I hope nobody has forgotten about what occurred during January 6th 2021? MAGA storming the capital? You would think the Jan 6 the committee are going to proceed and allow Trump to pull another coupd'etat? The GOP are losing there base, midterm elections if and only if the GOP achieves impossible and win both Houses / Senate? Then there is a possibility, and Trump won't go anywhere near the White House if President Biden is still there. God forbid anything happens to him.
My money is on GOP losing 2022 midterm, and losing the 2024 election, and Jan 6 the was pivotal moment in US history, and since of its creation and formation this evening is there crossing, Point of No Return.
GOP taking both House and Senate is definitely not impossible. It's pretty simple: They only barely won them in 2020, the president's party nearly always loses ground in the mid-terms, and Biden is fairly unpopular right now.
The Dems have to make 2022 a battle of of Sensible vs Trump. If they do that, they stand a chance.
But I suspect that 2022 will be a repeat of 2018. The Dems will lose the House, but retain the Senate.
I agree, the GOP only need to gain 5 seats to gain the House and GOP turnout will be higher than Democrat to protest against Biden-Harris. Biden's approval is also below 50% and President's with below 50% approval always lose House seats in midterms.
The Republican seats up in the Senate though are more vulnerable than the Democrat ones
I hope you are wrong, but suspect you will be right.
Interesting on languages spoken by the Duke of Edinburgh on the previous thread; I would hope that his long experience would give him a strong understanding of what Brussels has become.
On speaking languages, do we have any extended video of Boris speaking say French, Italian, German or Spanish?
I have respect for the late Duke of Edinburgh as the archetypal Citizen of Nowhere, whose family were actual Nazis, and who as a teenager, and I think on his own initiative, followed his Jewish teacher from Germany to Scotland.
Did the Jewish teacher get away, or was he successfully hunted by the Duke?
The Duke's mother, Princess Alice, was an interesting character. Despite having a very difficult life in many respects - abandoned by her husband, put in a mental hospital, given some weird treatment for excess sexuality etc, during the war she helped save a Jewish family in Athens and was added to the Righteous at Yad Vashem. Philip went there when the honour was given to his mother posthumously in 1994.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
Doesn't Trade War require unanimity among members?
Unless he dies, is incapacitated or constitutionally banned from running, Trump will be the nominee.
The difficulty is that Biden looks rather senile when I have watched him.The left need a competent candidate to replace Biden. Is America stupid enough to elect Trump again?
See the last thread, the point is that they don't have to. The US constitution doesn't specify that the voters elect the president. The states choose electors, and if there's a dispute the House chooses between competing slates. So if your party controls the House and key positions in swing states, and you control your party, it doesn't matter what the voters do in 2024.
Thats outrageous
This is true, but also, the constitution of the United States of America is hot garbage.
I kind of agree. I think there is a great elegance to the US's system of checks and balances. Simplifying somewhat, there is the President, whose role is purely executive. They enforce federal law and administer the government. Then you have Congress to pass the laws and a supreme court which guards the constitution. Of course, if the legislature disagrees with the Supreme Court on Constitutionality of a law, they can ammended the Constitution, but the bar for doing so is high. The President appoints the court, and being closer to the people, makes appointments in their interest, with the August and Distinguished men (and women) of the Senate charged with their confirmation. I do think this is quite elegant. The problem is, it only works when everyone has the interests of the nation and the people at heart rather than narrow partisan advantage... It's a bit like a beautiful, but unreliable car.
The UK system is much simpler. Parliament declared themselves Supreme and that's pretty much the long and short of it. Less elegant, but less scope for messing about.
Nice nuanced post. I've not seen your posts before, so belated welcome to the forum - I hope you'll contribute frequently.
I like the "beautiful but unreliable car".
That's rather the reverse of 99% of cars from the USA .
You think American cars are reliable?
I was under the impression Ford stood for Fix Or Repair Daily.
Four out of the top ten on the 2021 VRS were US brands - Buick, Cadillac, Lincoln and Chevrolet.
Lexus and Porsche continue in the top two spots.
Jaguar, Land Rover, Alfa Romeo and Tesla are the worst by some distance.
There was a nearly new, broken-down Range Rover causing traffic holdups on our road on Saturday afternoon. It must have been pretty serious since it was in the process of being hauled onto a breakdown truck.
And a top of the range is aporoaching 100k .....insane for such a car
I wouldn't run a JLR product if you gave it me and paid the fuel bill. Poor engineering, terrible build quality.
Unless he dies, is incapacitated or constitutionally banned from running, Trump will be the nominee.
The difficulty is that Biden looks rather senile when I have watched him.The left need a competent candidate to replace Biden. Is America stupid enough to elect Trump again?
See the last thread, the point is that they don't have to. The US constitution doesn't specify that the voters elect the president. The states choose electors, and if there's a dispute the House chooses between competing slates. So if your party controls the House and key positions in swing states, and you control your party, it doesn't matter what the voters do in 2024.
Thats outrageous
This is true, but also, the constitution of the United States of America is hot garbage.
I kind of agree. I think there is a great elegance to the US's system of checks and balances. Simplifying somewhat, there is the President, whose role is purely executive. They enforce federal law and administer the government. Then you have Congress to pass the laws and a supreme court which guards the constitution. Of course, if the legislature disagrees with the Supreme Court on Constitutionality of a law, they can ammended the Constitution, but the bar for doing so is high. The President appoints the court, and being closer to the people, makes appointments in their interest, with the August and Distinguished men (and women) of the Senate charged with their confirmation. I do think this is quite elegant. The problem is, it only works when everyone has the interests of the nation and the people at heart rather than narrow partisan advantage... It's a bit like a beautiful, but unreliable car.
The UK system is much simpler. Parliament declared themselves Supreme and that's pretty much the long and short of it. Less elegant, but less scope for messing about.
The real problem with the US constitution is the extreme difficulty of amending it. Some of the electoral rules, as with Charles' 'dispute resolution mechanism' (which isn't anything of the sort), are centuries old.
Oh, of course. I mean there are many, many problems. The rigidity of the Constitution is one, becoming harder to amend with each new admission to the Union. Sometimes the constitution must be amended as a legal and even moral necessity but this is a practical impossibility so you get weirdness where other branches take it on. The liberal use of the Commerce clause to enforce federal laws on the states, or the use of the Supreme Court to introduce constitutional rights that aren't really written into the document...
On the last point, that is to accept the framing of the 1873 Supreme Court, which effectively eviscerated constitutional rights introduced by the 14th Amendment - which was clearly intended to impose such laws.
The Slaughter House cases decision was one of the handful of most perverse decisions the Supreme Court has ever handed down.
Unless he dies, is incapacitated or constitutionally banned from running, Trump will be the nominee.
The difficulty is that Biden looks rather senile when I have watched him.The left need a competent candidate to replace Biden. Is America stupid enough to elect Trump again?
See the last thread, the point is that they don't have to. The US constitution doesn't specify that the voters elect the president. The states choose electors, and if there's a dispute the House chooses between competing slates. So if your party controls the House and key positions in swing states, and you control your party, it doesn't matter what the voters do in 2024.
Thats outrageous
This is true, but also, the constitution of the United States of America is hot garbage.
I kind of agree. I think there is a great elegance to the US's system of checks and balances. Simplifying somewhat, there is the President, whose role is purely executive. They enforce federal law and administer the government. Then you have Congress to pass the laws and a supreme court which guards the constitution. Of course, if the legislature disagrees with the Supreme Court on Constitutionality of a law, they can ammended the Constitution, but the bar for doing so is high. The President appoints the court, and being closer to the people, makes appointments in their interest, with the August and Distinguished men (and women) of the Senate charged with their confirmation. I do think this is quite elegant. The problem is, it only works when everyone has the interests of the nation and the people at heart rather than narrow partisan advantage... It's a bit like a beautiful, but unreliable car.
The UK system is much simpler. Parliament declared themselves Supreme and that's pretty much the long and short of it. Less elegant, but less scope for messing about.
The real problem with the US constitution is the extreme difficulty of amending it. Some of the electoral rules, as with Charles' 'dispute resolution mechanism' (which isn't anything of the sort), are centuries old.
Oh, of course. I mean there are many, many problems. The rigidity of the Constitution is one, becoming harder to amend with each new admission to the Union. Sometimes the constitution must be amended as a legal and even moral necessity but this is a practical impossibility so you get weirdness where other branches take it on. The liberal use of the Commerce clause to enforce federal laws on the states, or the use of the Supreme Court to introduce constitutional rights that aren't really written into the document...
On the last point, that is to accept the framing of the 1873 Supreme Court, which effectively eviscerated constitutional rights introduced by the 14th Amendment - which was clearly intended to impose such laws.
The Slaughter House cases decision was one of the handful of most perverse decisions the Supreme Court has ever handed down.
Indeed, and it's the reading that will see Roe Vs Wade overturned next month (I think that's when they will hear Mississippi's challenge). In a constitutional disagreement between SCOTUS and Congress, the constitution puts the remedy with Congress. They could pass further laws, constitutional amendments or even impeach the justices. That's the elegance, in my opinion. The problem is that the latter two have (to my knowledge) never happened and, likely never could happen. The 1873 court shows how the whole thing can come crashing down through bad faith actors. As others have mentioned (debate moves quick here and it takes me an age to articulate my points - unfortunately I'm about to be taken away to floor my loft), a constitution that can't deal with human behaviour, no matter how elegant the structure, isn't very good.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
Not being your no 1 priority does not mean you do not speak with a single voice. They are different things. I hope to god that our Govt is not spending 100% of its time on Brexit just like the EU won't be. That is not to say it is also not important to both the UK and the EU.
Those two phrases do not mean the same thing.
They do not mean the same thing but one does feed into the other.
If people don't prioritise an issue as a concern then its much easier to say "just get this resolved" and find it easier to compromise than those who do prioritise it.
When Frost and Boris etc want this resolved their way, and half the EU27 nations are satisfied with the TCA and don't genuinely care about what's happening in NI, then its easier for the nations who don't care to be flexible and bend.
It also makes it much less likely that the EU27 would unanimously vote to invoke the exitting the TCA clause that was proposed as the self-destruct button to be pressed.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
The trouble is the government is falling into the same tactical fallacy that Putin repeatedly blunders into. The pursuit of short term tactical victory with no thought to long term strategic weakening. It's what happens when negotiations are viewed as zero-sum games. See Nordstream 2 for a current example. Every weakening of goodwill over Brexit incurs a debt to the future.
The EU are following the Putin playbook too. They are going to let this 6 counties bollocks lapse into a frozen conflict while they wait for Johnson project to blow a head gasket and then deal with whomever comes next on the 99% probability that they will be less of a lying turd.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
The trouble is the government is falling into the same tactical fallacy that Putin repeatedly blunders into. The pursuit of short term tactical victory with no thought to long term strategic weakening. It's what happens when negotiations are viewed as zero-sum games. See Nordstream 2 for a current example. Every weakening of goodwill over Brexit incurs a debt to the future.
There's no such thing as "goodwill". Its the real unicorn of this whole debate.
Unless he dies, is incapacitated or constitutionally banned from running, Trump will be the nominee.
The difficulty is that Biden looks rather senile when I have watched him.The left need a competent candidate to replace Biden. Is America stupid enough to elect Trump again?
See the last thread, the point is that they don't have to. The US constitution doesn't specify that the voters elect the president. The states choose electors, and if there's a dispute the House chooses between competing slates. So if your party controls the House and key positions in swing states, and you control your party, it doesn't matter what the voters do in 2024.
