (not to mention that he would have been regailed with 'Oven Ready and the rest of his inanities during the campaign). You don't need to be a 'mastermind' just a simple liar. Fits like a glove.
You're hatred is blinding you and insisting there must be malevolence. It isn't being 'a simple liar', it would require massive amounts of effort, even on his own part, across much of a year at the least. He could have made a bunch of impossible demands that essentially led to immediate no deal in the first few months, whilst pretending he wanted a deal, if that was his intention, and would give him many more months to prepare the ground for no deal he wanted.
So the proposition requires a lot more than being a simple liar, it requires him also to work a lot harder for no deal, whilst making handling no deal much harder for himself. If we consider Boris is self interested more than anything else, why on earth would he do that?
The far simpler explanation is that he does want a deal, but his desires, and the requirements of the EU, have made it hard to reach one. And that doesn't require any praise of him, but the sinister scenario just doesn't hold up given how much it requires him to have done.
The flaw in this analysis appears to be the assumption that lying, even sustained dishonesty over an extended period, requires any great effort on Bozo’s part?
There are people on this blog who actually think a No Deal Brexit is a GOOD thing? Seriously?
Yes, I know a few of you are right-wing, thick and ugly but coming on here and reading some of the stuff is pure comedy gold. Except of course, these comments were said in all seriousness.
Anyone with an iota of sense knows that a no-deal Brexit will severely cripple this country. Cannot see a filament of silver lining except the destruction of the Tory Party which most of us with a brain can raise a glass to.
There are many who want a no deal and setting out to belittle them and use words like thick and ugly does not say much about yourself or your argument
Make your argument by all means but debase it with insults loses it
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
Presumably you think Germany would be better off outside the EU, and if not, why not?
Germany controls the EU. They run it and they run the Euro. The EU doesn't do anything Germany doesn't want to do.
That's not been the case with the UK since before German Unification.
So does that make Germany a "slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution"?
The EU is a "sclerotic" faceless unaccountable bureaucracy doing with red tape and diktats what Hitler tried and failed to do with tanks and planes - bend and subjugate us to the Teutonic will.
This is quite a common view in places. You'd be surprised. I always am.
You were doing so well with your first seven words.
Then you changed it into a pantomime and it all went absurd.
I can't think of a single person ever to express such thoughts. Partially because they are two opposing viewpoints you've mashed together.
You don't hang out with the right crowd then. I assure you that view is not uncommon down at the Brexit Arms. You should pop down there. You'd fit right in.
Can you name someone at the Brexit Arms who thinks the EU is heir to Hitler trying to subjugate us who would use the word sclerotic to describe the EU?
There are people who think that but they're not the sort of people to think the EU is sclerotic are they?
Oh there is the odd one with a vocab. They're the worst in many ways. Think they're quite intelligent. Know what I mean?
"Anthony Joshua has opted not to take a knee for the Black Lives Matters movement on Saturday night at Wembley Arena when he will defend his world heavyweight title belts against Bulgarian Kubrat Pulev."
At this rate, literally every event, somebody will be asked, well are you....why not.....what are you doing instead..
"Anthony Joshua has opted not to take a knee for the Black Lives Matters movement on Saturday night at Wembley Arena when he will defend his world heavyweight title belts against Bulgarian Kubrat Pulev."
At this rate, literally every event, somebody will be asked, well are you....why not.....what are you doing instead..
Who cares if he does or not? I certainly don't.
My point was now it has appears to become the default question around any sporting event.
I'm sorry but I feel that the BBC has gone completely over the top reporting Barbara Windsor's death; it was the lead item on Breakfast News and again the lead on the Six O'Clock News. More important than BREXIT talks, really? There is also a tribute to her on The One Show and a special tribute programme this evening which will push HIGNFY back half an hour.
I am especially annoyed as when Liz Fraser (who was a friend of a friend) died, the BBC didn't even bother to report it. Neither did the BBC bother to report Tim Brooke-Taylor's death until people complained and then it was about the fourth item on the news.
Reporting of dead actors in general is totally OTT anyway. I'm sure Barbara Windsor was nice enough, but if it hadn't been her it would have been someone else.
Barbara Windsor has been part of popular culture for decades, in the Carry On films and latterly in the BBC's flagship soap, Eastenders; famous enough for her own biopic, Babs (which one imagines will be reshown soon). Of course her death is newsworthy.
It is newsworthy but not at the expense of other news that impacts people far more
The BBC need to balance coverage and today that balance went awol
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
Presumably you think Germany would be better off outside the EU, and if not, why not?
Germany controls the EU. They run it and they run the Euro. The EU doesn't do anything Germany doesn't want to do.
That's not been the case with the UK since before German Unification.
So does that make Germany a "slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution"?
The EU is a "sclerotic" faceless unaccountable bureaucracy doing with red tape and diktats what Hitler tried and failed to do with tanks and planes - bend and subjugate us to the Teutonic will.
