The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
That only works if the negotiator has the authority to negotiate, to change positions. It doesn't work if they're stuck to a mandate.
The negotiators have some leeway but really not much. The mandate, though, is what it is, it's not going to change. It was confirmed yesterday, once again, and it will be the same tomorrow. It represents the common ground between the 27 and their diverging interests. It reflects the extent to which they can agree on the myriad of issues. It's a strategic concept, not a tactical one.
Can I just say that the cartoon on the Telegraph front page at the moment showing Macron as a mermaid in the desert is perhaps one of the most bizarre I have ever seen. I have tried to work it out but it is just plain crazy and a bit unsettling.
Many of the best political cartoons are extremely simple stock images with a pithy line and that's it. You don't need to get high concept with this stuff.
I have been told that the French equivalent of "Oh my God!" is "Ah! La vache! which has left me extremely puzzled unless the almighty is a bovine. Perhaps Brian Aldiss knew more than we realised.
Mon dieu surely? Or Putain (ruder).
I know "merde" is the equivalent of "oh bother" rather than the direct translation.
Can I just say that the cartoon on the Telegraph front page at the moment showing Macron as a mermaid in the desert is perhaps one of the most bizarre I have ever seen. I have tried to work it out but it is just plain crazy and a bit unsettling.
Many of the best political cartoons are extremely simple stock images with a pithy line and that's it. You don't need to get high concept with this stuff.
I have been told that the French equivalent of "Oh my God!" is "Ah! La vache! which has left me extremely puzzled unless the almighty is a bovine. Perhaps Brian Aldiss knew more than we realised.
Mon dieu surely? Or Putain (ruder).
My favourite French curse as taught to me by a very old friend from Nantes is
"Putain de nom de dieu de bon dieu de cent million pompes a merde".
Not as 'good' as the Spanish (I don't know how to spell the Spanish, so I'll translate) 'I shit on the beach' - or for really extreme situations 'I shit on God'.
I dont know if Hasa Diga Eebowai is a real phrase or if it was just made up for Book of Mormon.
Can I just say that the cartoon on the Telegraph front page at the moment showing Macron as a mermaid in the desert is perhaps one of the most bizarre I have ever seen. I have tried to work it out but it is just plain crazy and a bit unsettling.
Many of the best political cartoons are extremely simple stock images with a pithy line and that's it. You don't need to get high concept with this stuff.
I have been told that the French equivalent of "Oh my God!" is "Ah! La vache! which has left me extremely puzzled unless the almighty is a bovine. Perhaps Brian Aldiss knew more than we realised.
Mon dieu surely? Or Putain (ruder).
My favourite French curse as taught to me by a very old friend from Nantes is
"Putain de nom de dieu de bon dieu de cent million pompes a merde".
A very detailed curse. I can see why Anglo-Saxon expletives are so popular given their small, compact, and efficient format
Vi? Is that thing still around? I thought everyone had moved to Nano? (Or Pico depending on distro)
Still use it on the firewalls. Can't load "fancy" software on there...
I thought Nano was tiny (thus the name)?
For day to day stuff I tend to use Geany, Kate or Eclipse
I'm a big fan of the JetBrains IDEs. I know there's VS Code for free, but I think the JetBrains stuff is worth the price. For quick stuff I use Notepad++, but that's just cos I'm on Windows at the mo. On Linux, it's usually Kate.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
Macron is the one blocking, so a conversation with the organ grinder would make sense. It would be sensible for him not to hide behind the EU, when he's at risk of sinking his own fishing fleet.
Vi? Is that thing still around? I thought everyone had moved to Nano? (Or Pico depending on distro)
Still use it on the firewalls. Can't load "fancy" software on there...
I thought Nano was tiny (thus the name)?
For day to day stuff I tend to use Geany, Kate or Eclipse
I'm a big fan of the JetBrains IDEs. I know there's VS Code for free, but I think the JetBrains stuff is worth the price. For quick stuff I use Notepad++, but that's just cos I'm on Windows at the mo. On Linux, it's usually Kate.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
I think now would be a good time to revive my plan of breaking the deadlock by gifting the EU one of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.
Macron would love that, and the rest of the EU. They could ponce around and send their shiny new carrier everywhere to 'project naval power', we'd cut our losses and not have to buy aircraft for the thing. It was clearly intended for a nascent EU Navy anyway - they might as well have the thing.
Why would they want that white elephant?
It's pretty cruel to keep an elephant on an aircraft carrier.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
It's just bizarre. You don't get to choose which representative of the opposite party you want to talk to - that's entirely up to them. Brexiteers are really flailing now.
Can I just say that the cartoon on the Telegraph front page at the moment showing Macron as a mermaid in the desert is perhaps one of the most bizarre I have ever seen. I have tried to work it out but it is just plain crazy and a bit unsettling.
Many of the best political cartoons are extremely simple stock images with a pithy line and that's it. You don't need to get high concept with this stuff.
I have been told that the French equivalent of "Oh my God!" is "Ah! La vache! which has left me extremely puzzled unless the almighty is a bovine. Perhaps Brian Aldiss knew more than we realised.
Mon dieu surely? Or Putain (ruder).
My favourite French curse as taught to me by a very old friend from Nantes is
"Putain de nom de dieu de bon dieu de cent million pompes a merde".
A very detailed curse. I can see why Anglo-Saxon expletives are so popular given their small, compact, and efficient format
Don't think the EU will invest anything further in the talks at this stage, or to make the compromise that will get the deal over the line. (That the UK has to make a concession is a given) The EU seems to want to pick up the negotiations where they left off, next month.
Lots of spin, particularly from the UK side, about what exactly the EU is asking for on LPF. These claims go beyond the negotiating brief published by the EU back in March. The EU denies that these new claims are what it is asking for. Either the UK wants a pretext to go to No Deal on EU unreasonableness or it is hoping to apparently get a concession from the EU and sell "EU caves" to its supporters, I think. They may have both aims simultaneously.
The UK absolutely should try to influence member states. Not to bypass the EU Commission/Council (why would they want to get into the business of herding European cats?) but to influence indirectly what the Commission agrees with the UK. Problem is that UK relations with countries in Europe are even worse than with the EU institutions. The UK doesn't have a single ally amongst the EU27. It has some serious fence-mending to do. Treaty breaches and gunboats aren't good.
Big problem with data adequacy coming up that hasn't much been aired.
Labour has a Brexit problem. How can it be seen to getting with the programme and respect the popular vote, while knowing for a fact that it is complete disaster - without looking utterly hypocritical ? Conservatives don't have this problem. Their delusion is coherent: if Brexit is great by definition, the bad stuff (which is everything) is someone else's fault.
Can I just say that the cartoon on the Telegraph front page at the moment showing Macron as a mermaid in the desert is perhaps one of the most bizarre I have ever seen. I have tried to work it out but it is just plain crazy and a bit unsettling.
Many of the best political cartoons are extremely simple stock images with a pithy line and that's it. You don't need to get high concept with this stuff.
I have been told that the French equivalent of "Oh my God!" is "Ah! La vache! which has left me extremely puzzled unless the almighty is a bovine. Perhaps Brian Aldiss knew more than we realised.
Mon dieu surely? Or Putain (ruder).
I know "merde" is the equivalent of "oh bother" rather than the direct translation.
Can I just say that the cartoon on the Telegraph front page at the moment showing Macron as a mermaid in the desert is perhaps one of the most bizarre I have ever seen. I have tried to work it out but it is just plain crazy and a bit unsettling.
Many of the best political cartoons are extremely simple stock images with a pithy line and that's it. You don't need to get high concept with this stuff.
I have been told that the French equivalent of "Oh my God!" is "Ah! La vache! which has left me extremely puzzled unless the almighty is a bovine. Perhaps Brian Aldiss knew more than we realised.
Mon dieu surely? Or Putain (ruder).
My favourite French curse as taught to me by a very old friend from Nantes is
"Putain de nom de dieu de bon dieu de cent million pompes a merde".
Not as 'good' as the Spanish (I don't know how to spell the Spanish, so I'll translate) 'I shit on the beach' - or for really extreme situations 'I shit on God'.
I dont know if Hasa Diga Eebowai is a real phrase or if it was just made up for Book of Mormon.
Well, since the Book of Mormon seems to be made up..............
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
That only works if the negotiator has the authority to negotiate, to change positions. It doesn't work if they're stuck to a mandate.
The negotiators have some leeway but really not much. The mandate, though, is what it is, it's not going to change. It was confirmed yesterday, once again, and it will be the same tomorrow. It represents the common ground between the 27 and their diverging interests. It reflects the extent to which they can agree on the myriad of issues. It's a strategic concept, not a tactical one.
I think that's fine if the negotiation is just a linear tug of war - where it's just a decision over which side will give more and which will take more, but there's little scope there for creative solutions to be found.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
Yes, but the point being the pretence it is not individual nations and individual concerns which hold things up. Yes they will stand together and that's only right, but that doesn't mean leader X or Y is not the problem that causes progress to stick and when it gets widely reported, likely as a result of leaks or official statements from those leaders, it is insulting to act as though they are not the ones who need persuading, following which the others will fall in line.
It's phoney choreography, as much as when the negotiators on both sides pretend after each talk they need to go back and ask for more instructions, as though none of them had ever considered what the other side might ask for, and that they don't have instructions on how to respond to most scenarios.
Unlike a WA, the Trade Agreement needs unanimity. Any of the 27 has the right to veto if they choose.
Brexiteers should be happy that small states cannot be over ruled by larger ones by QMV. It is one of their grievances concerning the EU.