Thats outrageous
This is true, but also, the constitution of the United States of America is hot garbage.
I kind of agree. I think there is a great elegance to the US's system of checks and balances. Simplifying somewhat, there is the President, whose role is purely executive. They enforce federal law and administer the government. Then you have Congress to pass the laws and a supreme court which guards the constitution. Of course, if the legislature disagrees with the Supreme Court on Constitutionality of a law, they can ammended the Constitution, but the bar for doing so is high. The President appoints the court, and being closer to the people, makes appointments in their interest, with the August and Distinguished men (and women) of the Senate charged with their confirmation. I do think this is quite elegant. The problem is, it only works when everyone has the interests of the nation and the people at heart rather than narrow partisan advantage... It's a bit like a beautiful, but unreliable car.
The UK system is much simpler. Parliament declared themselves Supreme and that's pretty much the long and short of it. Less elegant, but less scope for messing about.
Nice nuanced post. I've not seen your posts before, so belated welcome to the forum - I hope you'll contribute frequently.
I like the "beautiful but unreliable car".
That's rather the reverse of 99% of cars from the USA .
You think American cars are reliable?
I was under the impression Ford stood for Fix Or Repair Daily.
Four out of the top ten on the 2021 VRS were US brands - Buick, Cadillac, Lincoln and Chevrolet.
Lexus and Porsche continue in the top two spots.
Jaguar, Land Rover, Alfa Romeo and Tesla are the worst by some distance.
There was a nearly new, broken-down Range Rover causing traffic holdups on our road on Saturday afternoon. It must have been pretty serious since it was in the process of being hauled onto a breakdown truck.
And a top of the range is aporoaching 100k .....insane for such a car
I wouldn't run a JLR product if you gave it me and paid the fuel bill. Poor engineering, terrible build quality.
I continually look at the i-pace and then remember it's a JLR and continue looking...
BREAKING Greenpeace activists have just shut down @10DowningStreet We delivered @BorisJohnson the statue his legacy deserves if he approves the new oil drilling at Cambo. A statue dripping in oil.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
Doesn't Trade War require unanimity among members?
Yes, it's never going to happen. One of the major issues that the EU are struggling with is that the TCA covers basically everything under the current tariff free arrangement and is completely separate to the NI protocol. They can't easily push for unilateral tariffs or NTBs because of the breadth of what the TCA covers (essentially they would need our consent to change it or an arbitration process based on the UK breaching the TCA, which we haven't). That leaves them with basically no options because Ireland will never, ever agree to a border on the island, I think they'd rather leave the EU and they will not be able to get 27 nations to agree to binning the TCA, most countries don't give a fuck about the Irish border and view it as a UK/Ireland problem and want Ireland to "solve it".
My best guess is that the EU will agree to some kind of arbitration process, the green channel idea and silently policing Ireland to EU imports because it's easy for them to do that without anyone really noticing.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
An antibody treatment developed by pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has shown its ability to both prevent and treat Covid-19, according to new data. AstraZeneca submitted a request to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week for emergency use authorisation for AZD7442, which is made up of two antibodies, as a preventative treatment.
In new data released on Monday morning from its Tackle trial, AstraZeneca showed AZD7442 was effective in preventing severe disease in non-hospitalised patients with mild to moderate coronavirus, when compared with a placebo.
Most of the 903 people in the trial were at high risk of progression to severe Covid-19, including those with multiple health conditions. The study found that a single dose of 600mg of AZD7442 given by injection into muscle managed to reduce the risk of developing severe Covid-19 or death from any cause by 50%, when compared with a placebo, in people who had been symptomatic for seven days or less.
Isn't antibody treatment in immunocompromised patients a classic trigger for mutations and new variants? Or is this different from the effect you get from convalescent plasma?
Wasn't there a trial of using antibodies that got stopped because it was making things worse??
Both you and TimT have posed the same question, and it is interesting. There is some indication that mutations can be accelerated within someone who has a persistent infection, and possibly this is concurrent with use of convalescent plasma (i.e. hail Mary approach, in hospital). I think using antibodies generally shouldn't be an issue, its more what happens if it doesn't work.
An antibody treatment developed by pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has shown its ability to both prevent and treat Covid-19, according to new data. AstraZeneca submitted a request to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week for emergency use authorisation for AZD7442, which is made up of two antibodies, as a preventative treatment.
In new data released on Monday morning from its Tackle trial, AstraZeneca showed AZD7442 was effective in preventing severe disease in non-hospitalised patients with mild to moderate coronavirus, when compared with a placebo.
Most of the 903 people in the trial were at high risk of progression to severe Covid-19, including those with multiple health conditions. The study found that a single dose of 600mg of AZD7442 given by injection into muscle managed to reduce the risk of developing severe Covid-19 or death from any cause by 50%, when compared with a placebo, in people who had been symptomatic for seven days or less.
Isn't antibody treatment in immunocompromised patients a classic trigger for mutations and new variants? Or is this different from the effect you get from convalescent plasma?
Wasn't there a trial of using antibodies that got stopped because it was making things worse??
Both you and TimT have posed the same question, and it is interesting. There is some indication that mutations can be accelerated within someone who has a persistent infection, and possibly this is concurrent with use of convalescent plasma (i.e. hail Mary approach, in hospital). I think using antibodies generally shouldn't be an issue, its more what happens if it doesn't work.
The trial I recall used plasma from recovered patients (I *think*) and was stopped because it seems to be making patients sicker, rather than any issue with mutations.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
The trouble is the government is falling into the same tactical fallacy that Putin repeatedly blunders into. The pursuit of short term tactical victory with no thought to long term strategic weakening. It's what happens when negotiations are viewed as zero-sum games. See Nordstream 2 for a current example. Every weakening of goodwill over Brexit incurs a debt to the future.
There's no such thing as "goodwill". Its the real unicorn of this whole debate.
You can't weaken that which doesn't exist.
That's Putin thinking encapsulated. You assume officials and politicians are not human beings who are influenced by emotion, but they are. They do damaging things - to themselves and their partners - when there is a breakdown of trust and goodwill. The entire history of the GFA itself is testament to that. It happened because politicians on both sides of the divide started engaging with each other rather than talking only to their partisans. Yes, there is of course realpolitik at all times but good realpolitik also involves thinking longer term.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
What measures? Specific ones please, and which member states, again please be specific. From what we've been asking from our European contacts no one gives a fuck about the issue other than France and Ireland, everyone just wants it to "go away".
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
Interesting on languages spoken by the Duke of Edinburgh on the previous thread; I would hope that his long experience would give him a strong understanding of what Brussels has become.
On speaking languages, do we have any extended video of Boris speaking say French, Italian, German or Spanish?
I have respect for the late Duke of Edinburgh as the archetypal Citizen of Nowhere, whose family were actual Nazis, and who as a teenager, and I think on his own initiative, followed his Jewish teacher from Germany to Scotland.
Did the Jewish teacher get away, or was he successfully hunted by the Duke?
The Duke's mother, Princess Alice, was an interesting character. Despite having a very difficult life in many respects - abandoned by her husband, put in a mental hospital, given some weird treatment for excess sexuality etc, during the war she helped save a Jewish family in Athens and was added to the Righteous at Yad Vashem. Philip went there when the honour was given to his mother posthumously in 1994.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
Doesn't Trade War require unanimity among members?
Yes, it's never going to happen. One of the major issues that the EU are struggling with is that the TCA covers basically everything under the current tariff free arrangement and is completely separate to the NI protocol. They can't easily push for unilateral tariffs or NTBs because of the breadth of what the TCA covers (essentially they would need our consent to change it or an arbitration process based on the UK breaching the TCA, which we haven't). That leaves them with basically no options because Ireland will never, ever agree to a border on the island, I think they'd rather leave the EU and they will not be able to get 27 nations to agree to binning the TCA, most countries don't give a fuck about the Irish border and view it as a UK/Ireland problem and want Ireland to "solve it".
My best guess is that the EU will agree to some kind of arbitration process, the green channel idea and silently policing Ireland to EU imports because it's easy for them to do that without anyone really noticing.
Indeed. Which is what we were saying the solution should have been all along.
It's been a long winding road to get to the right destination but we are getting there.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
It's a very odd situation, lots of cognitive dissonance from the most ardent remainers on here who now look like they are more pure about their love of the EU than the EU commission. They spent months telling us all that the EU would never renegotiate the NI Protocol and that it was a red line and Frost was putting out papers for nothing. Yet here we are. They still don't seem to have realised it either and keep banging on about these trade war measures that no one can really define but definitely, really exist and can be deployed by individual states and will really, really hurt the UK economy.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
That's the same Protocol that Article 16 is a part of, right?
How does exercising your rights within the Protocol violate it?
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
If we said that murder was now legal in the UK, there wouldn't be a (huge) spike in murders because it's not a law we obey because there's a law. And that probably applies for a number of things down the scale. But we know that quite a lot of people will cheat "the system" when it comes to things like train tickets.
So, does the UK democracy work fairly well because we have independent people conducting elections? Or would we be fine with the American system? I'm inclined to think that you need a strong framework, otherwise someone will try to gain an advantage.
One of the best things about Britain is that on the whole nobody knows who runs things. The vast majority of jobs in local and national government are not political appointees, we don't elect more than a handful of people directly (our councillors and MPs), and most of us could not name a single Judge in the UK. That is completely different in the US, where lots of important jobs are political appointees, where all kinds of jobs are elected, and where the judiciary is definitely politicised.
About the Trump nomination: it seems to me that setting probabilities for this are not easy for two reasons. Firstly I can't help suspecting there is an information disparity; quite a lot of top people, and Trump himself with his entourage, know much more than we do about the likely events in the future.
Secondly, Trump can be beaten to the nomination by a number of factors; these include
Not standing (for a number of possible reasons, legal, existential, political, personal, polling, medical) Being beaten by someone who isn't crazy Being out Trumped by a crazy younger charismatic candidate He stands but not as Republican
Together I would place Trump's nomination by Republicans as less than 42%. How much less I have no idea. Avoid for now.
Trump if he runs again will certainly be favourite for the GOP nomination.
However whether he does or not I think the likeliest alternative will actually be Pence not DeSantis. De Santis trails Charlie Crist in early polls for next year's Florida governor election and so may not be re elected. Pence meanwhile will be able to count on a lot of the evangelical vote, is more conservative than Haley and Pompeo so still able to appeal to much of the base but also distant enough from Trump to win independents in open primaries
And has the charisma of a three day dead woodlouse.