This is quite a common view in places. You'd be surprised. I always am.
You were doing so well with your first seven words.
Then you changed it into a pantomime and it all went absurd.
I can't think of a single person ever to express such thoughts. Partially because they are two opposing viewpoints you've mashed together.
You don't hang out with the right crowd then. I assure you that view is not uncommon down at the Brexit Arms. You should pop down there. You'd fit right in.
Can you name someone at the Brexit Arms who thinks the EU is heir to Hitler trying to subjugate us who would use the word sclerotic to describe the EU?
There are people who think that but they're not the sort of people to think the EU is sclerotic are they?
Oh there is the odd one with a vocab. They're the worst in many ways. Think they're quite intelligent. Know what I mean?
Quite possibly, Northern Ireland is staying in the single market and customs union effectively while also being assured of having minimal checks on goods going to and from GB, so if we go to No Deal Northern Ireland may see the highest growth rate not only in the UK but Europe as a whole.
You are one of my key sources on this quest I'm on to work out WHY Johnson will No Deal if he does.
The Tory Party. He can't do any LPF deal because many of his MPs would rebel and he'd be relying on Labour votes and losing the grass roots and putting his position in peril.
How does that sound to you as a thought?
If he does do a Deal yes the ERG will vote against and some Red Wall Tory voting Leavers will go to Farage, if he doesn't do a deal then as Doug Seal states the Tories will get wiped out in most of London next May by Starmer Labour and in much of the Home Counties by the LDs
Right. Thanks. Immediate grief with ERG and Hard Leavers if he Deals, or slower burning but probably deeper grief with moderate floaters if he No Deals.
Toughie for our Boris. So, which way does he jump iyo?
No bet or anything, no money or kudos at stake, just tell me what you think please. Maybe give me what you see as the approx % chance of No Deal, right now as we speak.
98% chance of No Deal.
Ok! Thanks. Feeding into my machine right now. Has the merit of being the outcome we get if we assume the absolute worst about the "Boris" character and his motivations. Will have to discount slightly, though, due to your observed (by me) tendency to ALWAYS expect the worst.
I believe there will be measures put in place to mitigate a no deal so a strict no deal with a complete stop is very unlikely
10% in my opinion so maybe no deal needs defining and does it exclude side deals and/ or temporary mitigation
There are people on this blog who actually think a No Deal Brexit is a GOOD thing? Seriously?
Yes, I know a few of you are right-wing, thick and ugly but coming on here and reading some of the stuff is pure comedy gold. Except of course, these comments were said in all seriousness.
Anyone with an iota of sense knows that a no-deal Brexit will severely cripple this country. Cannot see a filament of silver lining except the destruction of the Tory Party which most of us with a brain can raise a glass to.
There are many who want a no deal and setting out to belittle them and use words like thick and ugly does not say much about yourself or your argument
Make your argument by all means but debase it with insults loses it
Thick and ugly is a long-standing running joke - not meant to give offence.
"Anthony Joshua has opted not to take a knee for the Black Lives Matters movement on Saturday night at Wembley Arena when he will defend his world heavyweight title belts against Bulgarian Kubrat Pulev."
At this rate, literally every event, somebody will be asked, well are you....why not.....what are you doing instead..
Who cares if he does or not? I certainly don't.
My point was now it has appeared to become the default question around any sporting event.
I don't see why it's a problem if a journalist asks a black athlete especially if they plan to or not. The issue is whether people then criticise them for doing so, or for not doing so for that matter.
In F1 some drivers take the knee and some drivers don't. Both are respected.
Quite possibly, Northern Ireland is staying in the single market and customs union effectively while also being assured of having minimal checks on goods going to and from GB, so if we go to No Deal Northern Ireland may see the highest growth rate not only in the UK but Europe as a whole.
You are one of my key sources on this quest I'm on to work out WHY Johnson will No Deal if he does.
The Tory Party. He can't do any LPF deal because many of his MPs would rebel and he'd be relying on Labour votes and losing the grass roots and putting his position in peril.
How does that sound to you as a thought?
If he does do a Deal yes the ERG will vote against and some Red Wall Tory voting Leavers will go to Farage, if he doesn't do a deal then as Doug Seal states the Tories will get wiped out in most of London next May by Starmer Labour and in much of the Home Counties by the LDs
Right. Thanks. Immediate grief with ERG and Hard Leavers if he Deals, or slower burning but probably deeper grief with moderate floaters if he No Deals.
Toughie for our Boris. So, which way does he jump iyo?
No bet or anything, no money or kudos at stake, just tell me what you think please. Maybe give me what you see as the approx % chance of No Deal, right now as we speak.
98% chance of No Deal.
Ok! Thanks. Feeding into my machine right now. Has the merit of being the outcome we get if we assume the absolute worst about the "Boris" character and his motivations. Will have to discount slightly, though, due to your observed (by me) tendency to ALWAYS expect the worst.
