They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements.
Given the tight timetable, the complexity of disengagement, that Theresa May wants Brexit to be a success, that no-one has prepared the British public for real costs of Brexit like high unemployment and, importantly, because the EU looks to offer eventually what the UK wants on trade, I think they are probably correct.
The ICM is utterly emphatic. The notion of a 'divorce bill' or an 'exit fee' is toxic.
The public will expect the government to tell the EU to fuck off and manage it through, blaming the EU all the way.
The EU, and the Remain grumblers in this country, really need to think about how they discuss this if they'd prefer to avoid the 'fuck you' scenario..
How do you know what the public will think? Ridiculous assertion.
Maybe but the comprehensive rejection of paying 10 billion or more across the UK in the ICM poll is very compelling
I'm sure the public also want free owls from the EU it's not going to matter a jot in the negotiations and they are not going to get them.
How are you expecting it to work? - UK negotiator: "I say chaps, the polls say the British public won't stand for paying you any money"
EU negotiator:" we didn't know that forget we ever mentioned it old boy'.
Result - hard Brexit
Agree. This is the only outcome.
It is May doing the negotiating, not the Editorial team of the Sun
Richard Nabavi, who was a most ardent Remainer, now badly wants to ingratiate with his ex-friends.
This has easily been his worst contribution on PB.
I mocked Richard for being one of 'les indecideds' before the referendum, but fair play to him he is the only one who claimed to be undecided, then plumped for Remain, whose behaviour post June 23rd has been consistent with someone who plausibly considered both sides.
I still think some sort of deal will be done in the end, probably some EU budget contributions continuing for a few bilateral agreements
Not acceptable for the Ultras.
Only blocking up the Channel Tunnel will be acceptable for the Ultras!
The Daily Mail ran an article about secret plans to nuke the Channel Tunnel and said it 'put into historical context criticism of Theresa May for planning to severe Britain's link with the EU via a 'hard' Brexit.'
Interesting that Lord Hayward thinks UKIP may be able to hold around 45-50 seats in the local elections. I think they may struggle to win more than around 20.
Yeesh. I suppose some at least must be doing good jobs and so outperform expectations based on their polling position.
Yes but with their share due to drop from 22% to around 10% it becomes very difficult for personal votes to counter the general swing. We saw that with popular LD MPs at the general election.
Although the LibDem NEV fell from 28% in 2009 to 14% in 2013 yet they only lost about a quarter of their councillors.
It depends on where the UKIP vote falls and how it changes relative to their local opponents.
And its possible that UKIP might make a few gains from Labour.
We might also see some Conservative gains in very unlikely places - there were some surprising individual results last year and most likely more to come in 2017.
Good points. I might do a UKIP defence list. Most of their seats are very marginal IIRC.
Are you going to do a French election spreadsheet or do you only do domestics?!
You mean one that tries to say who will win from the first few results? I've never attempted anything like that in another country, and I'm not sure it's possible depending on the way the results are reported.
Interesting that Lord Hayward thinks UKIP may be able to hold around 45-50 seats in the local elections. I think they may struggle to win more than around 20.
Yeesh. I suppose some at least must be doing good jobs and so outperform expectations based on their polling position.
Yes but with their share due to drop from 22% to around 10% it becomes very difficult for personal votes to counter the general swing. We saw that with popular LD MPs at the general election.
Although the LibDem NEV fell from 28% in 2009 to 14% in 2013 yet they only lost about a quarter of their councillors.
It depends on where the UKIP vote falls and how it changes relative to their local opponents.
And its possible that UKIP might make a few gains from Labour.
We might also see some Conservative gains in very unlikely places - there were some surprising individual results last year and most likely more to come in 2017.
Good points. I might do a UKIP defence list. Most of their seats are very marginal IIRC.
Are you going to do a French election spreadsheet or do you only do domestics?!
You mean one that tries to say who will win from the first few results? I've never attempted anything like that in another country, and I'm not sure it's possible depending on the way the results are reported.
The French results come out quite quickly. Only the USA, and to a lesser extent our elections allow for "in play" (I think)
In the first week of triggering Article 50, we've been mostly discussing going to war with Spain, this does not fill me with confidence about the whole process.
Fortunately we've got Liam Fox, David Davis, and Boris Johnson to fix it.
Oh....,
Davis has been receiving pretty good reviews in recent weeks/months. And to be fair to Boris, I think his statement wasn't that unhinged, just saying that the settlement cannot change without the consent of the locals.
Well if we're going to take account of the consent of locals, Scotland will be remaining a member of the EU.
The people of Scotland haven't ever voted on whether Scotland should be a member of the EU.