Kind of funny seeing the increasingly desperate gaslighting of the PB Tories telling us that "as usual" the UK holds all the cards. I have spoken to lots of EU diplomats in the past week, including two EU foreign ministers, and it is clear that Johnson´s bluster and bad faith are simply not taken seriously. While the UK press (especially the Murdoch-Rothermere off-shore press) is trying to throw mud in the eye of British voters, so that they think that Brexit is only a small factor in the successive wave of crises hiiting the British economy at the moment, most people outside the UK, including the EU itself are in no doubt. The scale of the crisis that Brtiain is facing is down to Brexit, and no other European country is having anything the same problems, The general view is that the UK will ultimately have to pursue a new and better relationship with the EU, whther that is next year or next decade. Obviously this will be after BJ is gone, so they don´t feel the need to chuck us too many bones for as long as he is around. Unlike the PB Tories they can count, and they see that the options for the UK are getting worse by the day. Most don´t care if the six counties leave the UK, and some are indifferent about whether the UK survives otherwise. They will protect Ireland and anything the UK does that puts the Republic under threat will be countered. Goodwill towards Johnson is basically zero and there is growing irritation about the constant attempts by London to shift the goal posts. I dont think formal sanctions are necessarily on the table yet, since the feeling is that essentially the UK has sanctioned itself and the damage is already pretty serious, but any attempt by the UK to take action against the EU may still get a surprisingly stiff response.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
It's a very odd situation, lots of cognitive dissonance from the most ardent remainers on here who now look like they are more pure about their love of the EU than the EU commission. They spent months telling us all that the EU would never renegotiate the NI Protocol and that it was a red line and Frost was putting out papers for nothing. Yet here we are. They still don't seem to have realised it either and keep banging on about these trade war measures that no one can really define but definitely, really exist and can be deployed by individual states and will really, really hurt the UK economy.
It'll be over when both sides have moved on from zero-sum to win-win attitudes. Of course the punishment beating threatened for the UK's recalcitrant brexit is for internal EU discipline "pour encourager les autres". However despite the Polish challenge there doesn't seem be be much appetite to follow the Brits, and my sense is that sanity will soon enough prevail. Before long we'll be getting along famously with our European neighbours.
France threatens to turn off electricity to Jersey in retaliation for their fishermen not getting the licences they want, notwithstanding that to obtain a licence they only need evidence of their fishing logs, the fact some do not have logs raises the question why ?
The Minister in charge in Jersey has just said on Sky they are dealing with Brussels and the UK who will decide on this issue, not France
France should stop for a moment and just think how it would look if they turned off Jersey's electricity and someone died as a direct result, maybe in a hospital or other related reason and also the reputational damage they would inflict on themselves
There are many who support France in their anti Brexit tirade, but they are presently a real issue for the EU, not just on this matter, but on defence and security, their gendarmes standing and watching migrants launch unsafe inflatables to attempt to cross to the UK, and demanding the EU use French as their official language
If we said that murder was now legal in the UK, there wouldn't be a (huge) spike in murders because it's not a law we obey because there's a law. And that probably applies for a number of things down the scale. But we know that quite a lot of people will cheat "the system" when it comes to things like train tickets.
So, does the UK democracy work fairly well because we have independent people conducting elections? Or would we be fine with the American system? I'm inclined to think that you need a strong framework, otherwise someone will try to gain an advantage.
One of the best things about Britain is that on the whole nobody knows who runs things. The vast majority of jobs in local and national government are not political appointees, we don't elect more than a handful of people directly (our councillors and MPs), and most of us could not name a single Judge in the UK. That is completely different in the US, where lots of important jobs are political appointees, where all kinds of jobs are elected, and where the judiciary is definitely politicised.
The Met Commissioner is probably the one post that does get attention. One could argue we should have more scrutiny on such appointments, but I'm inclined to think that it's mostly good that we don't get hung up about them too much.
Trump if he runs again will certainly be favourite for the GOP nomination.
However whether he does or not I think the likeliest alternative will actually be Pence not DeSantis. De Santis trails Charlie Crist in early polls for next year's Florida governor election and so may not be re elected. Pence meanwhile will be able to count on a lot of the evangelical vote, is more conservative than Haley and Pompeo so still able to appeal to much of the base but also distant enough from Trump to win independents in open primaries
And has the charisma of a three day dead woodlouse.
Most first term Presidents do not face charismatic opponents eg Obama faced Romney, Bush faced Kerry, Clinton faced Dole, Reagan faced Mondale etc, all more wooden than charismatic. Biden too was not especially charismatic compared to Trump.
France threatens to turn off electricity to Jersey in retaliation for their fishermen not getting the licences they want, notwithstanding that to obtain a licence they only need evidence of their fishing logs, the fact some do not have logs raises the question why ?
The Minister in charge in Jersey has just said on Sky they are dealing with Brussels and the UK who will decide on this issue, not France
France should stop for a moment and just think how it would look if they turned off Jersey's electricity and someone died as a direct result, maybe in a hospital or other related reason and also the reputational damage they would inflict on themselves
There are many who support France in their anti Brexit tirade, but they are presently a real issue for the EU, not just on this matter, but on defence and security, their gendarmes standing and watching migrants launch unsafe inflatables to attempt to cross to the UK, and demanding the EU use French as their official language
By contrast the UK looks reasonable and sensible
The strong impression in the C-I is that the French are all in favour of "rules" as long as they don't apply to them.
France threatens to turn off electricity to Jersey in retaliation for their fishermen not getting the licences they want, notwithstanding that to obtain a licence they only need evidence of their fishing logs, the fact some do not have logs raises the question why ?
The Minister in charge in Jersey has just said on Sky they are dealing with Brussels and the UK who will decide on this issue, not France
France should stop for a moment and just think how it would look if they turned off Jersey's electricity and someone died as a direct result, maybe in a hospital or other related reason and also the reputational damage they would inflict on themselves
There are many who support France in their anti Brexit tirade, but they are presently a real issue for the EU, not just on this matter, but on defence and security, their gendarmes standing and watching migrants launch unsafe inflatables to attempt to cross to the UK, and demanding the EU use French as their official language
By contrast the UK looks reasonable and sensible
Jersey has its own (oil-fired) power station. They just prefer to use cheaper, greener electricity from the French interconnector.
France threatens to turn off electricity to Jersey in retaliation for their fishermen not getting the licences they want, notwithstanding that to obtain a licence they only need evidence of their fishing logs, the fact some do not have logs raises the question why ?
The Minister in charge in Jersey has just said on Sky they are dealing with Brussels and the UK who will decide on this issue, not France
France should stop for a moment and just think how it would look if they turned off Jersey's electricity and someone died as a direct result, maybe in a hospital or other related reason and also the reputational damage they would inflict on themselves...
Unlikely, since they've said they won't cut it off. Just reduce the supply.
Kind of funny seeing the increasingly desperate gaslighting of the PB Tories telling us that "as usual" the UK holds all the cards. I have spoken to lots of EU diplomats in the past week, including two EU foreign ministers, and it is clear that Johnson´s bluster and bad faith are simply not taken seriously. While the UK press (especially the Murdoch-Rothermere off-shore press) is trying to throw mud in the eye of British voters, so that they think that Brexit is only a small factor in the successive wave of crises hiiting the British economy at the moment, most people outside the UK, including the EU itself are in no doubt. The scale of the crisis that Brtiain is facing is down to Brexit, and no other European country is having anything the same problems, The general view is that the UK will ultimately have to pursue a new and better relationship with the EU, whther that is next year or next decade. Obviously this will be after BJ is gone, so they don´t feel the need to chuck us too many bones for as long as he is around. Unlike the PB Tories they can count, and they see that the options for the UK are getting worse by the day. Most don´t care if the six counties leave the UK, and some are indifferent about whether the UK survives otherwise. They will protect Ireland and anything the UK does that puts the Republic under threat will be countered. Goodwill towards Johnson is basically zero and there is growing irritation about the constant attempts by London to shift the goal posts. I dont think formal sanctions are necessarily on the table yet, since the feeling is that essentially the UK has sanctioned itself and the damage is already pretty serious, but any attempt by the UK to take action against the EU may still get a surprisingly stiff response.
If we said that murder was now legal in the UK, there wouldn't be a (huge) spike in murders because it's not a law we obey because there's a law. And that probably applies for a number of things down the scale. But we know that quite a lot of people will cheat "the system" when it comes to things like train tickets.
So, does the UK democracy work fairly well because we have independent people conducting elections? Or would we be fine with the American system? I'm inclined to think that you need a strong framework, otherwise someone will try to gain an advantage.
One of the best things about Britain is that on the whole nobody knows who runs things. The vast majority of jobs in local and national government are not political appointees, we don't elect more than a handful of people directly (our councillors and MPs), and most of us could not name a single Judge in the UK. That is completely different in the US, where lots of important jobs are political appointees, where all kinds of jobs are elected, and where the judiciary is definitely politicised.
The Met Commissioner is probably the one post that does get attention. One could argue we should have more scrutiny on such appointments, but I'm inclined to think that it's mostly good that we don't get hung up about them too much.
The PCCs are, of course, directly elected. However, nobody knows who any of them are until one of them says something stupid, like the chap in North Yorkshire.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. But if invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
Kind of funny seeing the increasingly desperate gaslighting of the PB Tories telling us that "as usual" the UK holds all the cards. I have spoken to lots of EU diplomats in the past week, including two EU foreign ministers, and it is clear that Johnson´s bluster and bad faith are simply not taken seriously. While the UK press (especially the Murdoch-Rothermere off-shore press) is trying to throw mud in the eye of British voters, so that they think that Brexit is only a small factor in the successive wave of crises hiiting the British economy at the moment, most people outside the UK, including the EU itself are in no doubt. The scale of the crisis that Brtiain is facing is down to Brexit, and no other European country is having anything the same problems, The general view is that the UK will ultimately have to pursue a new and better relationship with the EU, whther that is next year or next decade. Obviously this will be after BJ is gone, so they don´t feel the need to chuck us too many bones for as long as he is around. Unlike the PB Tories they can count, and they see that the options for the UK are getting worse by the day. Most don´t care if the six counties leave the UK, and some are indifferent about whether the UK survives otherwise. They will protect Ireland and anything the UK does that puts the Republic under threat will be countered. Goodwill towards Johnson is basically zero and there is growing irritation about the constant attempts by London to shift the goal posts. I dont think formal sanctions are necessarily on the table yet, since the feeling is that essentially the UK has sanctioned itself and the damage is already pretty serious, but any attempt by the UK to take action against the EU may still get a surprisingly stiff response.
What's really stupid from the EU side is that they took such a hard line on Brexit which meant they didn't grant equivalence (a political decision) on financial services or agricultural exports which means they have no leverage to get us to do anything. Imagine this scenario with the EU holding the power of City equivalence over us. We'd probably fold on the basis that the unknown of not having passporting rights would be too big of a risk and Rishi would reign it all in to protect the City.
Once again, the most ardent "Brexit means Brexit" types at the commission have completely failed. It was such a self-defeating stance because it necessarily meant that the UK would no longer be bound to the EU in any way for swathes of our industries. They have got precisely zero political leverage, their kangaroo court has no power over the UK/EU agreement and the one shot they had (border pedantry) has already been fired.
They took the most short term, maximalist position possible and gave up all of the long term advantage to the UK. Now they are realising how damaging that was for them.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
Doesn't Trade War require unanimity among members?
Sure. But it’s not like the EU has failed to use this lever before.
And the thread’s point (on which I claim no superior expertise) is that the EU have made a generous offer to the U.K. precisely in order to drive unanimity among the 27 when Frost inevitably rejects it.