I believe there will be measures put in place to mitigate a no deal so a strict no deal with a complete stop is very unlikely
10% in my opinion so maybe no deal needs defining and does it exclude side deals and/ or temporary mitigation
So this Sunday deadline, die in a ditch stuff, isn't really the deadline....
Officials in Brussels said European leaders had rejected a proposal made by Mr Johnson to hold calls with his German and French counterparts on Monday.
Quite possibly, Northern Ireland is staying in the single market and customs union effectively while also being assured of having minimal checks on goods going to and from GB, so if we go to No Deal Northern Ireland may see the highest growth rate not only in the UK but Europe as a whole.
You are one of my key sources on this quest I'm on to work out WHY Johnson will No Deal if he does.
The Tory Party. He can't do any LPF deal because many of his MPs would rebel and he'd be relying on Labour votes and losing the grass roots and putting his position in peril.
How does that sound to you as a thought?
If he does do a Deal yes the ERG will vote against and some Red Wall Tory voting Leavers will go to Farage, if he doesn't do a deal then as Doug Seal states the Tories will get wiped out in most of London next May by Starmer Labour and in much of the Home Counties by the LDs
Right. Thanks. Immediate grief with ERG and Hard Leavers if he Deals, or slower burning but probably deeper grief with moderate floaters if he No Deals.
Toughie for our Boris. So, which way does he jump iyo?
No bet or anything, no money or kudos at stake, just tell me what you think please. Maybe give me what you see as the approx % chance of No Deal, right now as we speak.
98% chance of No Deal.
Ok! Thanks. Feeding into my machine right now. Has the merit of being the outcome we get if we assume the absolute worst about the "Boris" character and his motivations. Will have to discount slightly, though, due to your observed (by me) tendency to ALWAYS expect the worst.
I believe there will be measures put in place to mitigate a no deal so a strict no deal with a complete stop is very unlikely
10% in my opinion so maybe no deal needs defining and does it exclude side deals and/ or temporary mitigation
Quite possibly, Northern Ireland is staying in the single market and customs union effectively while also being assured of having minimal checks on goods going to and from GB, so if we go to No Deal Northern Ireland may see the highest growth rate not only in the UK but Europe as a whole.
You are one of my key sources on this quest I'm on to work out WHY Johnson will No Deal if he does.
The Tory Party. He can't do any LPF deal because many of his MPs would rebel and he'd be relying on Labour votes and losing the grass roots and putting his position in peril.
How does that sound to you as a thought?
If he does do a Deal yes the ERG will vote against and some Red Wall Tory voting Leavers will go to Farage, if he doesn't do a deal then as Doug Seal states the Tories will get wiped out in most of London next May by Starmer Labour and in much of the Home Counties by the LDs
Right. Thanks. Immediate grief with ERG and Hard Leavers if he Deals, or slower burning but probably deeper grief with moderate floaters if he No Deals.
Toughie for our Boris. So, which way does he jump iyo?
No bet or anything, no money or kudos at stake, just tell me what you think please. Maybe give me what you see as the approx % chance of No Deal, right now as we speak.
98% chance of No Deal.
Ok! Thanks. Feeding into my machine right now. Has the merit of being the outcome we get if we assume the absolute worst about the "Boris" character and his motivations. Will have to discount slightly, though, due to your observed (by me) tendency to ALWAYS expect the worst.
I believe there will be measures put in place to mitigate a no deal so a strict no deal with a complete stop is very unlikely
10% in my opinion so maybe no deal needs defining and does it exclude side deals and/ or temporary mitigation
10%. Gotcha.
By No Deal, I mean move to WTO terms.
That's not what Smarkets mean, though.
75% chance that we are WTO on 1 Jan, if you are conducting a survey.
(mucked up block quotes it seems trying to edit it so would let me post)
But what value should we ascribe to the years and years of constant anti-EU lies peddled by the far-right press?
There is no far right nor far left press that are mainstream in this country you merely exhibit your delusions here.
Was the reneging on the manifesto commitment by labour to have a lisbon referendum a lie?
What reforms to cap did the eu actually make after he gave up part of our rebate on the promise of them. None . Was that a lie?
Was the passing of the utterly new copyright laws by the eu after changing the article numbers to fool mep's into voting for them a lie. Ms Reda might disagree?
Yes sometimes the press exaggerate and put their own slant on things from both left and right and even occasionally get things wrong. That does not mean the EU hasn't done plenty of stupid stuff it wasn't all lies and probably not even half of it.
Sorry our press didn't only publish EU idolatory such as you obviously wish for and your side told plenty of EU porkies too through out the years such as "It's down to the EU that europe has been peaceful"
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
I like the word sclerotic - but not enough to read it seemingly dozens of times a day as I read the threads. Everybody knows by now what you think of the EU - some agree with you, some don't. But do you really need to repeat it so often? I ask courteously.