Labour has a Brexit problem. How can it be seen to getting with the programme and respecting the popular vote, while knowing for a fact that it is complete disaster - without looking utterly hypocritical ? Conservatives don't have this problem. Whatever else, their delusion is coherent: if Brexit is great by definition, the bad stuff (which is everything) is someone else's fault.
BoZo is going to solve that for them with No Deal
No Deal is shit. BoZo and Gove both said it would be shit, so Labour can say that all day long
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
Yes, but the point being the pretence it is not individual nations and individual concerns which hold things up. Yes they will stand together and that's only right, but that doesn't mean leader X or Y is not the problem that causes progress to stick and when it gets widely reported, likely as a result of leaks or official statements from those leaders, it is insulting to act as though they are not the ones who need persuading, following which the others will fall in line.
It's phoney choreography, as much as when the negotiators on both sides pretend after each talk they need to go back and ask for more instructions, as though none of them had ever considered what the other side might ask for, and that they don't have instructions on how to respond to most scenarios.
Unlike a WA, the Trade Agreement needs unanimity. Any of the 27 has the right to veto if they choose.
Brexiteers should be happy that small states cannot be over ruled by larger ones by QMV. It is one of their grievances concerning the EU.
Yes, the power even the smaller nations have is fine. But pretending that the concerns of individual nations, big or small, are not the issue on those occasions when it is the issue, and they happily want us to know it (given Macron looks better in standing up in the way he has, he is surely the one behind the reports), just insults everyone's intelligence. Fine, they won't have one on one conversations, but let's not pretend individual places are not the issue when they are telling us themselves it is.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
What's hilarious about this post is that you actually believe this.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
That only works if the negotiator has the authority to negotiate, to change positions. It doesn't work if they're stuck to a mandate.
The negotiators have some leeway but really not much. The mandate, though, is what it is, it's not going to change. It was confirmed yesterday, once again, and it will be the same tomorrow. It represents the common ground between the 27 and their diverging interests. It reflects the extent to which they can agree on the myriad of issues. It's a strategic concept, not a tactical one.
And, if it's that's inflexible, then a deal cannot be struck and it demonstrates perfectly the need for Britain to Leave so that she too isn't crippled in future by that rigidity.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
That only works if the negotiator has the authority to negotiate, to change positions. It doesn't work if they're stuck to a mandate.
The negotiators have some leeway but really not much. The mandate, though, is what it is, it's not going to change. It was confirmed yesterday, once again, and it will be the same tomorrow. It represents the common ground between the 27 and their diverging interests. It reflects the extent to which they can agree on the myriad of issues. It's a strategic concept, not a tactical one.
Yes, that's very well put. The attemptys to get round the negotiating team by talking to Merkel and Macron are just seen in the EU as a baffling misunderstanding of the process. They couldn't change the mandate at this point even if they wanted to, and the other members would be irritated if they tried, in the same way as Johnson would be if VDL tried to start a separate discussion with individual Cabinet Ministers.
I'm sure the negotiators on both sides have been given some room for maneouvre. But the fundamental difference of view that I described in the lead article the other day is not something that can be talked around. We can have a deal on the basis that it's offered, or we can decide not to. Insisting that it should be a completely different deal is just wasting everyone's time. It's like buying a car - you may be able to negotiate 10% off or get some free insurance thrown in by your Ford dealeer, but if you say you actually want a supertanker, you'll be told sorry, we aren't selling those.
And thiss is really not news. It was clear even before the referendum. The suggestion that a deal would be easy was either ignorance or deceit.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
Yes, but the point being the pretence it is not individual nations and individual concerns which hold things up. Yes they will stand together and that's only right, but that doesn't mean leader X or Y is not the problem that causes progress to stick and when it gets widely reported, likely as a result of leaks or official statements from those leaders, it is insulting to act as though they are not the ones who need persuading, following which the others will fall in line.
It's phoney choreography, as much as when the negotiators on both sides pretend after each talk they need to go back and ask for more instructions, as though none of them had ever considered what the other side might ask for, and that they don't have instructions on how to respond to most scenarios.
Unlike a WA, the Trade Agreement needs unanimity. Any of the 27 has the right to veto if they choose.
Brexiteers should be happy that small states cannot be over ruled by larger ones by QMV. It is one of their grievances concerning the EU.
The crazy thing is that seems to come as a surprise to some. We know (or at least most of us did) that the EU would be quite limited in what it could concede exactly because it is a trading block that has to satisfy the interests of all its members. It is a simple fact that it is not a single country and cannot negotiate like a single country.
Mind you, we're going to have plenty of opportunities to learn just how you do negotiate with a multi-member bloc in the future. Let's hope we can learn a little faster than we have done so far!
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
It's not nonsense. The EU derives its negotiating mandate from the EU27 in the European Council.
To say it's all magicked up by the Commission out of thin air, who are the only ones who matter, is laughable.
This is a political problem with domestic political audiences and it's quite right that political conversations at that level should have taken place.
They won't of course because of optics and obstinacy so now we'll get No Deal.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
Mail reporting it is now Merkel that is pissed with Boris and won't budge.
The UK doesn't have a single ally amongst the EU27, with relations with member states even worse than with the EU institutions, which are hired hands. The gunboat nonsense is trashing the UK's international reputation even more.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
What's hilarious about this post is that you actually believe this.
I see you find it incomprehensible that the EU27 mean what they say. I think it the obvious explanation of how things have developed.
Johnson negotiated directly with Varadker for the Withdrawal Agreement. From this we can conclude that (1) it is possible to negotiate directly with national leaders of EU member states, and, (2) the EU have no particular problem with this when they see it as relevant to the sticking point in the negotiation at the time.
If they're not willing to enter into such negotiations now then it's likely because they don't see the sticking point as being one that affects one country alone - so the collective negotiation is still the most logical.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
Yes, but the point being the pretence it is not individual nations and individual concerns which hold things up. Yes they will stand together and that's only right, but that doesn't mean leader X or Y is not the problem that causes progress to stick and when it gets widely reported, likely as a result of leaks or official statements from those leaders, it is insulting to act as though they are not the ones who need persuading, following which the others will fall in line.
It's phoney choreography, as much as when the negotiators on both sides pretend after each talk they need to go back and ask for more instructions, as though none of them had ever considered what the other side might ask for, and that they don't have instructions on how to respond to most scenarios.
Unlike a WA, the Trade Agreement needs unanimity. Any of the 27 has the right to veto if they choose.
Brexiteers should be happy that small states cannot be over ruled by larger ones by QMV. It is one of their grievances concerning the EU.
That's not strictly speaking true. It depends whether it's a mixed agreement of a pure "trade only" agreement.
Besides which it doesn't make much sense: you get all the constraints of a collective approach with that with none of the flexibility. It's just a massive everything or nothing.
If we were brokering trade deals bilaterally with each member state they'd all be done by now, except France and possibly Spain, and we'd all be better off.
That's about the first bit of even vague rumour or briefing in almost two days. Either they're running a very tight ship, as Boris johnson's new favourite phrase goes , or there's nothing in the box.
I don't think it's going to happen.
Both Macron and Boris (for it is they) both believe theu have more to gain from No Deal than lose.
I don't think it is Macron. It's the EU as a whole. They are agreed that breaching the single market rules isn't worth the candle of a deal with UK.
I think it is Macron. And I think it's all about the fish. And he wants (for domestic consumption) to score a big victory over the Brits.
I disagree with that view. I think 'the fish' is a sideshow. I think that the issue could have been settled already. Preferably in a comprehensive, trilateral agreement with Norway, now that they have conveniently announced a lockdown of their fishing grounds. I think that both sides have a political interest in keeping the fish on the table. It's something tangible, emotionally charged to capture the comprehension of the broad masses. The real issue, the mechanics of regulatory interaction, is just too dry and complex to deliver the catching soundbytes.
Johnson negotiated directly with Varadker for the Withdrawal Agreement. From this we can conclude that (1) it is possible to negotiate directly with national leaders of EU member states, and, (2) the EU have no particular problem with this when they see it as relevant to the sticking point in the negotiation at the time.
If they're not willing to enter into such negotiations now then it's likely because they don't see the sticking point as being one that affects one country alone - so the collective negotiation is still the most logical.
I don't see this being a big deal either way.
Irish interests were totally aligned with those of the EU for the WA.
They are not for the full FTA so the Irish will be hung out to dry.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
That only works if the negotiator has the authority to negotiate, to change positions. It doesn't work if they're stuck to a mandate.
The negotiators have some leeway but really not much. The mandate, though, is what it is, it's not going to change. It was confirmed yesterday, once again, and it will be the same tomorrow. It represents the common ground between the 27 and their diverging interests. It reflects the extent to which they can agree on the myriad of issues. It's a strategic concept, not a tactical one.
And, if it's that's inflexible, then a deal cannot be struck and it demonstrates perfectly the need for Britain to Leave so that she too isn't crippled in future by that rigidity.
Feels a bit like cutting your leg off to avoid the possibility of a sprained ankle to me.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
It's not nonsense. The EU derives its negotiating mandate from the EU27 in the European Council.
To say it's all magicked up by the Commission out of thin air, who are the only ones who matter, is laughable.
This is a political problem with domestic political audiences and it's quite right that political conversations at that level should have taken place.
They won't of course because of optics and obstinacy so now we'll get No Deal.
As I noted about a thousand comments upthread, the time to talk to Macron and/or Merkel was months ago, and would have been entirely realistic back then. The EU are being obstinate - but not half so obstinate as we have been. It is a pathetic failure of diplomacy on both sides, but the EU are not responsible to the UK electorate. Johnson is.