Kind of funny seeing the increasingly desperate gaslighting of the PB Tories telling us that "as usual" the UK holds all the cards. I have spoken to lots of EU diplomats in the past week, including two EU foreign ministers, and it is clear that Johnson´s bluster and bad faith are simply not taken seriously. While the UK press (especially the Murdoch-Rothermere off-shore press) is trying to throw mud in the eye of British voters, so that they think that Brexit is only a small factor in the successive wave of crises hiiting the British economy at the moment, most people outside the UK, including the EU itself are in no doubt. The scale of the crisis that Brtiain is facing is down to Brexit, and no other European country is having anything the same problems, The general view is that the UK will ultimately have to pursue a new and better relationship with the EU, whther that is next year or next decade. Obviously this will be after BJ is gone, so they don´t feel the need to chuck us too many bones for as long as he is around. Unlike the PB Tories they can count, and they see that the options for the UK are getting worse by the day. Most don´t care if the six counties leave the UK, and some are indifferent about whether the UK survives otherwise. They will protect Ireland and anything the UK does that puts the Republic under threat will be countered. Goodwill towards Johnson is basically zero and there is growing irritation about the constant attempts by London to shift the goal posts. I dont think formal sanctions are necessarily on the table yet, since the feeling is that essentially the UK has sanctioned itself and the damage is already pretty serious, but any attempt by the UK to take action against the EU may still get a surprisingly stiff response.
Trump if he runs again will certainly be favourite for the GOP nomination.
However whether he does or not I think the likeliest alternative will actually be Pence not DeSantis. De Santis trails Charlie Crist in early polls for next year's Florida governor election and so may not be re elected. Pence meanwhile will be able to count on a lot of the evangelical vote, is more conservative than Haley and Pompeo so still able to appeal to much of the base but also distant enough from Trump to win independents in open primaries
And has the charisma of a three day dead woodlouse.
Most first term Presidents do not face charismatic opponents eg Obama faced Romney, Bush faced Kerry, Clinton faced Dole, Reagan faced Mondale etc, all more wooden than charismatic. Biden too was not especially charismatic compared to Trump.
Interesting pattern. The exception would be George Bush Snr facing Clinton. It's clearly going to be Trump this time though, unless he's unwell or incarcerated by then.
France threatens to turn off electricity to Jersey in retaliation for their fishermen not getting the licences they want, notwithstanding that to obtain a licence they only need evidence of their fishing logs, the fact some do not have logs raises the question why ?
The Minister in charge in Jersey has just said on Sky they are dealing with Brussels and the UK who will decide on this issue, not France
France should stop for a moment and just think how it would look if they turned off Jersey's electricity and someone died as a direct result, maybe in a hospital or other related reason and also the reputational damage they would inflict on themselves...
Unlikely, since they've said they won't cut it off. Just reduce the supply.
The report from Jersey's Minister this morning was they they have threatened to cut of the electricity and that is why they are dealing with Brussels, not France
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
Legally UKG may get away with the "diversion of trade" argument, although it's hard to see what the remedy is for that. CJEU is an integral part of the WA. Using A16 safeguarding measures is inappropriate for that and will eventually be struck down. Point is, EU can take "inappropriate"counter measures as well if it wants to. It's act first and review second for both parties.
Also the EU can take a number of measures that aren't under WA or TCA governance - EU energy market mechanisms, rate of customs checks, membership of EU programmes, eg HORIZON, decisions on recognition of professional qualifications and licences, relief for carbon border adjustments, potentially data adequacy etc. These are at the discretion of the EU and can't be switched back on again solely through arbitration.
These are in addition to measures that are under after the fact governance.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
Doesn't Trade War require unanimity among members?
Sure. But it’s not like the EU has failed to use this lever before.
And the thread’s point (on which I claim no superior expertise) is that the EU have made a generous offer to the U.K. precisely in order to drive unanimity among the 27 when Frost inevitably rejects it.
How is it generous if it doesn't include the entirely reasonable proposal of arbitration that was made months ago?
I'm guessing "made a generous offer" is another one of those irregular verbs?
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
It's a very odd situation, lots of cognitive dissonance from the most ardent remainers on here who now look like they are more pure about their love of the EU than the EU commission. They spent months telling us all that the EU would never renegotiate the NI Protocol and that it was a red line and Frost was putting out papers for nothing. Yet here we are. They still don't seem to have realised it either and keep banging on about these trade war measures that no one can really define but definitely, really exist and can be deployed by individual states and will really, really hurt the UK economy.
It'll be over when both sides have moved on from zero-sum to win-win attitudes. Of course the punishment beating threatened for the UK's recalcitrant brexit is for internal EU discipline "pour encourager les autres". However despite the Polish challenge there doesn't seem be be much appetite to follow the Brits, and my sense is that sanity will soon enough prevail. Before long we'll be getting along famously with our European neighbours.
I wish that were true.
But U.K. (and some EU) politicians now have a short-term incentive to stoke tensions with the other side.
We’ve replaced the “blame the EU!” excuse used by U.K. politicos when we were *inside* the EU with a “blame the EU!” excuse now we are out.
If we said that murder was now legal in the UK, there wouldn't be a (huge) spike in murders because it's not a law we obey because there's a law. And that probably applies for a number of things down the scale. But we know that quite a lot of people will cheat "the system" when it comes to things like train tickets.
So, does the UK democracy work fairly well because we have independent people conducting elections? Or would we be fine with the American system? I'm inclined to think that you need a strong framework, otherwise someone will try to gain an advantage.
One of the best things about Britain is that on the whole nobody knows who runs things. The vast majority of jobs in local and national government are not political appointees, we don't elect more than a handful of people directly (our councillors and MPs), and most of us could not name a single Judge in the UK. That is completely different in the US, where lots of important jobs are political appointees, where all kinds of jobs are elected, and where the judiciary is definitely politicised.
The corollary to that is often we have no idea IF someone is running things.
On a connected note, is Raab in charge while the PM is on his ‘well deserved’ holiday?
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
It's a very odd situation, lots of cognitive dissonance from the most ardent remainers on here who now look like they are more pure about their love of the EU than the EU commission. They spent months telling us all that the EU would never renegotiate the NI Protocol and that it was a red line and Frost was putting out papers for nothing. Yet here we are. They still don't seem to have realised it either and keep banging on about these trade war measures that no one can really define but definitely, really exist and can be deployed by individual states and will really, really hurt the UK economy.
It'll be over when both sides have moved on from zero-sum to win-win attitudes. Of course the punishment beating threatened for the UK's recalcitrant brexit is for internal EU discipline "pour encourager les autres". However despite the Polish challenge there doesn't seem be be much appetite to follow the Brits, and my sense is that sanity will soon enough prevail. Before long we'll be getting along famously with our European neighbours.
I wish that were true.
But U.K. (and some EU) politicians now have a short-term incentive to stoke tensions with the other side.
We’ve replaced the “blame the EU!” excuse used by U.K. politicos when we were *inside* the EU with a “blame the EU!” excuse now we are out.
Like all incompetent authoritarian regimes, the UK government needs a rotating list of enemies without (the EU! China! France!) and enemies within (Wokeness! Immigrants! Sturgeon! Londoners!) to stoke the perpetual outrage machine and distract the voters from their manifest failings. They're pathetic.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
Doesn't Trade War require unanimity among members?
Sure. But it’s not like the EU has failed to use this lever before.
And the thread’s point (on which I claim no superior expertise) is that the EU have made a generous offer to the U.K. precisely in order to drive unanimity among the 27 when Frost inevitably rejects it.
I seriously doubt it. What does Bulgaria get out of pulling the plug on the TCA, or Italy, or Germany? Tariffs on UK imports of their goods and a complete breakdown of their relationships with the UK, for what? They simply don't care about the Irish border dispute. They've got much bigger things to worry about like hoping Putin doesn't turn the lights off this winter.
One of the reasons the EU have budged from a very clear no negotiation position to putting the NI protocol on the table is because they know unanimous agreement on a trade war with the UK is not forthcoming and they can't compel the UK into doing anything now that the TCA is fully ratified and separate from the NI protocol and has independent arbitration, not ECJ jurisdiction.
If we said that murder was now legal in the UK, there wouldn't be a (huge) spike in murders because it's not a law we obey because there's a law. And that probably applies for a number of things down the scale. But we know that quite a lot of people will cheat "the system" when it comes to things like train tickets.
So, does the UK democracy work fairly well because we have independent people conducting elections? Or would we be fine with the American system? I'm inclined to think that you need a strong framework, otherwise someone will try to gain an advantage.
One of the best things about Britain is that on the whole nobody knows who runs things. The vast majority of jobs in local and national government are not political appointees, we don't elect more than a handful of people directly (our councillors and MPs), and most of us could not name a single Judge in the UK. That is completely different in the US, where lots of important jobs are political appointees, where all kinds of jobs are elected, and where the judiciary is definitely politicised.
The corollary to that is often we have no idea IF someone is running things.
On a connected note, is Raab in charge while the PM is on his ‘well deserved’ holiday?
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
It's a very odd situation, lots of cognitive dissonance from the most ardent remainers on here who now look like they are more pure about their love of the EU than the EU commission. They spent months telling us all that the EU would never renegotiate the NI Protocol and that it was a red line and Frost was putting out papers for nothing. Yet here we are. They still don't seem to have realised it either and keep banging on about these trade war measures that no one can really define but definitely, really exist and can be deployed by individual states and will really, really hurt the UK economy.
It'll be over when both sides have moved on from zero-sum to win-win attitudes. Of course the punishment beating threatened for the UK's recalcitrant brexit is for internal EU discipline "pour encourager les autres". However despite the Polish challenge there doesn't seem be be much appetite to follow the Brits, and my sense is that sanity will soon enough prevail. Before long we'll be getting along famously with our European neighbours.
I wish that were true.
But U.K. (and some EU) politicians now have a short-term incentive to stoke tensions with the other side.
We’ve replaced the “blame the EU!” excuse used by U.K. politicos when we were *inside* the EU with a “blame the EU!” excuse now we are out.
But this is so much more fun.
Previously, "Blame the EU" meant (in part) blaming ourselves. Both because the EU was (in part) us and because it was our lack of national swashbuckle in our meekly following the rules.
Now "Blame the EU" allows us to blame something Other. it's almost as good as War With France, and who doesn't enjoy that?
Trump if he runs again will certainly be favourite for the GOP nomination.
However whether he does or not I think the likeliest alternative will actually be Pence not DeSantis. De Santis trails Charlie Crist in early polls for next year's Florida governor election and so may not be re elected. Pence meanwhile will be able to count on a lot of the evangelical vote, is more conservative than Haley and Pompeo so still able to appeal to much of the base but also distant enough from Trump to win independents in open primaries
And has the charisma of a three day dead woodlouse.
Most first term Presidents do not face charismatic opponents eg Obama faced Romney, Bush faced Kerry, Clinton faced Dole, Reagan faced Mondale etc, all more wooden than charismatic. Biden too was not especially charismatic compared to Trump.
Interesting pattern. The exception would be George Bush Snr facing Clinton. It's clearly going to be Trump this time though, unless he's unwell or incarcerated by then.
Do not rule out Pence too early. After four years, he might have some ammunition to use against Trump.
Trump if he runs again will certainly be favourite for the GOP nomination.
However whether he does or not I think the likeliest alternative will actually be Pence not DeSantis. De Santis trails Charlie Crist in early polls for next year's Florida governor election and so may not be re elected. Pence meanwhile will be able to count on a lot of the evangelical vote, is more conservative than Haley and Pompeo so still able to appeal to much of the base but also distant enough from Trump to win independents in open primaries
And has the charisma of a three day dead woodlouse.
Most first term Presidents do not face charismatic opponents eg Obama faced Romney, Bush faced Kerry, Clinton faced Dole, Reagan faced Mondale etc, all more wooden than charismatic. Biden too was not especially charismatic compared to Trump.
Interesting pattern. The exception would be George Bush Snr facing Clinton. It's clearly going to be Trump this time though, unless he's unwell or incarcerated by then.