Yes I do. Because it's a good word that describes the EU well and answered the direct question that Stuart asked me. Stuart asked a question and I provided an answer, that is how conversations progress.
So much so that they got their response to Brexit in place well before we had even started to think about it, and have been way better prepared than we are for a long time now. The contrast in maturity and competence between their leading figures and our own top politicians is embarrassing for us whenever they appear together.
They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year.
We are in a far better prepared position than we were twelve months ago. What May, Hammond, Fox and co did while they were in charge is unforgivable. It's a shame May still sits as a Tory MP.
Ah, so the EU is in a different time-space continuum than the UK? Did Dom accelerate the island to a significant fraction of c or something?
No. Hammond refused to fund preparations, May didn't get on with or insist upon preparations, Fox chose to engage in vanity trips taking to the USA etc rather than rolling over our established deals. Meanwhile the EU got on with the fundamentals while we had a national psychodrama that only ended in December last year when Boris won a majority.
Right, so in other words, the UK had exactly as much time to prepare as the EU did but chose not to do so. That is not the same as saying "They've had four years to prepare, we've only had just a year."
Yes.
The UK had four years to prepare but May and the Remainer 2017-19 Parliament combined to piss away three of those.
We have only had the current government and current Parliament for 12 months. And the preparations now have been done in those twelve months.
I don't consider May and Hammond to be a part of we anymore than you might consider Boris to be we. Different government that I opposed and a different Parliament.
You guys are just shameless in your blaming of others, for everything.
Take some damn responsibility. For once.
Who are we guys?
And why should I take responsibility for the actions of a government and a PM I opposed?
If Corbyn had won in 2019 would you have taken responsibility for May's actions and May's years?
You guys are the people who voted for Brexit. Even ignoring the May government, you've been in power with a huge majority for a whole year, with the full power of the British state behind you.
You've had opportunities to compromise and opportunities to delay.
The outcome, whatever it is, is entirely down to you. The outcome is entirely owned by Brexiteers.
This is what you wanted so own it, whatever happens.
Anything else is just pure shamelessness.
Indeed and in that twelve months I think the government has done a fantastic job. While dealing with a once in a century pandemic too.
Particular stars are Sunak, Truss and Gove.
This has to be the best cabinet we've had as a country in decades and what they've achieved in just twelve months should fill May and her entourage with a deep sense of shame.
Also leaves me feeling confident for the future. If they can achieve all this in just twelve months with a pandemic going on what more can be achieved in three and a bit years before the next election following a clean Brexit?
Exciting times ahead.
It's very difficult sometimes to detect sarcasm and irony on social media sans emoticons, but fortunately I have succeeded (I think).
No sarcasm. Deadly serious.
Exciting times doesn't mean good times. It's like the chinese curse - may you live in interesting times.
I'm sorry but I feel that the BBC has gone completely over the top reporting Barbara Windsor's death; it was the lead item on Breakfast News and again the lead on the Six O'Clock News. More important than BREXIT talks, really? There is also a tribute to her on The One Show and a special tribute programme this evening which will push HIGNFY back half an hour.
I am especially annoyed as when Liz Fraser (who was a friend of a friend) died, the BBC didn't even bother to report it. Neither did the BBC bother to report Tim Brooke-Taylor's death until people complained and then it was about the fourth item on the news.
They always do when someone famous passes away these days. Not sure why.
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
Presumably you think Germany would be better off outside the EU, and if not, why not?
Germany controls the EU. They run it and they run the Euro. The EU doesn't do anything Germany doesn't want to do.
That's not been the case with the UK since before German Unification.
So does that make Germany a "slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution"?
The EU is a "sclerotic" faceless unaccountable bureaucracy doing with red tape and diktats what Hitler tried and failed to do with tanks and planes - bend and subjugate us to the Teutonic will.
This is quite a common view in places. You'd be surprised. I always am.
You were doing so well with your first seven words.
Then you changed it into a pantomime and it all went absurd.
I can't think of a single person ever to express such thoughts. Partially because they are two opposing viewpoints you've mashed together.
You don't hang out with the right crowd then. I assure you that view is not uncommon down at the Brexit Arms. You should pop down there. You'd fit right in.
Can you name someone at the Brexit Arms who thinks the EU is heir to Hitler trying to subjugate us who would use the word sclerotic to describe the EU?
There are people who think that but they're not the sort of people to think the EU is sclerotic are they?
Boris Johnson: Life outside the "sclerotic" European Union is an "attractive" option for Britain.
The key take away from that is that 62% of the population hold the UK Govt responsible to some degree. That 52% hold the EU responsible to some degree is neither here nor there - we can't vote to leave AGAIN.
Which equates very nicely to the Tory floor. 38% don't blame the government. And 38% is around the support they doggedly maintain.