I have been reading Callum Douglas's The Secret Horsepower War, which covers aircraft engine development in Britain, Germany and The USA. It is an exceptional book, though the technical side can be hard going for a non engineer.
Do you mean the Sectet Horsepower Race? It hjas been duly noted, thank you.
One of the most interesting pieces I ever read on engineering was a discussion of riveting technology in the 1930s and 1940s - also very important in increasing speed at the time ...
While we are hacing a Saturday evening chat, this is also to be recommended for a slightly later generation, as quite a classic sui generis (though some chemical knowledge is useful): Ignition!: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants (Rutgers University Press Classics) by John Drury Clark
Ignition! A classic to make anyone smile. You don't need much chemistry to love the sense of humour...
"It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively"
“The Air Force, appalled, cut the program off after a year, belatedly realizing that they could have got the same structure from any experienced propellant man (me, for instance) during half an hour’s conversation, and at a total cost of five dollars or so. (For drinks. I would have been afraid even to draw the structure without at least five Martinis under my belt.)”
On the topic of ICE development...
For a long time I have wanted to get copies of LJK Setright's Some Unusual Engines and The Power to Fly.
These days secondhand copies sell for over £200 each - and I don't want them that much.
I should have just borrowed the copies at my grammar school library and 'forgotten' to return them.
PS thanks for the tip on The Secret Horsepower Race... now added to Mrs P. Christmas shopping list
If you game Abe, Ebay and Amazon marketplace (particularly look at World of Books) you can sometimes catch a book in a low cost window. Prices seem to be based on supply. I spent a long while getting Graham Robson's Fiat Sports Cars. The book normally retails used, for in excess of £50, I got one for less than £20. My biggest triumph was a book called "The English Pomona" for my wife, which was retailing for around £80. I got one (brand new) for around £8 from World of Books, for a few weeks work, the book is just in excess of a hundred now. It might take time, but it might work.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
What's hilarious about this post is that you actually believe this.
I see you find it incomprehensible that the EU27 mean what they say. I think it the obvious explanation of how things have developed.
It has to be someone else's fault. Brexit would have worked if it had not been for those pesky forriners and their running dogs....
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
What's hilarious about this post is that you actually believe this.
I see you find it incomprehensible that the EU27 mean what they say. I think it the obvious explanation of how things have developed.
The EU27 are deeply split but can only move if everyone agrees. Since France (and a few countries tentatively rowing in behind it on fish) does not they cannot.
You are either falling for the propaganda or being deliberately obtuse. Possibly both.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
Mail reporting it is now Merkel that is pissed with Boris and won't budge.
The UK doesn't have a single ally amongst the EU27, with relations with member states even worse than with the EU institutions, which are hired hands. The gunboat nonsense is trashing the UK's international reputation even more.
Yes it does. Ireland being the biggest in shouting for a Deal and many in central and eastern Europe too.
And ditch the gunboat crap - this is about the UK enforcing its own waters and the law as it quite rightly should in No Deal.
We wouldn't hear a peep of complaint from you if the EU had announced the same.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
Yes, but the point being the pretence it is not individual nations and individual concerns which hold things up. Yes they will stand together and that's only right, but that doesn't mean leader X or Y is not the problem that causes progress to stick and when it gets widely reported, likely as a result of leaks or official statements from those leaders, it is insulting to act as though they are not the ones who need persuading, following which the others will fall in line.
It's phoney choreography, as much as when the negotiators on both sides pretend after each talk they need to go back and ask for more instructions, as though none of them had ever considered what the other side might ask for, and that they don't have instructions on how to respond to most scenarios.
Unlike a WA, the Trade Agreement needs unanimity. Any of the 27 has the right to veto if they choose.
Brexiteers should be happy that small states cannot be over ruled by larger ones by QMV. It is one of their grievances concerning the EU.
That's not strictly speaking true. It depends whether it's a mixed agreement of a pure "trade only" agreement.
Besides which it doesn't make much sense: you get all the constraints of a collective approach with that with none of the flexibility. It's just a massive everything or nothing.
If we were brokering trade deals bilaterally with each member state they'd all be done by now, except France and possibly Spain, and we'd all be better off.
Once again you display your lack of understanding of what being in a union means.
You may not like our counterparts red lines and procedures, but that is what they are. When playing football you do not get to choose the opposition team and tactics.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
What's hilarious about this post is that you actually believe this.
I see you find it incomprehensible that the EU27 mean what they say. I think it the obvious explanation of how things have developed.
The EU27 are deeply split but can only move if everyone agrees. Since France (and a few countries tentatively rowing in behind it on fish) does not they cannot.
You are either falling for the propaganda or being deliberately obtuse. Possibly both.
What makes you think that the EU are deeply split on Brexit?
That's about the first bit of even vague rumour or briefing in almost two days. Either they're running a very tight ship, as Boris johnson's new favourite phrase goes , or there's nothing in the box.
I don't think it's going to happen.
Both Macron and Boris (for it is they) both believe theu have more to gain from No Deal than lose.
I don't think it is Macron. It's the EU as a whole. They are agreed that breaching the single market rules isn't worth the candle of a deal with UK.
I think it is Macron. And I think it's all about the fish. And he wants (for domestic consumption) to score a big victory over the Brits.
I disagree with that view. I think 'the fish' is a sideshow. I think that the issue could have been settled already. Preferably in a comprehensive, trilateral agreement with Norway, now that they have conveniently announced a lockdown of their fishing grounds. I think that both sides have a political interest in keeping the fish on the table. It's something tangible, emotionally charged to capture the comprehension of the broad masses. The real issue, the mechanics of regulatory interaction, is just too dry and complex to deliver the catching soundbytes.
Keeping the fish on the table isn't going to be the problem... getting the fish to the table is though.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
What's hilarious about this post is that you actually believe this.
I see you find it incomprehensible that the EU27 mean what they say. I think it the obvious explanation of how things have developed.
The EU27 are deeply split but can only move if everyone agrees. Since France (and a few countries tentatively rowing in behind it on fish) does not they cannot.
You are either falling for the propaganda or being deliberately obtuse. Possibly both.
The EU are split on lots of things, but actually Brexit isn't really one of them.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
That only works if the negotiator has the authority to negotiate, to change positions. It doesn't work if they're stuck to a mandate.
The negotiators have some leeway but really not much. The mandate, though, is what it is, it's not going to change. It was confirmed yesterday, once again, and it will be the same tomorrow. It represents the common ground between the 27 and their diverging interests. It reflects the extent to which they can agree on the myriad of issues. It's a strategic concept, not a tactical one.
Yes, that's very well put. The attemptys to get round the negotiating team by talking to Merkel and Macron are just seen in the EU as a baffling misunderstanding of the process. They couldn't change the mandate at this point even if they wanted to, and the other members would be irritated if they tried, in the same way as Johnson would be if VDL tried to start a separate discussion with individual Cabinet Ministers.
I'm sure the negotiators on both sides have been given some room for maneouvre. But the fundamental difference of view that I described in the lead article the other day is not something that can be talked around. We can have a deal on the basis that it's offered, or we can decide not to. Insisting that it should be a completely different deal is just wasting everyone's time. It's like buying a car - you may be able to negotiate 10% off or get some free insurance thrown in by your Ford dealeer, but if you say you actually want a supertanker, you'll be told sorry, we aren't selling those.
And thiss is really not news. It was clear even before the referendum. The suggestion that a deal would be easy was either ignorance or deceit.
This is such bollocks. Macron and Johnson can't talk to each other about a bilateral political problem that only they can unlock where an intermediary has got nowhere?
Give me a break. I'm tired of these technocratic excuses.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
Yes, but the point being the pretence it is not individual nations and individual concerns which hold things up. Yes they will stand together and that's only right, but that doesn't mean leader X or Y is not the problem that causes progress to stick and when it gets widely reported, likely as a result of leaks or official statements from those leaders, it is insulting to act as though they are not the ones who need persuading, following which the others will fall in line.
It's phoney choreography, as much as when the negotiators on both sides pretend after each talk they need to go back and ask for more instructions, as though none of them had ever considered what the other side might ask for, and that they don't have instructions on how to respond to most scenarios.
Unlike a WA, the Trade Agreement needs unanimity. Any of the 27 has the right to veto if they choose.
Brexiteers should be happy that small states cannot be over ruled by larger ones by QMV. It is one of their grievances concerning the EU.
That's not strictly speaking true. It depends whether it's a mixed agreement of a pure "trade only" agreement.
Besides which it doesn't make much sense: you get all the constraints of a collective approach with that with none of the flexibility. It's just a massive everything or nothing.
If we were brokering trade deals bilaterally with each member state they'd all be done by now, except France and possibly Spain, and we'd all be better off.
Once again you display your lack of understanding of what being in a union means.
You may not like our counterparts red lines and procedures, but that is what they are. When playing football you do not get to choose the opposition team and tactics.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
What's hilarious about this post is that you actually believe this.
I see you find it incomprehensible that the EU27 mean what they say. I think it the obvious explanation of how things have developed.
The EU27 are deeply split but can only move if everyone agrees. Since France (and a few countries tentatively rowing in behind it on fish) does not they cannot.
You are either falling for the propaganda or being deliberately obtuse. Possibly both.
The EU are split on lots of things, but actually Brexit isn't really one of them.
Yes they are. And their pathetic attempts to paper over the cracks isn't fooling anyone except those who want to be fooled.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
What's hilarious about this post is that you actually believe this.
I see you find it incomprehensible that the EU27 mean what they say. I think it the obvious explanation of how things have developed.