The Republicans had been in the White House for 12 years in 1992 though, the Democrats will only have held the White House for 4 in 2024.
I think Trump will only run again if it is a GOP landslide in the midterms next year and they pick up both the House and Senate and he looks very likely to be able to win the election or use Congress to object to the EC results.
If not I think he will sit it out and Pence might get it, De Santis I think will lose the Florida governor race next year to Crist and Haley is too moderate for the current GOP while Pence is popular with evangelicals who are a big component of the GOP primary electorate.
In any case I would have thought the fact Pence is deathly dull might actually be in his favour, he may be dull but he will not try and launch a coup if he loses and if he wins he won't be as big a threat as Trump
France threatens to turn off electricity to Jersey in retaliation for their fishermen not getting the licences they want, notwithstanding that to obtain a licence they only need evidence of their fishing logs, the fact some do not have logs raises the question why ?
The Minister in charge in Jersey has just said on Sky they are dealing with Brussels and the UK who will decide on this issue, not France
France should stop for a moment and just think how it would look if they turned off Jersey's electricity and someone died as a direct result, maybe in a hospital or other related reason and also the reputational damage they would inflict on themselves...
Unlikely, since they've said they won't cut it off. Just reduce the supply.
The report from Jersey's Minister this morning was they they have threatened to cut of the electricity and that is why they are dealing with Brussels, not France
Well it provoked your outrage, so I guess the rhetoric worked. The reality is that they made it clear several days ago that they were threatening a reduction, not a cut.
Unless he dies, is incapacitated or constitutionally banned from running, Trump will be the nominee.
I don't think the last option is now possible - the attempt after Jan 6th failed and any financial issues seem to be removed enough that Trump won't be directly involved.
I think one of the spreadsheet wankers on here worked out that his actuarial odds of karking it before 2024 are only something like 15%.
MAGA,A!
It's happening and we all better used to it.
It's probably 15% death, plus another 15% for an ailment sufficiently serious as to prevent running again.
Regardless of my stance, I'm not putting money on Trump being the nominee. I think he will be barring death / serious incapacity but there is also the (slight) chance he might wake up one day and go "sod it, I will find something more interesting." I'd much rather put the money somewhere else.
Re the Senate in 2022, worth reading this piece as this guy normally gets it right when it comes to the Democrats' vote. On a knife edge for 2022 but not looking great, 2024 could be a tsunami:
The corollary to that is often we have no idea IF someone is running things.
On a connected note, is Raab in charge while the PM is on his ‘well deserved’ holiday?
There are obviously downsides, but if I had to choose I'd go for the system where few jobs are political, not the one where many jobs are political. Some jobs are performed better when they person doing them is not there due to a political favour or contest.
Trump if he runs again will certainly be favourite for the GOP nomination.
However whether he does or not I think the likeliest alternative will actually be Pence not DeSantis. De Santis trails Charlie Crist in early polls for next year's Florida governor election and so may not be re elected. Pence meanwhile will be able to count on a lot of the evangelical vote, is more conservative than Haley and Pompeo so still able to appeal to much of the base but also distant enough from Trump to win independents in open primaries
And has the charisma of a three day dead woodlouse.
Most first term Presidents do not face charismatic opponents eg Obama faced Romney, Bush faced Kerry, Clinton faced Dole, Reagan faced Mondale etc, all more wooden than charismatic. Biden too was not especially charismatic compared to Trump.
Interesting pattern. The exception would be George Bush Snr facing Clinton. It's clearly going to be Trump this time though, unless he's unwell or incarcerated by then.
Do not rule out Pence too early. After four years, he might have some ammunition to use against Trump.
Pence seems caught between two stools though. Too Trumpist for the rational/Lincoln wing of the party - and Judas for the Trumpites.
If we said that murder was now legal in the UK, there wouldn't be a (huge) spike in murders because it's not a law we obey because there's a law. And that probably applies for a number of things down the scale. But we know that quite a lot of people will cheat "the system" when it comes to things like train tickets.
So, does the UK democracy work fairly well because we have independent people conducting elections? Or would we be fine with the American system? I'm inclined to think that you need a strong framework, otherwise someone will try to gain an advantage.
One of the best things about Britain is that on the whole nobody knows who runs things. The vast majority of jobs in local and national government are not political appointees, we don't elect more than a handful of people directly (our councillors and MPs), and most of us could not name a single Judge in the UK. That is completely different in the US, where lots of important jobs are political appointees, where all kinds of jobs are elected, and where the judiciary is definitely politicised.
The corollary to that is often we have no idea IF someone is running things.
On a connected note, is Raab in charge while the PM is on his ‘well deserved’ holiday?
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
Legally UKG may get away with the "diversion of trade" argument, although it's hard to see what the remedy is for that. CJEU is an integral part of the WA. Using A16 safeguarding measures is inappropriate for that and will eventually be struck down. Point is, EU can take "inappropriate"counter measures as well if it wants to. It's act first and review second for both parties.
Also the EU can take a number of measures that aren't under WA or TCA governance - EU energy market mechanisms, rate of customs checks, membership of EU programmes, eg HORIZON, decisions on recognition of professional qualifications and licences, relief for carbon border adjustments, potentially data adequacy etc. These are at the discretion of the EU and can't be switched back on again solely through arbitration.
These are in addition to measures that are under after the fact governance.
We're not in the EU energy market, as loads of people were at pains to point out when spot gas prices went up, they've already fired the customs checks shot, on horizon they already failed to keep the UK out and it needs the likes of Germany and Italy to agree and they didn't last time France proposed kicking us out, qualifications is a national competence, they'd need for countries to do it and hope the UK doesn't retaliate.
I think data adequacy is the only significant one and even then it looks as though the UK is in the process of giving it away with reforms to our data regulations.
You're reaching hard and really none of these really amount to very much, we're not even talking about 0.1% of GDP, maybe not even 0.01%. That's how little leverage the EU has over the UK.
Despite being a Remainer, or even classified as a fifth columnist in some of Max’s mad rants, I do think the UKG strategy on NI is the right one, and has a good chance of succeeding.
One of my manifold frustrations with Brexit (apart from the act itself, which I still hold to be a gross national failure) is that HMG seemed to give in to what David Davis suggested would be the “row of the summer”, ie sequencing.
Thus, NI was instrumentalised against us.
In these early stages, our strategy had no logic. Theresa May takes some of the blame, but not all. Davis was still Brexit Minister, and of course the ERGers were insistent on rapid exercise of A50 which was the first big mistake…
On topic: Elements of voter suppression, gerrymandering and judicial appointment politicking have long been a part of things in the US, the difference with the GOP under Trump appears to me as a casual observer, the level of systematicity and brazen openness with which it is being pursued as a tactic, at a level perhaps not seen for decades.
A couple of weeks ago I drilled down into a tweet I saw on here and dug up the below. Now this article is from something of a left-assumed perspective and is just one article, but it figures to me for something to be systematic, there has to be somewhere, some theoretical underpinnings for the GOPs current behaviour.
So, my question to PB brains trust is, who are the backroom architects of the current stance and, if Buchanan is not a major player as suggested by the article, what other underpinnings are there for GOP and Tea Party tactics?
Despite being a Remainer, or even classified as a fifth columnist in some of Max’s mad rants, I do think the UKG strategy on NI is the right one, and has a good chance of succeeding.
One of my manifold frustrations with Brexit (apart from the act itself, which I still hold to be a gross national failure) is that HMG seemed to give in to what David Davis suggested would be the “row of the summer”, ie sequencing.
Thus, NI was instrumentalised against us.
In these early stages, our strategy had no logic. Theresa May takes some of the blame, but not all. Davis was still Brexit Minister, and of course the ERGers were insistent on rapid exercise of A50 which was the first big mistake…
What more could have been done before A50? How much more planning could we have done when the EU refused any kind of pre-A50 discussion? We could have come up with elaborate plans which wouldn't have survived the first week of negotiations.
It still blows my mind that the House of Commons voted so strongly for A50 invocation though, given their later refusal to back the agreement.
Trump if he runs again will certainly be favourite for the GOP nomination.
However whether he does or not I think the likeliest alternative will actually be Pence not DeSantis. De Santis trails Charlie Crist in early polls for next year's Florida governor election and so may not be re elected. Pence meanwhile will be able to count on a lot of the evangelical vote, is more conservative than Haley and Pompeo so still able to appeal to much of the base but also distant enough from Trump to win independents in open primaries
And has the charisma of a three day dead woodlouse.
Most first term Presidents do not face charismatic opponents eg Obama faced Romney, Bush faced Kerry, Clinton faced Dole, Reagan faced Mondale etc, all more wooden than charismatic. Biden too was not especially charismatic compared to Trump.
Interesting pattern. The exception would be George Bush Snr facing Clinton. It's clearly going to be Trump this time though, unless he's unwell or incarcerated by then.
Do not rule out Pence too early. After four years, he might have some ammunition to use against Trump.
Pence seems caught between two stools though. Too Trumpist for the rational/Lincoln wing of the party - and Judas for the Trumpites.
Pence was a semi-failed non-entity before Trump picked him up. Precisely because he was a semi-failed non-entity who would appeal to the Taliban Republicans.
He now is hated and despised by
- Democrats, who see him as a fan of a Handmaidens Tale (and not in a good way). His not going along with the coup gives him a "Lets not kick him all day long" - Swing voters (see above) - Trumpets see him as a traitor - Taliban Republicans generally go with the Trumpets.
There are about three people who will vote for Pence in a primary. Him, his wife and someone else.....
If we said that murder was now legal in the UK, there wouldn't be a (huge) spike in murders because it's not a law we obey because there's a law. And that probably applies for a number of things down the scale. But we know that quite a lot of people will cheat "the system" when it comes to things like train tickets.
So, does the UK democracy work fairly well because we have independent people conducting elections? Or would we be fine with the American system? I'm inclined to think that you need a strong framework, otherwise someone will try to gain an advantage.
One of the best things about Britain is that on the whole nobody knows who runs things. The vast majority of jobs in local and national government are not political appointees, we don't elect more than a handful of people directly (our councillors and MPs), and most of us could not name a single Judge in the UK. That is completely different in the US, where lots of important jobs are political appointees, where all kinds of jobs are elected, and where the judiciary is definitely politicised.
A good point. This is why I'm deeply unattracted to the noddy idea that democracy equals voting and voting equals democracy. There's far more to it than that and in fact constantly having to vote for things/people can be - I'd argue is likely to be - at best a waste of time & energy and at worst a way of maximizing inefficiency and paralysis and corruption and bad blood. Do I want a plethora of elected officials sticking their oar into each & every aspect of life? Do I want a Camden Refuse Collection Czar pulling out all the stops towards the end of his term, coming up with all sorts of eyecatching initiatives in a bid to secure another 4 years running the bins? Do I want judges interpreting the law with either a "remainer" or a "leaver" bent depending where they sit in the culture wars and who apppointed them? No, No, No.
The topic of PMs holidays came up on Nick Ferrari's show on LBC this morning (Which I can now listen to as I have DAB in my newer car). Does he have 25 days like the rest of us, or is it when parliament isn't sitting or ? what are the rules on it. Are there any rules, can he take as much as he likes ? Noone actually asked this question.
@kinabalu you keep making aspersions that a potential invocation of Article 16 now is somehow illegitimate or comparable to the unprovoked, unexpected and not even discussed with Ireland first invocation of it earlier this year over vaccines.