I'm sorry but I feel that the BBC has gone completely over the top reporting Barbara Windsor's death; it was the lead item on Breakfast News and again the lead on the Six O'Clock News. More important than BREXIT talks, really? There is also a tribute to her on The One Show and a special tribute programme this evening which will push HIGNFY back half an hour.
I am especially annoyed as when Liz Fraser (who was a friend of a friend) died, the BBC didn't even bother to report it. Neither did the BBC bother to report Tim Brooke-Taylor's death until people complained and then it was about the fourth item on the news.
Reporting of dead actors in general is totally OTT anyway. I'm sure Barbara Windsor was nice enough, but if it hadn't been her it would have been someone else.
Barbara Windsor has been part of popular culture for decades, in the Carry On films and latterly in the BBC's flagship soap, Eastenders; famous enough for her own biopic, Babs (which one imagines will be reshown soon). Of course her death is newsworthy.
It is newsworthy but not at the expense of other news that impacts people far more
The BBC need to balance coverage and today that balance went awol
Maybe but this was Breakfast time. The big Covid news did not come till later, the reduction of self-isolation to 10 days, and there was no Brexit development overnight.
One thing that is remarkable during this negotiation is just how afraid the EU clearly are.
They're scared of their unity being divided by conversations.
They're scared a free UK will out compete them.
Considering what an epic own goal the UK supposedly made with Brexit, why is Europe so lacking in confidence in dealing with us?
Makes me all the more confident that we should do what they're afraid of and walk away.
Assuming that the EU is very afraid of us walking away, why do you think it is that they're apparently holding their negotiating line and not making major concessions?
Because they're too sclerotic to make decisions. There are no decision makers in the room. That is a deep part of what is wrong with the institution.
But consider this.
The EU has lots of deals with various countries, with other nations happy to talk to them as well.
I know it's not your view of how the world works, or should work...
... but is it possible that they know what they're doing, and that the EU approach (set out your broad stall very clearly early on and subsequently insulate the negotiators from the politicians as much as possible) is an effective way of doing things?
No. The EU is sliding backwards when it comes to deals agreed globally.
Even the EFTA has more deals agreed than the EU does - and every single EFTA nation has a superior GDP per capita to the EU. The EU is a slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution. Failure to reach a deal with them while reaching dozens with the rest of the globe is symptomatic of their malaise.
Presumably you think Germany would be better off outside the EU, and if not, why not?
Germany controls the EU. They run it and they run the Euro. The EU doesn't do anything Germany doesn't want to do.
That's not been the case with the UK since before German Unification.
So does that make Germany a "slow moving, sclerotic, failing institution"?
The EU is a "sclerotic" faceless unaccountable bureaucracy doing with red tape and diktats what Hitler tried and failed to do with tanks and planes - bend and subjugate us to the Teutonic will.
This is quite a common view in places. You'd be surprised. I always am.
You were doing so well with your first seven words.
Then you changed it into a pantomime and it all went absurd.
I can't think of a single person ever to express such thoughts. Partially because they are two opposing viewpoints you've mashed together.
You don't hang out with the right crowd then. I assure you that view is not uncommon down at the Brexit Arms. You should pop down there. You'd fit right in.
Can you name someone at the Brexit Arms who thinks the EU is heir to Hitler trying to subjugate us who would use the word sclerotic to describe the EU?
There are people who think that but they're not the sort of people to think the EU is sclerotic are they?
Boris Johnson: Life outside the "sclerotic" European Union is an "attractive" option for Britain.
(mucked up block quotes it seems trying to edit it so would let me post)
But what value should we ascribe to the years and years of constant anti-EU lies peddled by the far-right press?
There is no far right nor far left press that are mainstream in this country you merely exhibit your delusions here.
Was the reneging on the manifesto commitment by labour to have a lisbon referendum a lie?
What reforms to cap did the eu actually make after he gave up part of our rebate on the promise of them. None . Was that a lie?
Was the passing of the utterly new copyright laws by the eu after changing the article numbers to fool mep's into voting for them a lie. Ms Reda might disagree?
Yes sometimes the press exaggerate and put their own slant on things from both left and right and even occasionally get things wrong. That does not mean the EU hasn't done plenty of stupid stuff it wasn't all lies and probably not even half of it.
Sorry our press didn't only publish EU idolatory such as you obviously wish for and your side told plenty of EU porkies too through out the years such as "It's down to the EU that europe has been peaceful"
There is no far right press but there certainly is far left press: Morning Star.
"Anthony Joshua has opted not to take a knee for the Black Lives Matters movement on Saturday night at Wembley Arena when he will defend his world heavyweight title belts against Bulgarian Kubrat Pulev."
At this rate, literally every event, somebody will be asked, well are you....why not.....what are you doing instead..
Who cares if he does or not? I certainly don't.
My point was now it has appeared to become the default question around any sporting event.
I don't see why it's a problem if a journalist asks a black athlete especially if they plan to or not. The issue is whether people then criticise them for doing so, or for not doing so for that matter.