Interesting that Lord Hayward thinks UKIP may be able to hold around 45-50 seats in the local elections. I think they may struggle to win more than around 20.
Yeesh. I suppose some at least must be doing good jobs and so outperform expectations based on their polling position.
Yes but with their share due to drop from 22% to around 10% it becomes very difficult for personal votes to counter the general swing. We saw that with popular LD MPs at the general election.
Although the LibDem NEV fell from 28% in 2009 to 14% in 2013 yet they only lost about a quarter of their councillors.
It depends on where the UKIP vote falls and how it changes relative to their local opponents.
And its possible that UKIP might make a few gains from Labour.
We might also see some Conservative gains in very unlikely places - there were some surprising individual results last year and most likely more to come in 2017.
Good points. I might do a UKIP defence list. Most of their seats are very marginal IIRC.
Are you going to do a French election spreadsheet or do you only do domestics?!
You mean one that tries to say who will win from the first few results? I've never attempted anything like that in another country, and I'm not sure it's possible depending on the way the results are reported.
Ah that's a shame. You could prob make decent £££ by providing them to pro gamblers, I know one who is interested
@FF43: "They have set up their negotiating strategy so that we do agree. Now they may miscalculate or balls things up, but as long as we sign on the dotted line, they don't care about our feelings. They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements." Of course they don't care about our feelings, just as we don't care about theirs, but I believe that they have calculated wrongly, and in fact have got themselves tied up in groupthink. We won't sign on the dotted line for tens of billions of Euros for nothing much in return (and without even knowing what we're getting for our money).
What we want is a comprehensive trade-only agreement. Although only hints at present, they look likely to offer us one. This comes in twice during the negotiations. After the exit terms and payments are agreed they propose to discuss the broad outlines and then well after exit itself agree the actual deal. If we crash out we lose the prospect of the thing we want AND we go over the cliff edge with all the negative consequences. They are pushing us hard, I agree, but I think there is good reason for them to believe we will agree,
It comes down to judgement but the EU has been here many times before. They have two very skilled and experienced trade negotiators in Michel Barnier and Sabine Weyand, and importantly they are technocrats, not politicians. A point that doesn't get made often is that technocrats tend to be better negotiators than politicians: they have a better grasp of the detail and they are less emotionally involved.
Caveat obviously. There's plenty of scope for messing up and as you say, maybe they will miscalculate.
Of course, they do have us over a barrel, but we are handcuffed to them, which they don't seem to have quite understood.
Only if we fail to agree. And because we will lose more than them, they expect us to blink before they do. And if we do blink, they win game set and match. Frances Coppola has a good piece on this Game theory in Brexitland
Richard Nabavi, who was a most ardent Remainer, now badly wants to ingratiate with his ex-friends.
This has easily been his worst contribution on PB.
I mocked Richard for being one of 'les indecideds' before the referendum, but fair play to him he is the only one who claimed to be undecided, then plumped for Remain, whose behaviour post June 23rd has been consistent with someone who plausibly considered both sides.
Should add I was therefore wrong to mock him... sorry Richard!
They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements.
Given the tight timetable, the complexity of disengagement, that Theresa May wants Brexit to be a success, that no-one has prepared the British public for real costs of Brexit like high unemployment and, importantly, because the EU looks to offer eventually what the UK wants on trade, I think they are probably correct.
The ICM is utterly emphatic. The notion of a 'divorce bill' or an 'exit fee' is toxic.
The public will expect the government to tell the EU to fuck off and manage it through, blaming the EU all the way.
The EU, and the Remain grumblers in this country, really need to think about how they discuss this if they'd prefer to avoid the 'fuck you' scenario..
How do you know what the public will think? Ridiculous assertion.
Maybe but the comprehensive rejection of paying 10 billion or more across the UK in the ICM poll is very compelling
I'm sure the public also want free owls from the EU it's not going to matter a jot in the negotiations and they are not going to get them.
How are you expecting it to work? - UK negotiator: "I say chaps, the polls say the British public won't stand for paying you any money"
EU negotiator:" we didn't know that forget we ever mentioned it old boy'.
Result - hard Brexit
Agree. This is the only outcome.
It is May doing the negotiating, not the Editorial team of the Sun
They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements.
Given the tight timetable, the complexity of disengagement, that Theresa May wants Brexit to be a success, that no-one has prepared the British public for real costs of Brexit like high unemployment and, importantly, because the EU looks to offer eventually what the UK wants on trade, I think they are probably correct.
The ICM is utterly emphatic. The notion of a 'divorce bill' or an 'exit fee' is toxic.