It has to be someone else's fault. Brexit would have worked if it had not been for those pesky forriners and their running dogs....
Brexit will still most definitely work - in the sense of getting us unentwined from a group of countries with whom we clearly have little in common once we stop showering them with money.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
It's not nonsense. The EU derives its negotiating mandate from the EU27 in the European Council.
To say it's all magicked up by the Commission out of thin air, who are the only ones who matter, is laughable.
This is a political problem with domestic political audiences and it's quite right that political conversations at that level should have taken place.
They won't of course because of optics and obstinacy so now we'll get No Deal.
The UK government definitely should aim to sell member states on the benefits of a deal. These member states collectively direct the European Council and Commission. Problems:
The UK has left it too late if it's only starting now.
The UK needs to offer something that is interesting to the member state in exchange for them agreeing stuff for the UK, eg more fish for France. Each member state will want its own pound of flesh. UK negotiators seem to have no curiosity about what member states want
The UK government has seriously pissed off the member states by its untrustworthy behaviour.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
It's not nonsense. The EU derives its negotiating mandate from the EU27 in the European Council.
To say it's all magicked up by the Commission out of thin air, who are the only ones who matter, is laughable.
This is a political problem with domestic political audiences and it's quite right that political conversations at that level should have taken place.
They won't of course because of optics and obstinacy so now we'll get No Deal.
Your first two sentences are correct. The mandate is given by the Council, not magicked up by the Commision. The last time that happened was 36 hours ago. And then the Commision conducts the negotiations, as mandated. And that's it. End of story. Anything else is projection or deflection.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
What's hilarious about this post is that you actually believe this.
I see you find it incomprehensible that the EU27 mean what they say. I think it the obvious explanation of how things have developed.
The EU27 are deeply split but can only move if everyone agrees. Since France (and a few countries tentatively rowing in behind it on fish) does not they cannot.
You are either falling for the propaganda or being deliberately obtuse. Possibly both.
I don't think they are split at all, or at least not in any consequential way. As @matthiasfromhamburg points out, at the EU summit they reconfirmed their position. It seems to have been a quite upbeat meeting of Heads of State, with agreement on Budget and many other things.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
Yet when they talk to the EU we're told they should be talking to Macron and Merkel.
By a remarkable coincidence the people saying we're talking to the wrong people usually seem to be hostile to the government.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
Yes, but the point being the pretence it is not individual nations and individual concerns which hold things up. Yes they will stand together and that's only right, but that doesn't mean leader X or Y is not the problem that causes progress to stick and when it gets widely reported, likely as a result of leaks or official statements from those leaders, it is insulting to act as though they are not the ones who need persuading, following which the others will fall in line.
It's phoney choreography, as much as when the negotiators on both sides pretend after each talk they need to go back and ask for more instructions, as though none of them had ever considered what the other side might ask for, and that they don't have instructions on how to respond to most scenarios.
Unlike a WA, the Trade Agreement needs unanimity. Any of the 27 has the right to veto if they choose.
Brexiteers should be happy that small states cannot be over ruled by larger ones by QMV. It is one of their grievances concerning the EU.
That's not strictly speaking true. It depends whether it's a mixed agreement of a pure "trade only" agreement.
Besides which it doesn't make much sense: you get all the constraints of a collective approach with that with none of the flexibility. It's just a massive everything or nothing.
If we were brokering trade deals bilaterally with each member state they'd all be done by now, except France and possibly Spain, and we'd all be better off.
Once again you display your lack of understanding of what being in a union means.
You may not like our counterparts red lines and procedures, but that is what they are. When playing football you do not get to choose the opposition team and tactics.
I know more about it than you ever will.
Idiot.
You are thrashing around with all the coherence of somebody seeing their beloved project turn to utter shite.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
What's hilarious about this post is that you actually believe this.
I see you find it incomprehensible that the EU27 mean what they say. I think it the obvious explanation of how things have developed.
The EU27 are deeply split but can only move if everyone agrees. Since France (and a few countries tentatively rowing in behind it on fish) does not they cannot.
You are either falling for the propaganda or being deliberately obtuse. Possibly both.
What makes you think that the EU are deeply split on Brexit?
Err.. all the fucking reports from multiple sources of Germany, Sweden, Austria and the central and eastern European states wanting a deal but with France and the fishing states going hard-line. That's a MASSIVE SPLIT.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
Yes, but the point being the pretence it is not individual nations and individual concerns which hold things up. Yes they will stand together and that's only right, but that doesn't mean leader X or Y is not the problem that causes progress to stick and when it gets widely reported, likely as a result of leaks or official statements from those leaders, it is insulting to act as though they are not the ones who need persuading, following which the others will fall in line.
It's phoney choreography, as much as when the negotiators on both sides pretend after each talk they need to go back and ask for more instructions, as though none of them had ever considered what the other side might ask for, and that they don't have instructions on how to respond to most scenarios.
Unlike a WA, the Trade Agreement needs unanimity. Any of the 27 has the right to veto if they choose.
Brexiteers should be happy that small states cannot be over ruled by larger ones by QMV. It is one of their grievances concerning the EU.
That's not strictly speaking true. It depends whether it's a mixed agreement of a pure "trade only" agreement.
Besides which it doesn't make much sense: you get all the constraints of a collective approach with that with none of the flexibility. It's just a massive everything or nothing.
If we were brokering trade deals bilaterally with each member state they'd all be done by now, except France and possibly Spain, and we'd all be better off.
Once again you display your lack of understanding of what being in a union means.
You may not like our counterparts red lines and procedures, but that is what they are. When playing football you do not get to choose the opposition team and tactics.
I know more about it than you ever will.
Idiot.
You are thrashing around with all the coherence of somebody seeing their beloved project turn to utter shite.
Nah. I'm smarter and savvier than all of you as I've demonstrated on here tonight and for days.
I have been reading Callum Douglas's The Secret Horsepower War, which covers aircraft engine development in Britain, Germany and The USA. It is an exceptional book, though the technical side can be hard going for a non engineer.
Do you mean the Sectet Horsepower Race? It hjas been duly noted, thank you.
One of the most interesting pieces I ever read on engineering was a discussion of riveting technology in the 1930s and 1940s - also very important in increasing speed at the time ...
While we are hacing a Saturday evening chat, this is also to be recommended for a slightly later generation, as quite a classic sui generis (though some chemical knowledge is useful): Ignition!: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants (Rutgers University Press Classics) by John Drury Clark
Ignition! A classic to make anyone smile. You don't need much chemistry to love the sense of humour...
"It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively"
“The Air Force, appalled, cut the program off after a year, belatedly realizing that they could have got the same structure from any experienced propellant man (me, for instance) during half an hour’s conversation, and at a total cost of five dollars or so. (For drinks. I would have been afraid even to draw the structure without at least five Martinis under my belt.)”
On the topic of ICE development...
For a long time I have wanted to get copies of LJK Setright's Some Unusual Engines and The Power to Fly.
These days secondhand copies sell for over £200 each - and I don't want them that much.
I should have just borrowed the copies at my grammar school library and 'forgotten' to return them.
PS thanks for the tip on The Secret Horsepower Race... now added to Mrs P. Christmas shopping list
If you game Abe, Ebay and Amazon marketplace (particularly look at World of Books) you can sometimes catch a book in a low cost window. Prices seem to be based on supply. I spent a long while getting Graham Robson's Fiat Sports Cars. The book normally retails used, for in excess of £50, I got one for less than £20. My biggest triumph was a book called "The English Pomona" for my wife, which was retailing for around £80. I got one (brand new) for around £8 from World of Books, for a few weeks work, the book is just in excess of a hundred now. It might take time, but it might work.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
Yes, but the point being the pretence it is not individual nations and individual concerns which hold things up. Yes they will stand together and that's only right, but that doesn't mean leader X or Y is not the problem that causes progress to stick and when it gets widely reported, likely as a result of leaks or official statements from those leaders, it is insulting to act as though they are not the ones who need persuading, following which the others will fall in line.
It's phoney choreography, as much as when the negotiators on both sides pretend after each talk they need to go back and ask for more instructions, as though none of them had ever considered what the other side might ask for, and that they don't have instructions on how to respond to most scenarios.
Unlike a WA, the Trade Agreement needs unanimity. Any of the 27 has the right to veto if they choose.
Brexiteers should be happy that small states cannot be over ruled by larger ones by QMV. It is one of their grievances concerning the EU.
That's not strictly speaking true. It depends whether it's a mixed agreement of a pure "trade only" agreement.
Besides which it doesn't make much sense: you get all the constraints of a collective approach with that with none of the flexibility. It's just a massive everything or nothing.
If we were brokering trade deals bilaterally with each member state they'd all be done by now, except France and possibly Spain, and we'd all be better off.
Once again you display your lack of understanding of what being in a union means.
You may not like our counterparts red lines and procedures, but that is what they are. When playing football you do not get to choose the opposition team and tactics.
I know more about it than you ever will.
Idiot.
I think you are wrong on this, as you have been on many other things. Not an idiot, just wrong, because you lack the ability to understand EU procedures.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
Yes, but the point being the pretence it is not individual nations and individual concerns which hold things up. Yes they will stand together and that's only right, but that doesn't mean leader X or Y is not the problem that causes progress to stick and when it gets widely reported, likely as a result of leaks or official statements from those leaders, it is insulting to act as though they are not the ones who need persuading, following which the others will fall in line.
It's phoney choreography, as much as when the negotiators on both sides pretend after each talk they need to go back and ask for more instructions, as though none of them had ever considered what the other side might ask for, and that they don't have instructions on how to respond to most scenarios.