In F1 some drivers take the knee and some drivers don't. Both are respected.
There was an awful lot of discussion about it in F1 - the gesture carries many different meanings in cultures other than the US and UK, some of which could be considered offensive.
"Anthony Joshua has opted not to take a knee for the Black Lives Matters movement on Saturday night at Wembley Arena when he will defend his world heavyweight title belts against Bulgarian Kubrat Pulev."
At this rate, literally every event, somebody will be asked, well are you....why not.....what are you doing instead..
Who cares if he does or not? I certainly don't.
My point was now it has appeared to become the default question around any sporting event.
I don't see why it's a problem if a journalist asks a black athlete especially if they plan to or not. The issue is whether people then criticise them for doing so, or for not doing so for that matter.
In F1 some drivers take the knee and some drivers don't. Both are respected.
There was an awful lot of discussion about it in F1 - the gesture carries many different meanings in cultures other than the US and UK, some of which could be considered offensive.
Hence why if people choose not to do it, then that's fine.
"Anthony Joshua has opted not to take a knee for the Black Lives Matters movement on Saturday night at Wembley Arena when he will defend his world heavyweight title belts against Bulgarian Kubrat Pulev."
At this rate, literally every event, somebody will be asked, well are you....why not.....what are you doing instead..
Who cares if he does or not? I certainly don't.
My point was now it has appeared to become the default question around any sporting event.
I don't see why it's a problem if a journalist asks a black athlete especially if they plan to or not. The issue is whether people then criticise them for doing so, or for not doing so for that matter.
In F1 some drivers take the knee and some drivers don't. Both are respected.
Apart from Sky Sports F1 making a big deal of the fact for several consecutive races that some drivers didn't/weren't taking the knee, you mean.
They've moved on now, sure, but only because those drivers stood their ground and said they didn't need to to not be racist and they could support it perfectly fine in other ways.
(mucked up block quotes it seems trying to edit it so would let me post)
But what value should we ascribe to the years and years of constant anti-EU lies peddled by the far-right press?
There is no far right nor far left press that are mainstream in this country you merely exhibit your delusions here.
Was the reneging on the manifesto commitment by labour to have a lisbon referendum a lie?
What reforms to cap did the eu actually make after he gave up part of our rebate on the promise of them. None . Was that a lie?
Was the passing of the utterly new copyright laws by the eu after changing the article numbers to fool mep's into voting for them a lie. Ms Reda might disagree?
Yes sometimes the press exaggerate and put their own slant on things from both left and right and even occasionally get things wrong. That does not mean the EU hasn't done plenty of stupid stuff it wasn't all lies and probably not even half of it.
Sorry our press didn't only publish EU idolatory such as you obviously wish for and your side told plenty of EU porkies too through out the years such as "It's down to the EU that europe has been peaceful"
There is no far right press but there certainly is far left press: Morning Star.
I did say mainstream. I wouldn't class the Morning star as mainstream
(mucked up block quotes it seems trying to edit it so would let me post)
But what value should we ascribe to the years and years of constant anti-EU lies peddled by the far-right press?
There is no far right nor far left press that are mainstream in this country you merely exhibit your delusions here.
Was the reneging on the manifesto commitment by labour to have a lisbon referendum a lie?
What reforms to cap did the eu actually make after he gave up part of our rebate on the promise of them. None . Was that a lie?
Was the passing of the utterly new copyright laws by the eu after changing the article numbers to fool mep's into voting for them a lie. Ms Reda might disagree?
Yes sometimes the press exaggerate and put their own slant on things from both left and right and even occasionally get things wrong. That does not mean the EU hasn't done plenty of stupid stuff it wasn't all lies and probably not even half of it.
Sorry our press didn't only publish EU idolatory such as you obviously wish for and your side told plenty of EU porkies too through out the years such as "It's down to the EU that europe has been peaceful"
There is no far right press but there certainly is far left press: Morning Star.
Agreed. But personally I don't think the Daily Mail has fundamentally changed from its "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" days so I'd categorize it as far-right, along with the Express, and sadly these days, as it wasn't always so, the Telegraph.
I'm sorry but I feel that the BBC has gone completely over the top reporting Barbara Windsor's death; it was the lead item on Breakfast News and again the lead on the Six O'Clock News. More important than BREXIT talks, really? There is also a tribute to her on The One Show and a special tribute programme this evening which will push HIGNFY back half an hour.
I am especially annoyed as when Liz Fraser (who was a friend of a friend) died, the BBC didn't even bother to report it. Neither did the BBC bother to report Tim Brooke-Taylor's death until people complained and then it was about the fourth item on the news.
Given all that is going on with COVID and EU, it did seem rather out of whack. Not exactly a quiet news day and so happens to get top billing.
It's something that ordinary mortals can understand, ladies' underwear flying across campsites.
Yes, Babs was a British Icon and a major BBC star for years. There is enough time for misery on other days, lets remember her tonight and raise a glass to her memory.