The public will expect the government to tell the EU to fuck off and manage it through, blaming the EU all the way.
The EU, and the Remain grumblers in this country, really need to think about how they discuss this if they'd prefer to avoid the 'fuck you' scenario..
How do you know what the public will think? Ridiculous assertion.
Maybe but the comprehensive rejection of paying 10 billion or more across the UK in the ICM poll is very compelling
I'm sure the public also want free owls from the EU it's not going to matter a jot in the negotiations and they are not going to get them.
How are you expecting it to work? - UK negotiator: "I say chaps, the polls say the British public won't stand for paying you any money"
EU negotiator:" we didn't know that forget we ever mentioned it old boy'.
Result - hard Brexit
Agree. This is the only outcome.
It is May doing the negotiating, not the Editorial team of the Sun
Hope so. Not quite as confident as you.
At least May is reasonably sensible (and of course a former Remainer) and tough and hard headed, if Leadsom or Boris or Fox or Gove had won the Tory leadership and entered No 10 with the tabloids at their back it certainly would have been full, hard Brexit
I am struggling to understand how the EU can offer the UK a deal which is worth accepting.
The phrase 'single market' has become so all consuming that nobody is really explaining what it means. However, if we leave all the Brexit arguments aside, if the UK were already a third party to the EU and were negotiating an FTA with the EU, why would they ever seek a deal as bad as the single market? Basically, we pay 10billion a year to join a market where we have a huge deficit, and where we forgo 6-7billion in net tariffs. So we are 'down' say 17 billion before we start. This is against total UK exports of 240 billion so a pretty material proportion.
The ONLY reason to agree to this deal would be if we get what we want in return, and for the UK that would be (a) administrative arrangements that made trade easier at the border and (b) unfettered access to services, where we actually run a surplus. The EU market in services is already patchy, but you could certainly argue that (if we weren't paying EU membership, or paying for market access) then giving up the tariffs on goods is worth the access to services.
But all we hear from the EU is that any deal cannot be as good as membership, which inevitably implies that they will in fact further restrict access to services (in reality everyone knows goods will remain tariff free). So the tradeoff keeps looking worse.
The problem is that going tariff-free is not of benefit to the UK. It is a loss. The UK could reimburse all tariffs paid by UK exporters in full and still be miles ahead. There is no point just proclaiming that having no tariffs magically makes trade much easier - when currencies change by the same sorts of amounts (e.g. 3-4%) it makes next to no difference to trade. The only reason to agree to tariff free trade when you have a perpetual large deficit is to get something of equal value.
The usual response to this is to mutter darkly about 'non-tariff barriers' which is a nice way of saying that there is some magic about the single market which nobody can really explain but we just have to have it. But non-tariff barrier do exist and apply mostly to services access. So if the EU keeps threatening to impose more of these as part of negotiation, what is the commercial basis for the UK to deal?
Seems to me the UK would be better off agreeing the reintroduction of WTO tariffs unless we basically get the same access to services we do no now, and instead focus on the administrative matters at the border (certification, mutual recognition of standards, border checks) which have far more relevance to actual trade.
Free trade arrangements are not magic - they don't just benefit everyone regardless, despite the popular hype. They are commercial tradeoffs of things each party wants. Right now, I can't see that the EU is going to offer enough in services to make a deal worthwhile.
Interesting that Lord Hayward thinks UKIP may be able to hold around 45-50 seats in the local elections. I think they may struggle to win more than around 20.
Yeesh. I suppose some at least must be doing good jobs and so outperform expectations based on their polling position.
Yes but with their share due to drop from 22% to around 10% it becomes very difficult for personal votes to counter the general swing. We saw that with popular LD MPs at the general election.
Although the LibDem NEV fell from 28% in 2009 to 14% in 2013 yet they only lost about a quarter of their councillors.
It depends on where the UKIP vote falls and how it changes relative to their local opponents.
And its possible that UKIP might make a few gains from Labour.
We might also see some Conservative gains in very unlikely places - there were some surprising individual results last year and most likely more to come in 2017.
Good points. I might do a UKIP defence list. Most of their seats are very marginal IIRC.
Are you going to do a French election spreadsheet or do you only do domestics?!
You mean one that tries to say who will win from the first few results? I've never attempted anything like that in another country, and I'm not sure it's possible depending on the way the results are reported.
Ah that's a shame. You could prob make decent £££ by providing them to pro gamblers, I know one who is interested
It implies a willingness to accept the gradual removal of rights and responsibilities.
A bit similar to dropping different parts of your Sky package at different dates, having once bought the whole bundle only to find that you didn't get much value out of many of the channels. It all seemed a bit pointless and expensive in the end.