Unlike a WA, the Trade Agreement needs unanimity. Any of the 27 has the right to veto if they choose.
Brexiteers should be happy that small states cannot be over ruled by larger ones by QMV. It is one of their grievances concerning the EU.
That's not strictly speaking true. It depends whether it's a mixed agreement of a pure "trade only" agreement.
Besides which it doesn't make much sense: you get all the constraints of a collective approach with that with none of the flexibility. It's just a massive everything or nothing.
If we were brokering trade deals bilaterally with each member state they'd all be done by now, except France and possibly Spain, and we'd all be better off.
Once again you display your lack of understanding of what being in a union means.
You may not like our counterparts red lines and procedures, but that is what they are. When playing football you do not get to choose the opposition team and tactics.
I know more about it than you ever will.
Idiot.
You are thrashing around with all the coherence of somebody seeing their beloved project turn to utter shite.
Nah. I'm smarter and savvier than all of you as I've demonstrated on here tonight and for days.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
Mail reporting it is now Merkel that is pissed with Boris and won't budge.
The UK doesn't have a single ally amongst the EU27, with relations with member states even worse than with the EU institutions, which are hired hands. The gunboat nonsense is trashing the UK's international reputation even more.
Yes it does. Ireland being the biggest in shouting for a Deal and many in central and eastern Europe too.
And ditch the gunboat crap - this is about the UK enforcing its own waters and the law as it quite rightly should in No Deal.
We wouldn't hear a peep of complaint from you if the EU had announced the same.
It hasn't and they haven't. The difference between what people do and they might theoretically do is important. I concede the Irish are concerned although I note the stories about Irish panic are mainly coming from the UK government spin machine via the usual papers and not from the Irish press.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
It's not nonsense. The EU derives its negotiating mandate from the EU27 in the European Council.
To say it's all magicked up by the Commission out of thin air, who are the only ones who matter, is laughable.
This is a political problem with domestic political audiences and it's quite right that political conversations at that level should have taken place.
They won't of course because of optics and obstinacy so now we'll get No Deal.
Your first two sentences are correct. The mandate is given by the Council, not magicked up by the Commision. The last time that happened was 36 hours ago. And then the Commision conducts the negotiations, as mandated. And that's it. End of story. Anything else is projection or deflection.
All of my post is correct. The due process crap is just pompous inflexibility from a SHIT organisation that is now going to real the fruits of No Deal due to its arrogance and inflexibilty.
Let me be clear: you lose me as a moderate Leaver from 1st Jan 2021. I go ultra hard-line from then on and will brook no compromise thereafter.
Save this post. Look back on it in years to come when you try and understand the disaster that befell you.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
Yet when they talk to the EU we're told they should be talking to Macron and Merkel.
By a remarkable coincidence the people saying we're talking to the wrong people usually seem to be hostile to the government.
Who, apart from Brexiteers, on here has said we should be taking to Macron or Merkel?
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
What's hilarious about this post is that you actually believe this.
I see you find it incomprehensible that the EU27 mean what they say. I think it the obvious explanation of how things have developed.
The EU27 are deeply split but can only move if everyone agrees. Since France (and a few countries tentatively rowing in behind it on fish) does not they cannot.
You are either falling for the propaganda or being deliberately obtuse. Possibly both.
What makes you think that the EU are deeply split on Brexit?
Err.. all the fucking reports from multiple sources of Germany, Sweden, Austria and the central and eastern European states wanting a deal but with France and the fishing states going hard-line. That's a MASSIVE SPLIT.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
It's not nonsense. The EU derives its negotiating mandate from the EU27 in the European Council.
To say it's all magicked up by the Commission out of thin air, who are the only ones who matter, is laughable.
This is a political problem with domestic political audiences and it's quite right that political conversations at that level should have taken place.
They won't of course because of optics and obstinacy so now we'll get No Deal.
The UK government definitely should aim to sell member states on the benefits of a deal. These member states collectively direct the European Council and Commission. Problems:
The UK has left it too late if it's only starting now.
The UK needs to offer something that is interesting to the member state in exchange for them agreeing stuff for the UK, eg more fish for France. Each member state will want its own pound of flesh. UK negotiators seem to have no curiosity about what member states want
The UK government has seriously pissed off the member states by its untrustworthy behaviour.
It's hard to disagree with much of that.
We will see. There will certainly be lots of bilateral chats coming up.
Yes, but the point being the pretence it is not individual nations and individual concerns which hold things up. Yes they will stand together and that's only right, but that doesn't mean leader X or Y is not the problem that causes progress to stick and when it gets widely reported, likely as a result of leaks or official statements from those leaders, it is insulting to act as though they are not the ones who need persuading, following which the others will fall in line.
It's phoney choreography, as much as when the negotiators on both sides pretend after each talk they need to go back and ask for more instructions, as though none of them had ever considered what the other side might ask for, and that they don't have instructions on how to respond to most scenarios.
Unlike a WA, the Trade Agreement needs unanimity. Any of the 27 has the right to veto if they choose.
Brexiteers should be happy that small states cannot be over ruled by larger ones by QMV. It is one of their grievances concerning the EU.
That's not strictly speaking true. It depends whether it's a mixed agreement of a pure "trade only" agreement.
Besides which it doesn't make much sense: you get all the constraints of a collective approach with that with none of the flexibility. It's just a massive everything or nothing.
If we were brokering trade deals bilaterally with each member state they'd all be done by now, except France and possibly Spain, and we'd all be better off.
Once again you display your lack of understanding of what being in a union means.
You may not like our counterparts red lines and procedures, but that is what they are. When playing football you do not get to choose the opposition team and tactics.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
What's hilarious about this post is that you actually believe this.
I see you find it incomprehensible that the EU27 mean what they say. I think it the obvious explanation of how things have developed.
The EU27 are deeply split but can only move if everyone agrees. Since France (and a few countries tentatively rowing in behind it on fish) does not they cannot.
You are either falling for the propaganda or being deliberately obtuse. Possibly both.
What makes you think that the EU are deeply split on Brexit?
Err.. all the fucking reports from multiple sources of Germany, Sweden, Austria and the central and eastern European states wanting a deal but with France and the fishing states going hard-line. That's a MASSIVE SPLIT.
Are Remainers really this fucking stupid?
You are wasting my time.
All the members want a deal. That goes without saying. However, none of them, as far as I can see, have said that the EU should accept what the UK is currently offering. You're seeing things that aren't there, perhaps because of your current tired and emotional state. Sleep well.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
That only works if the negotiator has the authority to negotiate, to change positions. It doesn't work if they're stuck to a mandate.
The negotiators have some leeway but really not much. The mandate, though, is what it is, it's not going to change. It was confirmed yesterday, once again, and it will be the same tomorrow. It represents the common ground between the 27 and their diverging interests. It reflects the extent to which they can agree on the myriad of issues. It's a strategic concept, not a tactical one.
Yes, that's very well put. The attemptys to get round the negotiating team by talking to Merkel and Macron are just seen in the EU as a baffling misunderstanding of the process. They couldn't change the mandate at this point even if they wanted to, and the other members would be irritated if they tried, in the same way as Johnson would be if VDL tried to start a separate discussion with individual Cabinet Ministers.
I'm sure the negotiators on both sides have been given some room for maneouvre. But the fundamental difference of view that I described in the lead article the other day is not something that can be talked around. We can have a deal on the basis that it's offered, or we can decide not to. Insisting that it should be a completely different deal is just wasting everyone's time. It's like buying a car - you may be able to negotiate 10% off or get some free insurance thrown in by your Ford dealeer, but if you say you actually want a supertanker, you'll be told sorry, we aren't selling those.
And thiss is really not news. It was clear even before the referendum. The suggestion that a deal would be easy was either ignorance or deceit.
This is such bollocks. Macron and Johnson can't talk to each other about a bilateral political problem that only they can unlock where an intermediary has got nowhere?
Give me a break. I'm tired of these technocratic excuses.
You think fishing rights are a "bilateral political problem"? Ask the Dutch, Belgians, Spanish, Danish and Germans how they think about that.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
That only works if the negotiator has the authority to negotiate, to change positions. It doesn't work if they're stuck to a mandate.
The negotiators have some leeway but really not much. The mandate, though, is what it is, it's not going to change. It was confirmed yesterday, once again, and it will be the same tomorrow. It represents the common ground between the 27 and their diverging interests. It reflects the extent to which they can agree on the myriad of issues. It's a strategic concept, not a tactical one.
Yes, that's very well put. The attemptys to get round the negotiating team by talking to Merkel and Macron are just seen in the EU as a baffling misunderstanding of the process. They couldn't change the mandate at this point even if they wanted to, and the other members would be irritated if they tried, in the same way as Johnson would be if VDL tried to start a separate discussion with individual Cabinet Ministers.
I'm sure the negotiators on both sides have been given some room for maneouvre. But the fundamental difference of view that I described in the lead article the other day is not something that can be talked around. We can have a deal on the basis that it's offered, or we can decide not to. Insisting that it should be a completely different deal is just wasting everyone's time. It's like buying a car - you may be able to negotiate 10% off or get some free insurance thrown in by your Ford dealeer, but if you say you actually want a supertanker, you'll be told sorry, we aren't selling those.
And thiss is really not news. It was clear even before the referendum. The suggestion that a deal would be easy was either ignorance or deceit.
This is such bollocks. Macron and Johnson can't talk to each other about a bilateral political problem that only they can unlock where an intermediary has got nowhere?
Give me a break. I'm tired of these technocratic excuses.
You think fishing rights are a "bilateral political problem"? Ask the Dutch, Belgians, Spanish, Danish and Germans how they think about that.