(mucked up block quotes it seems trying to edit it so would let me post)
But what value should we ascribe to the years and years of constant anti-EU lies peddled by the far-right press?
There is no far right nor far left press that are mainstream in this country you merely exhibit your delusions here.
Was the reneging on the manifesto commitment by labour to have a lisbon referendum a lie?
What reforms to cap did the eu actually make after he gave up part of our rebate on the promise of them. None . Was that a lie?
Was the passing of the utterly new copyright laws by the eu after changing the article numbers to fool mep's into voting for them a lie. Ms Reda might disagree?
Yes sometimes the press exaggerate and put their own slant on things from both left and right and even occasionally get things wrong. That does not mean the EU hasn't done plenty of stupid stuff it wasn't all lies and probably not even half of it.
Sorry our press didn't only publish EU idolatory such as you obviously wish for and your side told plenty of EU porkies too through out the years such as "It's down to the EU that europe has been peaceful"
There is no far right press but there certainly is far left press: Morning Star.
I did say mainstream. I wouldn't class the Morning star as mainstream
Circulation lower than a snakes belly. Does anyone ever read it?
For hard left stuff Labour Briefing is better. I used to subscribe before its rebranding.
Everyone at the Commission is quite confused. The current offer to the UK is a deal in which IF we align, we get full access. IF, in future, we diverge they limit access or put up (some) tariffs. The UK choosing to go to NO access and FULL tariffs NOW, is incomprehensible.
No, the current offer to the UK is this. It's a deal in which IF we continue to align, we get full access to their market in goods without tariffs etc, and they get full access to continue to sell twice that volume of goods to our market without tariffs etc. IF, in future, THEY choose to change their rules so that we diverge, THEY can choose to limit access or put up (some) tariffs at THEIR discretion, while they will still continue to enjoy tariff-free access to our market.
Meanwhile, if WE choose to change our rules to require higher standards, even higher than the already much lower minimum standards often in place within the EU, then we can't limit access or put up (some) tariffs at OUR discretion.
Their proposals are totally one-sided and really do amount to something that only a vassal state would sign up to.
Yes, but my understanding is that the EU (VDL this morning) has now conceded the latter - so we could now do the same as them - and both parties will need to do it proportionately to the scope of the change and impact on the LPF, and not punitively to force alignment.
This is equity, IMHO, and acceptable.
My understanding on that is different to yours. The UK government has not acknowledged that any significant concessions have been offered since last night. But to clarify, in case I've missed something, do you have a link?
Sovereignty fans. What's your view of this text that requires the UK to go to war at the whim of another country, normally a sovereign prerogative of a nation state, if that country is attacked even when the attack does not affect the UK?
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
It was a rule we signed up to and agreed to. So there is no loss of sovereignty. It is not possible for NATO to introduce new rules without unanimity. That is the crucial difference. In the EU we could and did have laws imposed on the UK that our elected Government did not agree with.
(mucked up block quotes it seems trying to edit it so would let me post)
But what value should we ascribe to the years and years of constant anti-EU lies peddled by the far-right press?
There is no far right nor far left press that are mainstream in this country you merely exhibit your delusions here.
Was the reneging on the manifesto commitment by labour to have a lisbon referendum a lie?
What reforms to cap did the eu actually make after he gave up part of our rebate on the promise of them. None . Was that a lie?
Was the passing of the utterly new copyright laws by the eu after changing the article numbers to fool mep's into voting for them a lie. Ms Reda might disagree?
Yes sometimes the press exaggerate and put their own slant on things from both left and right and even occasionally get things wrong. That does not mean the EU hasn't done plenty of stupid stuff it wasn't all lies and probably not even half of it.
Sorry our press didn't only publish EU idolatory such as you obviously wish for and your side told plenty of EU porkies too through out the years such as "It's down to the EU that europe has been peaceful"
There is no far right press but there certainly is far left press: Morning Star.
I did say mainstream. I wouldn't class the Morning star as mainstream
Circulation lower than a snakes belly. Does anyone ever read it?
For hard left stuff Labour Briefing is better. I used to subscribe before its rebranding.
Comments
This is equity, IMHO, and acceptable.
And why should I take responsibility for the actions of a government and a PM I opposed?
If Corbyn had won in 2019 would you have taken responsibility for May's actions and May's years?
Why is that?
You've had opportunities to compromise and opportunities to delay.
The outcome, whatever it is, is entirely down to you. The outcome is entirely owned by Brexiteers.
This is what you wanted so own it, whatever happens.
Anything else is just pure shamelessness.
I am especially annoyed as when Liz Fraser (who was a friend of a friend) died, the BBC didn't even bother to report it. Neither did the BBC bother to report Tim Brooke-Taylor's death until people complained and then it was about the fourth item on the news.
https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1337459668831113216?s=20
Particular stars are Sunak, Truss and Gove.