Diversion of trade is a trigger for Article 16. Diversion of trade is happening. The government has said the trigger is met but they'll try negotiations first and only trigger it as a last resort.
So how can you possibly think that's at all comparable. If the trigger is diversion of trade, and diversion of trade is happening, then that's that surely?
If we said that murder was now legal in the UK, there wouldn't be a (huge) spike in murders because it's not a law we obey because there's a law. And that probably applies for a number of things down the scale. But we know that quite a lot of people will cheat "the system" when it comes to things like train tickets.
So, does the UK democracy work fairly well because we have independent people conducting elections? Or would we be fine with the American system? I'm inclined to think that you need a strong framework, otherwise someone will try to gain an advantage.
One of the best things about Britain is that on the whole nobody knows who runs things. The vast majority of jobs in local and national government are not political appointees, we don't elect more than a handful of people directly (our councillors and MPs), and most of us could not name a single Judge in the UK. That is completely different in the US, where lots of important jobs are political appointees, where all kinds of jobs are elected, and where the judiciary is definitely politicised.
A good point. This is why I'm deeply unattracted to the noddy idea that democracy equals voting and voting equals democracy. There's far more to it than that and in fact constantly having to vote for things/people can be - I'd argue is likely to be - at best a waste of time & energy and at worst a way of maximizing inefficiency and paralysis and corruption and bad blood. Do I want a plethora of elected officials sticking their oar into each & every aspect of life? Do I want a Camden Refuse Collection Czar pulling out all the stops towards the end of his term, coming up with all sorts of eyecatching initiatives in a bid to secure another 4 years running the bins? Do I want judges interpreting the law with either a "remainer" or a "leaver" bent depending where they sit in the culture wars and who apppointed them? No, No, No.
I would almost agree with you except that if the eyecatching initiative was that the waste bin would actually be collected every single week then I'd vote for that.
The topic of PMs holidays came up on Nick Ferrari's show on LBC this morning (Which I can now listen to as I have DAB in my newer car). Does he have 25 days like the rest of us, or is it when parliament isn't sitting or ? what are the rules on it. Are there any rules, can he take as much as he likes ? Noone actually asked this question.
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
It does seem as though everyone is searching for an, "I told you so!" moment on Brexit and I'm finding it incredibly tiresome.
It will help Johnson win the third Brexit general election handsomely though, so it's working for someone's benefit at least. Not sure what anyone else is gaining from it.
Trump if he runs again will certainly be favourite for the GOP nomination.
However whether he does or not I think the likeliest alternative will actually be Pence not DeSantis. De Santis trails Charlie Crist in early polls for next year's Florida governor election and so may not be re elected. Pence meanwhile will be able to count on a lot of the evangelical vote, is more conservative than Haley and Pompeo so still able to appeal to much of the base but also distant enough from Trump to win independents in open primaries
And has the charisma of a three day dead woodlouse.
Most first term Presidents do not face charismatic opponents eg Obama faced Romney, Bush faced Kerry, Clinton faced Dole, Reagan faced Mondale etc, all more wooden than charismatic. Biden too was not especially charismatic compared to Trump.
Interesting pattern. The exception would be George Bush Snr facing Clinton. It's clearly going to be Trump this time though, unless he's unwell or incarcerated by then.
Do not rule out Pence too early. After four years, he might have some ammunition to use against Trump.
Pence seems caught between two stools though. Too Trumpist for the rational/Lincoln wing of the party - and Judas for the Trumpites.
Pence was a semi-failed non-entity before Trump picked him up. Precisely because he was a semi-failed non-entity who would appeal to the Taliban Republicans.
He now is hated and despised by
- Democrats, who see him as a fan of a Handmaidens Tale (and not in a good way). His not going along with the coup gives him a "Lets not kick him all day long" - Swing voters (see above) - Trumpets see him as a traitor - Taliban Republicans generally go with the Trumpets.
There are about three people who will vote for Pence in a primary. Him, his wife and someone else.....
If Trump did run again then although he had a clear lead Pence was in second place.
Democrats don't vote in GOP primaries in any great numbers, Independents do however, especially in open primaries and Independents will like the fact Pence did not support the attempted coup.
Evangelicals also like Pence and are a big proportion of the GOP primary electorate and remember in 2016 the most religious voters actually voted for Cruz not Trump
The topic of PMs holidays came up on Nick Ferrari's show on LBC this morning (Which I can now listen to as I have DAB in my newer car). Does he have 25 days like the rest of us, or is it when parliament isn't sitting or ? what are the rules on it. Are there any rules, can he take as much as he likes ? Noone actually asked this question.
Is it not the case that, as with most items related to employment law, MPs voted to exempt themselves from the laws that apply to everyone else? Ministers “work” for the Crown, and are responsible for maintaining their own schedules.
Kind of funny seeing the increasingly desperate gaslighting of the PB Tories telling us that "as usual" the UK holds all the cards. I have spoken to lots of EU diplomats in the past week, including two EU foreign ministers, and it is clear that Johnson´s bluster and bad faith are simply not taken seriously.
While the UK press (especially the Murdoch-Rothermere off-shore press) is trying to throw mud in the eye of British voters, so that they think that Brexit is only a small factor in the successive wave of crises hiiting the British economy at the moment, most people outside the UK, including the EU itself are in no doubt.
The scale of the crisis that Brtiain is facing is down to Brexit, and no other European country is having anything the same problems, The general view is that the UK will ultimately have to pursue a new and better relationship with the EU, whther that is next year or next decade. Obviously this will be after BJ is gone, so they don´t feel the need to chuck us too many bones for as long as he is around. Unlike the PB Tories they can count, and they see that the options for the UK are getting worse by the day.
Most don´t care if the six counties leave the UK, and some are indifferent about whether the UK survives otherwise. They will protect Ireland and anything the UK does that puts the Republic under threat will be countered. Goodwill towards Johnson is basically zero and there is growing irritation about the constant attempts by London to shift the goal posts.
I dont think formal sanctions are necessarily on the table yet, since the feeling is that essentially the UK has sanctioned itself and the damage is already pretty serious, but any attempt by the UK to take action against the EU may still get a surprisingly stiff response.
I added some paras to try and make this amazing rant a little more reader friend!
Trump if he runs again will certainly be favourite for the GOP nomination.
However whether he does or not I think the likeliest alternative will actually be Pence not DeSantis. De Santis trails Charlie Crist in early polls for next year's Florida governor election and so may not be re elected. Pence meanwhile will be able to count on a lot of the evangelical vote, is more conservative than Haley and Pompeo so still able to appeal to much of the base but also distant enough from Trump to win independents in open primaries
And has the charisma of a three day dead woodlouse.
Most first term Presidents do not face charismatic opponents eg Obama faced Romney, Bush faced Kerry, Clinton faced Dole, Reagan faced Mondale etc, all more wooden than charismatic. Biden too was not especially charismatic compared to Trump.
Interesting pattern. The exception would be George Bush Snr facing Clinton. It's clearly going to be Trump this time though, unless he's unwell or incarcerated by then.
Do not rule out Pence too early. After four years, he might have some ammunition to use against Trump.
Pence seems caught between two stools though. Too Trumpist for the rational/Lincoln wing of the party - and Judas for the Trumpites.
Pence was a semi-failed non-entity before Trump picked him up. Precisely because he was a semi-failed non-entity who would appeal to the Taliban Republicans.
He now is hated and despised by
- Democrats, who see him as a fan of a Handmaidens Tale (and not in a good way). His not going along with the coup gives him a "Lets not kick him all day long" - Swing voters (see above) - Trumpets see him as a traitor - Taliban Republicans generally go with the Trumpets.
There are about three people who will vote for Pence in a primary. Him, his wife and someone else.....
If Trump did run again then although he had a clear lead Pence was in second place.
Democrats don't vote in GOP primaries in any great numbers, Independents do however, especially in open primaries and Independents will like the fact Pence did not support the attempted coup.
Evangelicals also like Pence and are a big proportion of the GOP primary electorate and remember in 2016 the most religious voters actually voted for Cruz not Trump
The fact that Pence is even considered is more about the useless non-entity status of the other candidates.
Trump if he runs again will certainly be favourite for the GOP nomination.
However whether he does or not I think the likeliest alternative will actually be Pence not DeSantis. De Santis trails Charlie Crist in early polls for next year's Florida governor election and so may not be re elected. Pence meanwhile will be able to count on a lot of the evangelical vote, is more conservative than Haley and Pompeo so still able to appeal to much of the base but also distant enough from Trump to win independents in open primaries
And has the charisma of a three day dead woodlouse.
Most first term Presidents do not face charismatic opponents eg Obama faced Romney, Bush faced Kerry, Clinton faced Dole, Reagan faced Mondale etc, all more wooden than charismatic. Biden too was not especially charismatic compared to Trump.
Interesting pattern. The exception would be George Bush Snr facing Clinton. It's clearly going to be Trump this time though, unless he's unwell or incarcerated by then.
Do not rule out Pence too early. After four years, he might have some ammunition to use against Trump.
Trouble is, the ammo the other way is literal. He'd fear for his life.
Some very interesting aspects regarding the NI protocol are being discussed by lawyers .
The main takeaway is no 10 can’t just remove the oversight of the ECJ . You’d have to argue that it’s causing problems on the ground and there is no evidence of this .
In the other areas the wording re Article 16 does give no 10 more room for interpretation.
However there is an issue with domestic law , and depending on what they do re the article they could need parliament to amend legislation.
And regardless of what they do international law trumps domestic law .
There is a direct link between the NI protocol and the TCA , problems in the former can allow for penalties in the other .
This would take some time however as the process has to go through arbitration etc.
Trump if he runs again will certainly be favourite for the GOP nomination.
However whether he does or not I think the likeliest alternative will actually be Pence not DeSantis. De Santis trails Charlie Crist in early polls for next year's Florida governor election and so may not be re elected. Pence meanwhile will be able to count on a lot of the evangelical vote, is more conservative than Haley and Pompeo so still able to appeal to much of the base but also distant enough from Trump to win independents in open primaries
And has the charisma of a three day dead woodlouse.
Most first term Presidents do not face charismatic opponents eg Obama faced Romney, Bush faced Kerry, Clinton faced Dole, Reagan faced Mondale etc, all more wooden than charismatic. Biden too was not especially charismatic compared to Trump.
Interesting pattern. The exception would be George Bush Snr facing Clinton. It's clearly going to be Trump this time though, unless he's unwell or incarcerated by then.
Do not rule out Pence too early. After four years, he might have some ammunition to use against Trump.
Pence seems caught between two stools though. Too Trumpist for the rational/Lincoln wing of the party - and Judas for the Trumpites.
There are far more evangelicals in the Republican primary electorate, who Pence is popular with, than Lincoln Project Republicans, who you can now count on one hand (especially as most of them voted for Biden-Harris over Trump-Pence).
Pence will thus be the main non Trump candidate if Trump runs again and the frontrunner if Trump does not run again
France threatens to turn off electricity to Jersey in retaliation for their fishermen not getting the licences they want, notwithstanding that to obtain a licence they only need evidence of their fishing logs, the fact some do not have logs raises the question why ?
The Minister in charge in Jersey has just said on Sky they are dealing with Brussels and the UK who will decide on this issue, not France
France should stop for a moment and just think how it would look if they turned off Jersey's electricity and someone died as a direct result, maybe in a hospital or other related reason and also the reputational damage they would inflict on themselves...
Unlikely, since they've said they won't cut it off. Just reduce the supply.