Germans don't give a shit.
Rest led by France and would have compromised earlier were it not for Macron.
You are now getting NONE of our fish. Enjoy unemployment or being arrested.
California is a centre of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do politicians:
California Governor Gavin Newsom last month apologised after he was caught dining with lobbyists and members of the California Medical Association, all without masks, at a crowded table for 12 in a swanky restaurant in Napa Valley.
He initially claimed the meal at the Michelin-starred French Laundry, where some prix fixe plates go for $450 per person, took place outdoors. But photos emerged showing the space had a roof, three walls and another wall with sliding glass doors.
This week Mr Newsom warned he was considering "dramatic, arguably drastic" stay-at-home orders to tackle surging coronavirus caseload in the state.
It has since emerged that one night after Mr Newsom dined at the French Laundry, San Francisco Mayor London Breed attended a birthday party for a socialite at the same restaurant.
The meal took place as Ms Breed was urging residents to stay at home and avoid socialising, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
In other recent cases involving Democrats:
On Tuesday, the mayor of San Jose, California, Sam Liccardo, apologised for attending a Thanksgiving dinner with family members from five households - more than state regulations allowed
A delegation of California lawmakers jetted off to a resort in Maui, Hawaii, for a conference with lobbyists as state residents were being instructed to avoid nonessential travel
California Senator Dianne Feinstein - who has called for congressional coronavirus aid to be made conditional on states imposing mask mandates - was photographed at the US Capitol and at an airport without any face-covering
US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, also of California, was pictured without a mask inside a hair salon, breaking rules that only allow service outdoors, but she refused to apologise
Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl dined outdoors at her favourite restaurant — shortly after voting to uphold a ban on outdoor dining, which she said endangered serving staff
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
It's not nonsense. The EU derives its negotiating mandate from the EU27 in the European Council.
To say it's all magicked up by the Commission out of thin air, who are the only ones who matter, is laughable.
This is a political problem with domestic political audiences and it's quite right that political conversations at that level should have taken place.
They won't of course because of optics and obstinacy so now we'll get No Deal.
Your first two sentences are correct. The mandate is given by the Council, not magicked up by the Commision. The last time that happened was 36 hours ago. And then the Commision conducts the negotiations, as mandated. And that's it. End of story. Anything else is projection or deflection.
All of my post is correct. The due process crap is just pompous inflexibility from a SHIT organisation that is now going to real the fruits of No Deal due to its arrogance and inflexibilty.
Let me be clear: you lose me as a moderate Leaver from 1st Jan 2021. I go ultra hard-line from then on and will brook no compromise thereafter.
Save this post. Look back on it in years to come when you try and understand the disaster that befell you.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
Yes, but the point being the pretence it is not individual nations and individual concerns which hold things up. Yes they will stand together and that's only right, but that doesn't mean leader X or Y is not the problem that causes progress to stick and when it gets widely reported, likely as a result of leaks or official statements from those leaders, it is insulting to act as though they are not the ones who need persuading, following which the others will fall in line.
It's phoney choreography, as much as when the negotiators on both sides pretend after each talk they need to go back and ask for more instructions, as though none of them had ever considered what the other side might ask for, and that they don't have instructions on how to respond to most scenarios.
Unlike a WA, the Trade Agreement needs unanimity. Any of the 27 has the right to veto if they choose.
Brexiteers should be happy that small states cannot be over ruled by larger ones by QMV. It is one of their grievances concerning the EU.
That's not strictly speaking true. It depends whether it's a mixed agreement of a pure "trade only" agreement.
Besides which it doesn't make much sense: you get all the constraints of a collective approach with that with none of the flexibility. It's just a massive everything or nothing.
If we were brokering trade deals bilaterally with each member state they'd all be done by now, except France and possibly Spain, and we'd all be better off.
Once again you display your lack of understanding of what being in a union means.
You may not like our counterparts red lines and procedures, but that is what they are. When playing football you do not get to choose the opposition team and tactics.
I know more about it than you ever will.
Idiot.
You are thrashing around with all the coherence of somebody seeing their beloved project turn to utter shite.
Nah. I'm smarter and savvier than all of you as I've demonstrated on here tonight and for days.
Moron.
Channelling your inner Trump now.
Fact. And I hate Trump. Come up with a better analogy or insights or don't reply to my posts.
Johnson negotiated directly with Varadker for the Withdrawal Agreement. From this we can conclude that (1) it is possible to negotiate directly with national leaders of EU member states, and, (2) the EU have no particular problem with this when they see it as relevant to the sticking point in the negotiation at the time.
If they're not willing to enter into such negotiations now then it's likely because they don't see the sticking point as being one that affects one country alone - so the collective negotiation is still the most logical.
I don't see this being a big deal either way.
Irish interests were totally aligned with those of the EU for the WA.
They are not for the full FTA so the Irish will be hung out to dry.
It's certainly the case that Ireland have most to lose from no deal. There was a lot of self-congratulation in Ireland on the strength of their diplomacy when the withdrawal agreement was being negotiated.
They might be left feeling a bit Greek in January.
But still, I think my point stands. The EU will do bilateral negotiations if they want to. And if they don't then there'd be no point in them anyway. There's no advantage to the UK in negotiating directly with Merkel if there's no particular point on which to negotiate with Germany.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
Yes, but the point being the pretence it is not individual nations and individual concerns which hold things up. Yes they will stand together and that's only right, but that doesn't mean leader X or Y is not the problem that causes progress to stick and when it gets widely reported, likely as a result of leaks or official statements from those leaders, it is insulting to act as though they are not the ones who need persuading, following which the others will fall in line.
It's phoney choreography, as much as when the negotiators on both sides pretend after each talk they need to go back and ask for more instructions, as though none of them had ever considered what the other side might ask for, and that they don't have instructions on how to respond to most scenarios.
Unlike a WA, the Trade Agreement needs unanimity. Any of the 27 has the right to veto if they choose.
Brexiteers should be happy that small states cannot be over ruled by larger ones by QMV. It is one of their grievances concerning the EU.
That's not strictly speaking true. It depends whether it's a mixed agreement of a pure "trade only" agreement.
Besides which it doesn't make much sense: you get all the constraints of a collective approach with that with none of the flexibility. It's just a massive everything or nothing.
If we were brokering trade deals bilaterally with each member state they'd all be done by now, except France and possibly Spain, and we'd all be better off.
Once again you display your lack of understanding of what being in a union means.
You may not like our counterparts red lines and procedures, but that is what they are. When playing football you do not get to choose the opposition team and tactics.
I know more about it than you ever will.
Idiot.
I think you are wrong on this, as you have been on many other things. Not an idiot, just wrong, because you lack the ability to understand EU procedures.
So UK taxpayers will have to stump up to mitigate the damage done by no deal .
I didn’t see that on the side of the bus ! And now we’re going to have months of more EU hate to try and deflect any blame for this no deal and turn Bozo into a martyr .
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
That only works if the negotiator has the authority to negotiate, to change positions. It doesn't work if they're stuck to a mandate.
The negotiators have some leeway but really not much. The mandate, though, is what it is, it's not going to change. It was confirmed yesterday, once again, and it will be the same tomorrow. It represents the common ground between the 27 and their diverging interests. It reflects the extent to which they can agree on the myriad of issues. It's a strategic concept, not a tactical one.
Yes, that's very well put. The attemptys to get round the negotiating team by talking to Merkel and Macron are just seen in the EU as a baffling misunderstanding of the process. They couldn't change the mandate at this point even if they wanted to, and the other members would be irritated if they tried, in the same way as Johnson would be if VDL tried to start a separate discussion with individual Cabinet Ministers.
I'm sure the negotiators on both sides have been given some room for maneouvre. But the fundamental difference of view that I described in the lead article the other day is not something that can be talked around. We can have a deal on the basis that it's offered, or we can decide not to. Insisting that it should be a completely different deal is just wasting everyone's time. It's like buying a car - you may be able to negotiate 10% off or get some free insurance thrown in by your Ford dealeer, but if you say you actually want a supertanker, you'll be told sorry, we aren't selling those.
And thiss is really not news. It was clear even before the referendum. The suggestion that a deal would be easy was either ignorance or deceit.
This is such bollocks. Macron and Johnson can't talk to each other about a bilateral political problem that only they can unlock where an intermediary has got nowhere?
Give me a break. I'm tired of these technocratic excuses.
You think fishing rights are a "bilateral political problem"? Ask the Dutch, Belgians, Spanish, Danish and Germans how they think about that.
Germans don't give a shit.
Rest led by France and would have compromised earlier were it not for Macron.
You are now getting NONE of our fish. Enjoy unemployment or being arrested.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
That only works if the negotiator has the authority to negotiate, to change positions. It doesn't work if they're stuck to a mandate.
The negotiators have some leeway but really not much. The mandate, though, is what it is, it's not going to change. It was confirmed yesterday, once again, and it will be the same tomorrow. It represents the common ground between the 27 and their diverging interests. It reflects the extent to which they can agree on the myriad of issues. It's a strategic concept, not a tactical one.
Yes, that's very well put. The attemptys to get round the negotiating team by talking to Merkel and Macron are just seen in the EU as a baffling misunderstanding of the process. They couldn't change the mandate at this point even if they wanted to, and the other members would be irritated if they tried, in the same way as Johnson would be if VDL tried to start a separate discussion with individual Cabinet Ministers.