This has to be the best cabinet we've had as a country in decades and what they've achieved in just twelve months should fill May and her entourage with a deep sense of shame.
Also leaves me feeling confident for the future. If they can achieve all this in just twelve months with a pandemic going on what more can be achieved in three and a bit years before the next election following a clean Brexit?
Exciting times ahead.
10% in my opinion so maybe no deal needs defining and does it exclude side deals and/ or temporary mitigation
Only that Odey attempted to influence the result of the referendum and his fund was evidently well placed to capitalise on the result he favoured. Although like a lot of Gamblers he tried to push his luck too far.
How on earth could that be done?
Phillip, you need help, medical help. Go seek it my friend!
There are people who think that but they're not the sort of people to think the EU is sclerotic are they?
Not sure I can raise myself to the level of "annoyed" but I tend to agree it seems a bit out of proportion for an 83 year old actor whose death was not unexpected, when there's a lot of more relevant news going on. In general, the appropriate place for these things does seem to be a respectful retrospective towards the end of the bulletin, with some form of programme a few weeks later.
Only that Odey attempted to influence the result of the referendum and his fund was evidently well placed to capitalise on the result he favoured. Although like a lot of Gamblers he tried to push his luck too far. </p>
Yes since checked up as it was from memory it was actually 9.3 million
So total remain campaign spend was
governement pro eu leaflet 9.3 million
remain campaign spending 19.3 million
total 28.6 million
vs
Leave campaign spending
13.3 million
source
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/campaign-spending-eu-referendum
So remain spent twice as much and still lost.
(mucked up block quotes it seems trying to edit it so would let me post)
There are people on this blog who actually think a No Deal Brexit is a GOOD thing? Seriously?
Yes, I know a few of you are right-wing, thick and ugly but coming on here and reading some of the stuff is pure comedy gold. Except of course, these comments were said in all seriousness.
Anyone with an iota of sense knows that a no-deal Brexit will severely cripple this country. Cannot see a filament of silver lining except the destruction of the Tory Party which most of us with a brain can raise a glass to.
https://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-08-06/boris-life-outside-sclerotic-eu-attractive-option-for-uk/
Boris Johnson: The EU wants a superstate, just as Hitler did
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/14/boris-johnson-the-eu-wants-a-superstate-just-as-hitler-did/
"Anthony Joshua has opted not to take a knee for the Black Lives Matters movement on Saturday night at Wembley Arena when he will defend his world heavyweight title belts against Bulgarian Kubrat Pulev."
At this rate, literally every event, somebody will be asked, well are you....why not.....what are you doing instead..
So total remain campaign spend was
governement pro eu leaflet 9.3 million
remain campaign spending 19.3 million
total 28.6 million
vs
Leave campaign spending
13.3 million
source
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/campaign-spending-eu-referendum
So remain spent twice as much and still lost.
Tough gig for remain when the biggest issue was immigration - no more foreigners and 'darkies' was Leave's rallying call. A combination of lying disingenuous politicians and a not too bright populace aligned perfectly.
Make your argument by all means but debase it with insults loses it
The BBC need to balance coverage and today that balance went awol
By No Deal, I mean move to WTO terms.
In F1 some drivers take the knee and some drivers don't. Both are respected.
Are you here?
You have been as firm as me that No Deal is not happening.
Still think that?
https://twitter.com/ajenglish/status/1337462702202118147?s=21
Officials in Brussels said European leaders had rejected a proposal made by Mr Johnson to hold calls with his German and French counterparts on Monday.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9042631/Nicola-Sturgeon-claims-Boris-Johnson-GIVEN-trade-talks-EU.html
75% chance that we are WTO on 1 Jan, if you are conducting a survey.
Was the reneging on the manifesto commitment by labour to have a lisbon referendum a lie?
What reforms to cap did the eu actually make after he gave up part of our rebate on the promise of them. None . Was that a lie?
Was the passing of the utterly new copyright laws by the eu after changing the article numbers to fool mep's into voting for them a lie. Ms Reda might disagree?
Is the independent a far right news paper? Is this a lie?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-used-bypass-national-democracy-home-office-minister-admits-a6680341.html
Yes sometimes the press exaggerate and put their own slant on things from both left and right and even occasionally get things wrong. That does not mean the EU hasn't done plenty of stupid stuff it wasn't all lies and probably not even half of it.
Sorry our press didn't only publish EU idolatory such as you obviously wish for and your side told plenty of EU porkies too through out the years such as "It's down to the EU that europe has been peaceful"
38% don't blame the government.
And 38% is around the support they doggedly maintain.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/06/04/americans-would-never-subjugate-themselves-to-the-eu-boris-johnson.html
They've moved on now, sure, but only because those drivers stood their ground and said they didn't need to to not be racist and they could support it perfectly fine in other ways.
For hard left stuff Labour Briefing is better. I used to subscribe before its rebranding.
https://labourbriefing.org/