The report from Jersey's Minister this morning was they they have threatened to cut of the electricity and that is why they are dealing with Brussels, not France
Well it provoked your outrage, so I guess the rhetoric worked. The reality is that they made it clear several days ago that they were threatening a reduction, not a cut.
I am recounting a report from the Jersey Minister dealing with this
Outrage, not really just commenting on a real threat to Jersey electricity supply
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Forever War- does this mean we have a PB team building exercise scheduled on Pluto?
Gentle reminder that #Brexit is important, but still not no.1 priority for the EU. Those whose job it is to focus on Brexit will be following this week's developments closely - the rest will be focused on Poland, new leadership in Central Europe, coalition talks in Germany, etc.
Which is yet another reason to add to the list shared here by @mij_europe the other day (which was basically parotting what I've written here for the past four years) as to why the UK 'holds all the cards' in these forthcoming negotiations.
The UK government cares passionately about what is going on and speak with a single voice. The EU's 27 governments do not.
That thread suggested that the EU had gone so far and no further, and that any rejection from Frost will lead to a trade war.
I agree with the general point though, that the U.K. “holds most of the cards” on NI.
I suspect Leavers will find the EU is stronger than they think and Remainers will find the EU is not as nice as they think.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
Why do you think the EU didn't follow through on its initial ultimatum not to ratify the TCA until the UK fully implemented the protocol?
Because as I have said previously, the UK not implementing the Protocol is something they can ignore for a very long time. Consciously breaching a just agreed treaty isn't something they can accept. It doesn't have anything to do with Ireland - most member states will be on the same page on this.
Article 16 is part of the treaty. How does using it constitute breaching the treaty?
I justly invoke part of a treaty You are renaging on promises He is an international outlaw
Yep. The mercurial nature of Article 16. If invoked by the EU over vaccines it's an outrageous abuse of the Treaty. If invoked by the UK over the Irish Sea border it's a justifiable interpretation of the Treaty. The truth is both are an abuse. Those who condemn the second and excuse the first are quisling ultra remainer 5th columnists like Devious Grevious. And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side. There are, as it happens, rather more of the latter types on PB.com.
The EU invoking over vaccines was an outrageous abuse. The conditions for invocation are explicitly set out.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
Yep, a perfect illustration of what I said -
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Except I'm an entirely rational and moderate Leaver who has been shown to be right time and again.
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no? Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
As the ECJ row deepens, I'm in Dunkirk where Ireland's Europe Minister @ThomasByrneTD is inaugurating a new Irish terminal. Since Jan 1 there have been 50,000 freight units moving from here to Rosslare, sidestepping the UK landbridge
Unless he dies, is incapacitated or constitutionally banned from running, Trump will be the nominee.
I don't think the last option is now possible - the attempt after Jan 6th failed and any financial issues seem to be removed enough that Trump won't be directly involved.
I think one of the spreadsheet wankers on here worked out that his actuarial odds of karking it before 2024 are only something like 15%.
MAGA,A!
It's happening and we all better used to it.
It's probably 15% death, plus another 15% for an ailment sufficiently serious as to prevent running again.
Regardless of my stance, I'm not putting money on Trump being the nominee. I think he will be barring death / serious incapacity but there is also the (slight) chance he might wake up one day and go "sod it, I will find something more interesting." I'd much rather put the money somewhere else.
Re the Senate in 2022, worth reading this piece as this guy normally gets it right when it comes to the Democrats' vote. On a knife edge for 2022 but not looking great, 2024 could be a tsunami:
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
Trump if he runs again will certainly be favourite for the GOP nomination.
However whether he does or not I think the likeliest alternative will actually be Pence not DeSantis. De Santis trails Charlie Crist in early polls for next year's Florida governor election and so may not be re elected. Pence meanwhile will be able to count on a lot of the evangelical vote, is more conservative than Haley and Pompeo so still able to appeal to much of the base but also distant enough from Trump to win independents in open primaries
And has the charisma of a three day dead woodlouse.
Most first term Presidents do not face charismatic opponents eg Obama faced Romney, Bush faced Kerry, Clinton faced Dole, Reagan faced Mondale etc, all more wooden than charismatic. Biden too was not especially charismatic compared to Trump.
Interesting pattern. The exception would be George Bush Snr facing Clinton. It's clearly going to be Trump this time though, unless he's unwell or incarcerated by then.
Do not rule out Pence too early. After four years, he might have some ammunition to use against Trump.
Pence seems caught between two stools though. Too Trumpist for the rational/Lincoln wing of the party - and Judas for the Trumpites.
There are far more evangelicals in the Republican primary electorate, who Pence is popular with, than Lincoln Project Republicans, who you can now count on one hand.
Pence will thus be the main non Trump candidate if Trump runs again and the frontrunner if Trump does not run again
What proportion of evangelicals haven't drank the kool aid though?
Seems to be a large intersect between evangelicals, antivaxxers and QANON MAGA kool aid drinkers.
Which shouldn't be too surprising. In one group you have a rejection of evidence, an intolerance of science, a hatred of unbelievers and an unshakeable divine belief that you are right and in the other ...
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
We rarely agree on things but yes a negotiation that lasts for years would be a good idea .
Kind of funny seeing the increasingly desperate gaslighting of the PB Tories telling us that "as usual" the UK holds all the cards. I have spoken to lots of EU diplomats in the past week, including two EU foreign ministers, and it is clear that Johnson´s bluster and bad faith are simply not taken seriously. While the UK press (especially the Murdoch-Rothermere off-shore press) is trying to throw mud in the eye of British voters, so that they think that Brexit is only a small factor in the successive wave of crises hiiting the British economy at the moment, most people outside the UK, including the EU itself are in no doubt. The scale of the crisis that Brtiain is facing is down to Brexit, and no other European country is having anything the same problems, The general view is that the UK will ultimately have to pursue a new and better relationship with the EU, whther that is next year or next decade. Obviously this will be after BJ is gone, so they don´t feel the need to chuck us too many bones for as long as he is around. Unlike the PB Tories they can count, and they see that the options for the UK are getting worse by the day. Most don´t care if the six counties leave the UK, and some are indifferent about whether the UK survives otherwise. They will protect Ireland and anything the UK does that puts the Republic under threat will be countered. Goodwill towards Johnson is basically zero and there is growing irritation about the constant attempts by London to shift the goal posts. I dont think formal sanctions are necessarily on the table yet, since the feeling is that essentially the UK has sanctioned itself and the damage is already pretty serious, but any attempt by the UK to take action against the EU may still get a surprisingly stiff response.
Good post. Rings true for the most part. Covid is a boon for Brexit. You can't see the shit for the shit.
If we said that murder was now legal in the UK, there wouldn't be a (huge) spike in murders because it's not a law we obey because there's a law. And that probably applies for a number of things down the scale. But we know that quite a lot of people will cheat "the system" when it comes to things like train tickets.
So, does the UK democracy work fairly well because we have independent people conducting elections? Or would we be fine with the American system? I'm inclined to think that you need a strong framework, otherwise someone will try to gain an advantage.
One of the best things about Britain is that on the whole nobody knows who runs things. The vast majority of jobs in local and national government are not political appointees, we don't elect more than a handful of people directly (our councillors and MPs), and most of us could not name a single Judge in the UK. That is completely different in the US, where lots of important jobs are political appointees, where all kinds of jobs are elected, and where the judiciary is definitely politicised.
A good point. This is why I'm deeply unattracted to the noddy idea that democracy equals voting and voting equals democracy. There's far more to it than that and in fact constantly having to vote for things/people can be - I'd argue is likely to be - at best a waste of time & energy and at worst a way of maximizing inefficiency and paralysis and corruption and bad blood. Do I want a plethora of elected officials sticking their oar into each & every aspect of life? Do I want a Camden Refuse Collection Czar pulling out all the stops towards the end of his term, coming up with all sorts of eyecatching initiatives in a bid to secure another 4 years running the bins? Do I want judges interpreting the law with either a "remainer" or a "leaver" bent depending where they sit in the culture wars and who apppointed them? No, No, No.
Democracy is an abstraction of an idea, with an infinity of ways to implement. None perfect.
As long as it contains and answers the essential elements of Tony Benn's 5 questions (especially the last) it is better than all the alternatives:
The 5 questions:
"What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
Outfits from the Taliban to North Korea and even in part generally benign liberal outfits like the EU (elections to its parliament had insufficient links to policy and leadership change) clearly fail the tests.
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
And when does keeping it forever in cold storage never to be removed out of it become an option?
If its going to be cold storage forever, why not just formalise that now?
The difficulty with the whole A16 NI thing is that the only workable solution is to rejoin the single market.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
The answer is to put the whole thing in cold storage under the guise of negotiations are continuing
If you're a business and you want to decide on an investment decision, indefinite negotiations raise the risk of the rules you will be trading on changing drastically with little warning.
You'd have to be mad to invest in such circumstances.
There needs to be a settlement that both sides will abide to.
The topic of PMs holidays came up on Nick Ferrari's show on LBC this morning (Which I can now listen to as I have DAB in my newer car). Does he have 25 days like the rest of us, or is it when parliament isn't sitting or ? what are the rules on it. Are there any rules, can he take as much as he likes ? Noone actually asked this question.
Is it not the case that, as with most items related to employment law, MPs voted to exempt themselves from the laws that apply to everyone else? Ministers “work” for the Crown, and are responsible for maintaining their own schedules.
Unless I've missed something his holidaying certainly doesn't seem excessive. It might be better if it was codified to 25 days or whatever like the rest of us tbh - it'd probably result in more holiday for him mind !
Kind of funny seeing the increasingly desperate gaslighting of the PB Tories telling us that "as usual" the UK holds all the cards. I have spoken to lots of EU diplomats in the past week, including two EU foreign ministers, and it is clear that Johnson´s bluster and bad faith are simply not taken seriously. While the UK press (especially the Murdoch-Rothermere off-shore press) is trying to throw mud in the eye of British voters, so that they think that Brexit is only a small factor in the successive wave of crises hiiting the British economy at the moment, most people outside the UK, including the EU itself are in no doubt. The scale of the crisis that Brtiain is facing is down to Brexit, and no other European country is having anything the same problems, The general view is that the UK will ultimately have to pursue a new and better relationship with the EU, whther that is next year or next decade. Obviously this will be after BJ is gone, so they don´t feel the need to chuck us too many bones for as long as he is around. Unlike the PB Tories they can count, and they see that the options for the UK are getting worse by the day. Most don´t care if the six counties leave the UK, and some are indifferent about whether the UK survives otherwise. They will protect Ireland and anything the UK does that puts the Republic under threat will be countered. Goodwill towards Johnson is basically zero and there is growing irritation about the constant attempts by London to shift the goal posts. I dont think formal sanctions are necessarily on the table yet, since the feeling is that essentially the UK has sanctioned itself and the damage is already pretty serious, but any attempt by the UK to take action against the EU may still get a surprisingly stiff response.
Good post. Rings true for the most part. Covid is a boon for Brexit. You can't see the shit for the shit.
LOL.
Definitely outing yourself as a hard remainer nutjob who sees the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where you have God on your side this morning.
No wonder you can't answer whether the article that says that it can be invoked if there's diversion of trade happening, can be invoked if there's diversion of trade happening.
Comments
If people don't prioritise an issue as a concern then its much easier to say "just get this resolved" and find it easier to compromise than those who do prioritise it.