I'm sure the negotiators on both sides have been given some room for maneouvre. But the fundamental difference of view that I described in the lead article the other day is not something that can be talked around. We can have a deal on the basis that it's offered, or we can decide not to. Insisting that it should be a completely different deal is just wasting everyone's time. It's like buying a car - you may be able to negotiate 10% off or get some free insurance thrown in by your Ford dealeer, but if you say you actually want a supertanker, you'll be told sorry, we aren't selling those.
And thiss is really not news. It was clear even before the referendum. The suggestion that a deal would be easy was either ignorance or deceit.
This is such bollocks. Macron and Johnson can't talk to each other about a bilateral political problem that only they can unlock where an intermediary has got nowhere?
Give me a break. I'm tired of these technocratic excuses.
You think fishing rights are a "bilateral political problem"? Ask the Dutch, Belgians, Spanish, Danish and Germans how they think about that.
Germans don't give a shit.
Rest led by France and would have compromised earlier were it not for Macron.
You are now getting NONE of our fish. Enjoy unemployment or being arrested.
Chill out man.
Just because you misunderstood the negotiations, and had your bluff called, there is no need to blow a gasket.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
It's not nonsense. The EU derives its negotiating mandate from the EU27 in the European Council.
To say it's all magicked up by the Commission out of thin air, who are the only ones who matter, is laughable.
This is a political problem with domestic political audiences and it's quite right that political conversations at that level should have taken place.
They won't of course because of optics and obstinacy so now we'll get No Deal.
Your first two sentences are correct. The mandate is given by the Council, not magicked up by the Commision. The last time that happened was 36 hours ago. And then the Commision conducts the negotiations, as mandated. And that's it. End of story. Anything else is projection or deflection.
All of my post is correct. The due process crap is just pompous inflexibility from a SHIT organisation that is now going to real the fruits of No Deal due to its arrogance and inflexibilty.
Let me be clear: you lose me as a moderate Leaver from 1st Jan 2021. I go ultra hard-line from then on and will brook no compromise thereafter.
Save this post. Look back on it in years to come when you try and understand the disaster that befell you.
To the last I grapple with thee. From hell's heart I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
The UK needs to offer something that is interesting to the member state in exchange for them agreeing stuff for the UK, eg more fish for France. Each member state will want its own pound of flesh. UK negotiators seem to have no curiosity about what member states want
I know there's a theoretical approach of playing member states off against each other (assuming they were dumb enough to let you do that) but in practice I can't see that things would have gone any more smoothly if the British had managed to replace one contentious negotiation with 27-factorial contentious negotiations.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
What's hilarious about this post is that you actually believe this.
I see you find it incomprehensible that the EU27 mean what they say. I think it the obvious explanation of how things have developed.
The EU27 are deeply split but can only move if everyone agrees. Since France (and a few countries tentatively rowing in behind it on fish) does not they cannot.
You are either falling for the propaganda or being deliberately obtuse. Possibly both.
The EU are split on lots of things, but actually Brexit isn't really one of them.
Yes they are. And their pathetic attempts to paper over the cracks isn't fooling anyone except those who want to be fooled.
No they're really not. I follow EU politics and the Brexit debate in quite a lot of detail for work and benefit from talking to people who are very well informed. Of course there are some differences in emphasis and approach, with the French taking a more hardline position and the Irish most desperate to compromise. But compared to the arguments on the EU budget and the rule of law provisions around the Covid fiscal package, or fiscal risk-sharing in the euro area, or the handling of the Greek crisis, or the migrant crisis, the degree of unity over Brexit is striking. The EU wants to protect the single market above all else, and there is unanimity on that. The negotiating mandate has been agreed. The view in the EU is that no deal is better than a bad deal. FWIW I think they should show more willingness to compromise, and they well be doing that behind the scenes - there is not much clarity over the state of the negotiations right now, which is probably a good sign. I still think we will get a deal although it may well be a bumpy path over the next couple of weeks and the likelihood of no deal is rising.
Johnson negotiated directly with Varadker for the Withdrawal Agreement. From this we can conclude that (1) it is possible to negotiate directly with national leaders of EU member states, and, (2) the EU have no particular problem with this when they see it as relevant to the sticking point in the negotiation at the time.
If they're not willing to enter into such negotiations now then it's likely because they don't see the sticking point as being one that affects one country alone - so the collective negotiation is still the most logical.
I don't see this being a big deal either way.
Irish interests were totally aligned with those of the EU for the WA.
They are not for the full FTA so the Irish will be hung out to dry.
It's certainly the case that Ireland have most to lose from no deal. There was a lot of self-congratulation in Ireland on the strength of their diplomacy when the withdrawal agreement was being negotiated.
They might be left feeling a bit Greek in January.
But still, I think my point stands. The EU will do bilateral negotiations if they want to. And if they don't then there'd be no point in them anyway. There's no advantage to the UK in negotiating directly with Merkel if there's no particular point on which to negotiate with Germany.
The Irish will certainly be the EU country to feel the most economic pain from a No Deal Brexit. But thay have the political consolation of an NI that has been driven into their arms and a border down the Irish Sea. They'll survive.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
Yet when they talk to the EU we're told they should be talking to Macron and Merkel.
By a remarkable coincidence the people saying we're talking to the wrong people usually seem to be hostile to the government.
Who, apart from Brexiteers, on here has said we should be taking to Macron or Merkel?
I do.
The UK government should aim to sell individual governments on the benefits of a deal that works for the UK as well as them individually. The problem is that they are not doing it. They aren't giving individual governments reasons for pushing the Council in the UK's direction and they are seriously pissing them off with treaty breaches and talk of gunboats etc.
The UK should not however aim to circumvent the Commission in its negotiation. It is massively counterproductive. Only the Council and Commission can unite the EU27 and parliament around a single agreed proposition. Without that single agreed proposition there is no deal.
In any case relations with the EU Commission are not quite so bad as with member states.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
It's not nonsense. The EU derives its negotiating mandate from the EU27 in the European Council.
To say it's all magicked up by the Commission out of thin air, who are the only ones who matter, is laughable.
This is a political problem with domestic political audiences and it's quite right that political conversations at that level should have taken place.
They won't of course because of optics and obstinacy so now we'll get No Deal.
Your first two sentences are correct. The mandate is given by the Council, not magicked up by the Commision. The last time that happened was 36 hours ago. And then the Commision conducts the negotiations, as mandated. And that's it. End of story. Anything else is projection or deflection.
All of my post is correct. The due process crap is just pompous inflexibility from a SHIT organisation that is now going to real the fruits of No Deal due to its arrogance and inflexibilty.
Let me be clear: you lose me as a moderate Leaver from 1st Jan 2021. I go ultra hard-line from then on and will brook no compromise thereafter.
Save this post. Look back on it in years to come when you try and understand the disaster that befell you.
To the last I grapple with thee. From hell's heart I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
That only works if the negotiator has the authority to negotiate, to change positions. It doesn't work if they're stuck to a mandate.
The negotiators have some leeway but really not much. The mandate, though, is what it is, it's not going to change. It was confirmed yesterday, once again, and it will be the same tomorrow. It represents the common ground between the 27 and their diverging interests. It reflects the extent to which they can agree on the myriad of issues. It's a strategic concept, not a tactical one.
Yes, that's very well put. The attemptys to get round the negotiating team by talking to Merkel and Macron are just seen in the EU as a baffling misunderstanding of the process. They couldn't change the mandate at this point even if they wanted to, and the other members would be irritated if they tried, in the same way as Johnson would be if VDL tried to start a separate discussion with individual Cabinet Ministers.
I'm sure the negotiators on both sides have been given some room for maneouvre. But the fundamental difference of view that I described in the lead article the other day is not something that can be talked around. We can have a deal on the basis that it's offered, or we can decide not to. Insisting that it should be a completely different deal is just wasting everyone's time. It's like buying a car - you may be able to negotiate 10% off or get some free insurance thrown in by your Ford dealeer, but if you say you actually want a supertanker, you'll be told sorry, we aren't selling those.
And thiss is really not news. It was clear even before the referendum. The suggestion that a deal would be easy was either ignorance or deceit.
This is such bollocks. Macron and Johnson can't talk to each other about a bilateral political problem that only they can unlock where an intermediary has got nowhere?
Give me a break. I'm tired of these technocratic excuses.
You think fishing rights are a "bilateral political problem"? Ask the Dutch, Belgians, Spanish, Danish and Germans how they think about that.
Germans don't give a shit.
Rest led by France and would have compromised earlier were it not for Macron.
You are now getting NONE of our fish. Enjoy unemployment or being arrested.
Will we send agents from the Brexit Inquisition across the continent looking for people with illicit British fish?
The UK needs to offer something that is interesting to the member state in exchange for them agreeing stuff for the UK, eg more fish for France. Each member state will want its own pound of flesh. UK negotiators seem to have no curiosity about what member states want
I know there's a theoretical approach of playing member states off against each other (assuming they were dumb enough to let you do that) but in practice I can't see that things would have gone any more smoothly if the British had managed to replace one contentious negotiation with 27-factorial contentious negotiations.
UK government needs to do two things. Influence member states, bearing in mind each state has a vote, Negotiate with the Commission.
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
Yet when they talk to the EU we're told they should be talking to Macron and Merkel.
By a remarkable coincidence the people saying we're talking to the wrong people usually seem to be hostile to the government.
Who, apart from Brexiteers, on here has said we should be taking to Macron or Merkel?
I do.
The UK government should aim to sell individual governments on the benefits of a deal that works for the UK as well as them individually. The problem is that they are not doing it. They aren't giving individual governments reasons for pushing the Council in the UK's direction and they are seriously pissing them off with treaty breaches and talk of gunboats etc.