When Frost and Boris etc want this resolved their way, and half the EU27 nations are satisfied with the TCA and don't genuinely care about what's happening in NI, then its easier for the nations who don't care to be flexible and bend.
It also makes it much less likely that the EU27 would unanimously vote to invoke the exitting the TCA clause that was proposed as the self-destruct button to be pressed.
You can't weaken that which doesn't exist.
BREAKING
Greenpeace activists have just shut down @10DowningStreet
We delivered @BorisJohnson the statue his legacy deserves if he approves the new oil drilling at Cambo. A statue dripping in oil.
https://twitter.com/GreenpeaceUK/status/1447460642227634181?s=20
My best guess is that the EU will agree to some kind of arbitration process, the green channel idea and silently policing Ireland to EU imports because it's easy for them to do that without anyone really noticing.
I don't think the EU will immediately suspend the TCA, but they and member states can cause plenty of damage from the off, if they want to, which seems to be the case.
The UK can and will retaliate, but the effect will be less, except perhaps for Ireland
https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2021/10/11/covid-19-une-etude-francaise-confirme-l-efficacite-des-vaccins-sur-plus-de-22-millions-de-personnes_6097870_3244.html
It's been a long winding road to get to the right destination but we are getting there.
How does exercising your rights within the Protocol violate it?
You are renaging on promises
He is an international outlaw
Secondly, Trump can be beaten to the nomination by a number of factors; these include
Not standing (for a number of possible reasons, legal, existential, political, personal, polling, medical)
Being beaten by someone who isn't crazy
Being out Trumped by a crazy younger charismatic candidate
He stands but not as Republican
Together I would place Trump's nomination by Republicans as less than 42%. How much less I have no idea. Avoid for now.
Of course the punishment beating threatened for the UK's recalcitrant brexit is for internal EU discipline "pour encourager les autres". However despite the Polish challenge there doesn't seem be be much appetite to follow the Brits, and my sense is that sanity will soon enough prevail. Before long we'll be getting along famously with our European neighbours.
France threatens to turn off electricity to Jersey in retaliation for their fishermen not getting the licences they want, notwithstanding that to obtain a licence they only need evidence of their fishing logs, the fact some do not have logs raises the question why ?
The Minister in charge in Jersey has just said on Sky they are dealing with Brussels and the UK who will decide on this issue, not France
France should stop for a moment and just think how it would look if they turned off Jersey's electricity and someone died as a direct result, maybe in a hospital or other related reason and also the reputational damage they would inflict on themselves
There are many who support France in their anti Brexit tirade, but they are presently a real issue for the EU, not just on this matter, but on defence and security, their gendarmes standing and watching migrants launch unsafe inflatables to attempt to cross to the UK, and demanding the EU use French as their official language
By contrast the UK looks reasonable and sensible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Collette_Power_Station
Just reduce the supply.
Once again, the most ardent "Brexit means Brexit" types at the commission have completely failed. It was such a self-defeating stance because it necessarily meant that the UK would no longer be bound to the EU in any way for swathes of our industries. They have got precisely zero political leverage, their kangaroo court has no power over the UK/EU agreement and the one shot they had (border pedantry) has already been fired.
They took the most short term, maximalist position possible and gave up all of the long term advantage to the UK. Now they are realising how damaging that was for them.
The invocation conditions were not met with UvdL invoked it. They are met now.
Everyone on all sides agrees that diversion of trade is happening, the pro-EU side consider it a good thing and evidence of "Brexit being bad" but if its happening that's the condition met for invocation. You can't deny that.
And the thread’s point (on which I claim no superior expertise) is that the EU have made a generous offer to the U.K. precisely in order to drive unanimity among the 27 when Frost inevitably rejects it.
Also the EU can take a number of measures that aren't under WA or TCA governance - EU energy market mechanisms, rate of customs checks, membership of EU programmes, eg HORIZON, decisions on recognition of professional qualifications and licences, relief for carbon border adjustments, potentially data adequacy etc. These are at the discretion of the EU and can't be switched back on again solely through arbitration.
These are in addition to measures that are under after the fact governance.
I'm guessing "made a generous offer" is another one of those irregular verbs?
https://twitter.com/FCDOtravelGovUK/status/1447493665170116608?s=20
But U.K. (and some EU) politicians now have a short-term incentive to stoke tensions with the other side.
We’ve replaced the “blame the EU!” excuse used by U.K. politicos when we were *inside* the EU with a “blame the EU!” excuse now we are out.
On a connected note, is Raab in charge while the PM is on his ‘well deserved’ holiday?
One of the reasons the EU have budged from a very clear no negotiation position to putting the NI protocol on the table is because they know unanimous agreement on a trade war with the UK is not forthcoming and they can't compel the UK into doing anything now that the TCA is fully ratified and separate from the NI protocol and has independent arbitration, not ECJ jurisdiction.
Previously, "Blame the EU" meant (in part) blaming ourselves. Both because the EU was (in part) us and because it was our lack of national swashbuckle in our meekly following the rules.
Now "Blame the EU" allows us to blame something Other. it's almost as good as War With France, and who doesn't enjoy that?
I think Trump will only run again if it is a GOP landslide in the midterms next year and they pick up both the House and Senate and he looks very likely to be able to win the election or use Congress to object to the EC results.
If not I think he will sit it out and Pence might get it, De Santis I think will lose the Florida governor race next year to Crist and Haley is too moderate for the current GOP while Pence is popular with evangelicals who are a big component of the GOP primary electorate.
In any case I would have thought the fact Pence is deathly dull might actually be in his favour, he may be dull but he will not try and launch a coup if he loses and if he wins he won't be as big a threat as Trump
The reality is that they made it clear several days ago that they were threatening a reduction, not a cut.
Re the Senate in 2022, worth reading this piece as this guy normally gets it right when it comes to the Democrats' vote. On a knife edge for 2022 but not looking great, 2024 could be a tsunami:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/opinion/democrats-david-shor-education-polarization.html
Dunno.
Who is responsible for this clusterfuck?
Dunno.
Is anyone in charge of this clusterfuck?
Dunno.
And so on.
I think data adequacy is the only significant one and even then it looks as though the UK is in the process of giving it away with reforms to our data regulations.
You're reaching hard and really none of these really amount to very much, we're not even talking about 0.1% of GDP, maybe not even 0.01%. That's how little leverage the EU has over the UK.
One of my manifold frustrations with Brexit (apart from the act itself, which I still hold to be a gross national failure) is that HMG seemed to give in to what David Davis suggested would be the “row of the summer”, ie sequencing.
Thus, NI was instrumentalised against us.
In these early stages, our strategy had no logic.
Theresa May takes some of the blame, but not all. Davis was still Brexit Minister, and of course the ERGers were insistent on rapid exercise of A50 which was the first big mistake…
A couple of weeks ago I drilled down into a tweet I saw on here and dug up the below. Now this article is from something of a left-assumed perspective and is just one article, but it figures to me for something to be systematic, there has to be somewhere, some theoretical underpinnings for the GOPs current behaviour.
So, my question to PB brains trust is, who are the backroom architects of the current stance and, if Buchanan is not a major player as suggested by the article, what other underpinnings are there for GOP and Tea Party tactics?
https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/meet-the-economist-behind-the-one-percents-stealth-takeover-of-america
It still blows my mind that the House of Commons voted so strongly for A50 invocation though, given their later refusal to back the agreement.
He now is hated and despised by
- Democrats, who see him as a fan of a Handmaidens Tale (and not in a good way). His not going along with the coup gives him a "Lets not kick him all day long"
- Swing voters (see above)
- Trumpets see him as a traitor
- Taliban Republicans generally go with the Trumpets.
There are about three people who will vote for Pence in a primary. Him, his wife and someone else.....
Does he have 25 days like the rest of us, or is it when parliament isn't sitting or ? what are the rules on it. Are there any rules, can he take as much as he likes ?
Noone actually asked this question.
Diversion of trade is a trigger for Article 16.
Diversion of trade is happening.
The government has said the trigger is met but they'll try negotiations first and only trigger it as a last resort.
So how can you possibly think that's at all comparable. If the trigger is diversion of trade, and diversion of trade is happening, then that's that surely?
https://twitter.com/davidgauke/status/1447501198437781508?s=21
"And those who condemn the first and excuse/support the second are hard leaver nutjobs who see the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where we have God on our side."
This is a piece of cake this morning.
Which the govt, obvs, is not going to do.
So the choice is simple:
A continued border in the Irish Sea; or
The EU agrees to maintain the grace periods indefinitely.
Not 100% sure I can work out which will occur as both are anathema to the respective parties. Perhaps the UKG gives slightly less of a toss about a border in the Irish Sea than the EU does about customs checks and sausage entry.
It will help Johnson win the third Brexit general election handsomely though, so it's working for someone's benefit at least. Not sure what anyone else is gaining from it.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/573040-poll-trump-dominates-2024-republican-primary-field
If Trump did run again then although he had a clear lead Pence was in second place.
Democrats don't vote in GOP primaries in any great numbers, Independents do however, especially in open primaries and Independents will like the fact Pence did not support the attempted coup.
Evangelicals also like Pence and are a big proportion of the GOP primary electorate and remember in 2016 the most religious voters actually voted for Cruz not Trump
Pence won't get 32% of the vote in any primary.
The main takeaway is no 10 can’t just remove the oversight of the ECJ . You’d have to argue that it’s causing problems on the ground and there is no evidence of this .
In the other areas the wording re Article 16 does give no 10 more room for interpretation.
However there is an issue with domestic law , and depending on what they do re the article they could need parliament to amend legislation.
And regardless of what they do international law trumps domestic law .
There is a direct link between the NI protocol and the TCA , problems in the former can allow for penalties in the other .
This would take some time however as the process has to go through arbitration etc.
Pence will thus be the main non Trump candidate if Trump runs again and the frontrunner if Trump does not run again
Outrage, not really just commenting on a real threat to Jersey electricity supply
Maybe outage is the better word
Do you deny that diversion of trade is happening at the minute? Yes or no?
Do you deny that diversion of trade is an entirely legitimate trigger? Yes or no?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, you show yourself off to be the trolling hypocrite you are.
He was not a diehard Remainer like Gauke who voted against the May Deal, the Boris Deal and No Deal
As the ECJ row deepens, I'm in Dunkirk where Ireland's Europe Minister @ThomasByrneTD is inaugurating a new Irish terminal. Since Jan 1 there have been 50,000 freight units moving from here to Rosslare, sidestepping the UK landbridge
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1447502843456499714?s=20
Seems to be a large intersect between evangelicals, antivaxxers and QANON MAGA kool aid drinkers.
Which shouldn't be too surprising. In one group you have a rejection of evidence, an intolerance of science, a hatred of unbelievers and an unshakeable divine belief that you are right and in the other ...
As long as it contains and answers the essential elements of Tony Benn's 5 questions (especially the last) it is better than all the alternatives:
The 5 questions:
"What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
Outfits from the Taliban to North Korea and even in part generally benign liberal outfits like the EU (elections to its parliament had insufficient links to policy and leadership change) clearly fail the tests.
If its going to be cold storage forever, why not just formalise that now?
You'd have to be mad to invest in such circumstances.
There needs to be a settlement that both sides will abide to.
Which might make a 23 election less likely.
Definitely outing yourself as a hard remainer nutjob who sees the UK/EU relationship as a forever war where you have God on your side this morning.
No wonder you can't answer whether the article that says that it can be invoked if there's diversion of trade happening, can be invoked if there's diversion of trade happening.