The UK should not however aim to circumvent the Commission in its negotiation. It is massively counterproductive. Only the Council and Commission can unite the EU27 and parliament around a single agreed proposition. Without that single agreed proposition there is no deal.
In any case relations with the EU Commission are not quite so bad as with member states.
One of our biggest miscalculations was assuming member states would be sympathetic (because they obviously secretly envy us and want to make sure they have a escape plan from the EU), when in fact the member states have no sympathy at all, and want to make absolutely certain they never put themselves in such a position.
Would not the BEST bargaining strategy for UK be insisting that the PMs of all EU nations put themselves in a COVID "Bubble" at a SMALL hotel and NOT leave until the deal is done.
How long do YOU think you could hold out looked up in the same compound with Boris Johnson before YOU would crack?
The EU's "talk to the hand" choreography makes it all the more bizarre since everyone knows that the solution to this is political and the blockage is bilateral between Macron and Boris. So those talks needed to take place.
And yet for appearances sake they maintain this façade of absolute Spartan-like unity commanded by the hive mind in Brussels.
Intractable and insecure, which will ultimately result in a lose-lose.
No, the EU27 have had a consistent position all along, and that is the one that Barnier negotiates. Going round to Merkel or Macron fundamentally misunderstands how a union works. A union stands together, and has an appointed negotiator.
One of the constants on PB is reading that the UK is talking to the wrong people.
If its talking to Macron or Merkel then we're told it would be better to talk to the EU.
If its talking to the EU then we're told it would be better to talk to Macron and Merkel.
No, when talking to the EU, you definitely do not get told to talk to Macron and Merkel. That's the kind of nonsense the British media is conveying. Complete nonsense.
Yet when they talk to the EU we're told they should be talking to Macron and Merkel.
By a remarkable coincidence the people saying we're talking to the wrong people usually seem to be hostile to the government.
Who, apart from Brexiteers, on here has said we should be taking to Macron or Merkel?
I do.
The UK government should aim to sell individual governments on the benefits of a deal that works for the UK as well as them individually. The problem is that they are not doing it. They aren't giving individual governments reasons for pushing the Council in the UK's direction and they are seriously pissing them off with treaty breaches and talk of gunboats etc.
The UK should not however aim to circumvent the Commission in its negotiation. It is massively counterproductive. Only the Council and Commission can unite the EU27 and parliament around a single agreed proposition. Without that single agreed proposition there is no deal.
In any case relations with the EU Commission are not quite so bad as with member states.
We have embassies in all of the EU27 countries who communicate with the respective ministers. The chance to influence the EU position that way passed some time ago.
Expecting Benny Hill to sort it out over dinner was always risible.
Comments
It represents the common ground between the 27 and their diverging interests. It reflects the extent to which they can agree on the myriad of issues. It's a strategic concept, not a tactical one.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1337896273152790528
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/
Brexiteers should be happy that small states cannot be over ruled by larger ones by QMV. It is one of their grievances concerning the EU.
No Deal is shit. BoZo and Gove both said it would be shit, so Labour can say that all day long
tm Red Dwarf
I'm sure the negotiators on both sides have been given some room for maneouvre. But the fundamental difference of view that I described in the lead article the other day is not something that can be talked around. We can have a deal on the basis that it's offered, or we can decide not to. Insisting that it should be a completely different deal is just wasting everyone's time. It's like buying a car - you may be able to negotiate 10% off or get some free insurance thrown in by your Ford dealeer, but if you say you actually want a supertanker, you'll be told sorry, we aren't selling those.
And thiss is really not news. It was clear even before the referendum. The suggestion that a deal would be easy was either ignorance or deceit.
How many things has Boris taken personal charge of?
Mind you, we're going to have plenty of opportunities to learn just how you do negotiate with a multi-member bloc in the future. Let's hope we can learn a little faster than we have done so far!
But TY anyway
I use a simple formula on here. I always ignore Scott's posts but take note of HYUFD's links
PS welcome back - what do you think of the Brexit situation?
To say it's all magicked up by the Commission out of thin air, who are the only ones who matter, is laughable.
This is a political problem with domestic political audiences and it's quite right that political conversations at that level should have taken place.
They won't of course because of optics and obstinacy so now we'll get No Deal.
If they're not willing to enter into such negotiations now then it's likely because they don't see the sticking point as being one that affects one country alone - so the collective negotiation is still the most logical.
I don't see this being a big deal either way.
Besides which it doesn't make much sense: you get all the constraints of a collective approach with that with none of the flexibility. It's just a massive everything or nothing.
If we were brokering trade deals bilaterally with each member state they'd all be done by now, except France and possibly Spain, and we'd all be better off.
I think that the issue could have been settled already. Preferably in a comprehensive, trilateral agreement with Norway, now that they have conveniently announced a lockdown of their fishing grounds.
I think that both sides have a political interest in keeping the fish on the table. It's something tangible, emotionally charged to capture the comprehension of the broad masses.
The real issue, the mechanics of regulatory interaction, is just too dry and complex to deliver the catching soundbytes.
They are not for the full FTA so the Irish will be hung out to dry.
The EU are being obstinate - but not half so obstinate as we have been.
It is a pathetic failure of diplomacy on both sides, but the EU are not responsible to the UK electorate. Johnson is.
You are either falling for the propaganda or being deliberately obtuse. Possibly both.
And ditch the gunboat crap - this is about the UK enforcing its own waters and the law as it quite rightly should in No Deal.
We wouldn't hear a peep of complaint from you if the EU had announced the same.
Watford win again
Going up 20/21!
You may not like our counterparts red lines and procedures, but that is what they are. When playing football you do not get to choose the opposition team and tactics.
Give me a break. I'm tired of these technocratic excuses.
Idiot.
The right wing press have poisoned this country and are the most hateful of any western country .
Big day tomorrow. HYUFD 80,000 posts - I can't wait!
By a remarkable coincidence the people saying we're talking to the wrong people usually seem to be hostile to the government.
Are Remainers really this fucking stupid?
You are wasting my time.
Idiot city on here tonight.
Moron.
Let me be clear: you lose me as a moderate Leaver from 1st Jan 2021. I go ultra hard-line from then on and will brook no compromise thereafter.
Save this post. Look back on it in years to come when you try and understand the disaster that befell you.
We will see. There will certainly be lots of bilateral chats coming up.
Ask the Dutch, Belgians, Spanish, Danish and Germans how they think about that.
Rest led by France and would have compromised earlier were it not for Macron.
You are now getting NONE of our fish. Enjoy unemployment or being arrested.
California Governor Gavin Newsom last month apologised after he was caught dining with lobbyists and members of the California Medical Association, all without masks, at a crowded table for 12 in a swanky restaurant in Napa Valley.
He initially claimed the meal at the Michelin-starred French Laundry, where some prix fixe plates go for $450 per person, took place outdoors. But photos emerged showing the space had a roof, three walls and another wall with sliding glass doors.
This week Mr Newsom warned he was considering "dramatic, arguably drastic" stay-at-home orders to tackle surging coronavirus caseload in the state.
It has since emerged that one night after Mr Newsom dined at the French Laundry, San Francisco Mayor London Breed attended a birthday party for a socialite at the same restaurant.
The meal took place as Ms Breed was urging residents to stay at home and avoid socialising, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
In other recent cases involving Democrats:
On Tuesday, the mayor of San Jose, California, Sam Liccardo, apologised for attending a Thanksgiving dinner with family members from five households - more than state regulations allowed
A delegation of California lawmakers jetted off to a resort in Maui, Hawaii, for a conference with lobbyists as state residents were being instructed to avoid nonessential travel
California Senator Dianne Feinstein - who has called for congressional coronavirus aid to be made conditional on states imposing mask mandates - was photographed at the US Capitol and at an airport without any face-covering
US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, also of California, was pictured without a mask inside a hair salon, breaking rules that only allow service outdoors, but she refused to apologise
Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl dined outdoors at her favourite restaurant — shortly after voting to uphold a ban on outdoor dining, which she said endangered serving staff
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55168634
They might be left feeling a bit Greek in January.
But still, I think my point stands. The EU will do bilateral negotiations if they want to. And if they don't then there'd be no point in them anyway. There's no advantage to the UK in negotiating directly with Merkel if there's no particular point on which to negotiate with Germany.
You're the one that is usually wrong.
I feel sorry for you.
I didn’t see that on the side of the bus ! And now we’re going to have months of more EU hate to try and deflect any blame for this no deal and turn Bozo into a martyr .
Just because you misunderstood the negotiations, and had your bluff called, there is no need to blow a gasket.
To the last I grapple with thee. From hell's heart I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
The EU wants to protect the single market above all else, and there is unanimity on that. The negotiating mandate has been agreed. The view in the EU is that no deal is better than a bad deal. FWIW I think they should show more willingness to compromise, and they well be doing that behind the scenes - there is not much clarity over the state of the negotiations right now, which is probably a good sign. I still think we will get a deal although it may well be a bumpy path over the next couple of weeks and the likelihood of no deal is rising.
The UK government should aim to sell individual governments on the benefits of a deal that works for the UK as well as them individually. The problem is that they are not doing it. They aren't giving individual governments reasons for pushing the Council in the UK's direction and they are seriously pissing them off with treaty breaches and talk of gunboats etc.
The UK should not however aim to circumvent the Commission in its negotiation. It is massively counterproductive. Only the Council and Commission can unite the EU27 and parliament around a single agreed proposition. Without that single agreed proposition there is no deal.
In any case relations with the EU Commission are not quite so bad as with member states.
How long do YOU think you could hold out looked up in the same compound with Boris Johnson before YOU would crack?
Expecting Benny Hill to sort it out over dinner was always risible.