Interesting that Lord Hayward thinks UKIP may be able to hold around 45-50 seats in the local elections. I think they may struggle to win more than around 20.
Yeesh. I suppose some at least must be doing good jobs and so outperform expectations based on their polling position.
Yes but with their share due to drop from 22% to around 10% it becomes very difficult for personal votes to counter the general swing. We saw that with popular LD MPs at the general election.
Although the LibDem NEV fell from 28% in 2009 to 14% in 2013 yet they only lost about a quarter of their councillors.
It depends on where the UKIP vote falls and how it changes relative to their local opponents.
And its possible that UKIP might make a few gains from Labour.
We might also see some Conservative gains in very unlikely places - there were some surprising individual results last year and most likely more to come in 2017.
Good points. I might do a UKIP defence list. Most of their seats are very marginal IIRC.
Are you going to do a French election spreadsheet or do you only do domestics?!
You mean one that tries to say who will win from the first few results? I've never attempted anything like that in another country, and I'm not sure it's possible depending on the way the results are reported.
The French results come out quite quickly. Only the USA, and to a lesser extent our elections allow for "in play" (I think)
Off topic, and at the risk of being a bit soppy...as a neophyte on this site I would like to thank everyone who has conversed or interacted with me. It has been refreshing to be on a site where people generally are uber-informed, and are prepared to defend their position with facts, vigour and (when challenged) links. Ad hominem attacks are a natural result of BTL comments, but I have found them to be almost never unprovoked. I try to be civil, even when I feel very strongly, and have found that it is almost always reciprocated. I am never here for a row, but am genuinely interested in views which challenge my own. Best wishes to all and good night ps F1 is the most dull excuse for a "sport"...
It implies a willingness to accept the gradual removal of rights and responsibilities.
A bit similar to dropping different parts of your Sky package at different dates, having once bought the whole bundle only to find that you didn't get much value out of many of the channels. It all seemed a bit pointless and expensive in the end.
Brexit Britain. Rational consumer.
Indeed more rational than both Remoaners and the Sun it seems
Off topic, and at the risk of being a bit soppy...as a neophyte on this site I would like to thank everyone who has conversed or interacted with me. It has been refreshing to be on a site where people generally are uber-informed, and are prepared to defend their position with facts, vigour and (when challenged) links. Ad hominem attacks are a natural result of BTL comments, but I have found them to be almost never unprovoked. I try to be civil, even when I feel very strongly, and have found that it is almost always reciprocated. I am never here for a row, but am genuinely interested in views which challenge my own. Best wishes to all and good night ps F1 is the most dull excuse for a "sport"...
That comment was going really well until the last sentence...
Off topic, and at the risk of being a bit soppy...as a neophyte on this site I would like to thank everyone who has conversed or interacted with me. It has been refreshing to be on a site where people generally are uber-informed, and are prepared to defend their position with facts, vigour and (when challenged) links. Ad hominem attacks are a natural result of BTL comments, but I have found them to be almost never unprovoked. I try to be civil, even when I feel very strongly, and have found that it is almost always reciprocated. I am never here for a row, but am genuinely interested in views which challenge my own. Best wishes to all and good night ps CRICKET is the most dull excuse for a "sport"...
Off topic, and at the risk of being a bit soppy...as a neophyte on this site I would like to thank everyone who has conversed or interacted with me. It has been refreshing to be on a site where people generally are uber-informed, and are prepared to defend their position with facts, vigour and (when challenged) links. Ad hominem attacks are a natural result of BTL comments, but I have found them to be almost never unprovoked. I try to be civil, even when I feel very strongly, and have found that it is almost always reciprocated. I am never here for a row, but am genuinely interested in views which challenge my own. Best wishes to all and good night ps F1 is the most dull excuse for a "sport"...
That comment was going really well until the last sentence...
AV is the worst, most regressive voting system imaginable?
Off topic, and at the risk of being a bit soppy...as a neophyte on this site I would like to thank everyone who has conversed or interacted with me. It has been refreshing to be on a site where people generally are uber-informed, and are prepared to defend their position with facts, vigour and (when challenged) links. Ad hominem attacks are a natural result of BTL comments, but I have found them to be almost never unprovoked. I try to be civil, even when I feel very strongly, and have found that it is almost always reciprocated. I am never here for a row, but am genuinely interested in views which challenge my own. Best wishes to all and good night ps F1 is the most dull excuse for a "sport"...
That comment was going really well until the last sentence...
AV is the worst, most regressive voting system imaginable?
@FF43: "They have set up their negotiating strategy so that we do agree. Now they may miscalculate or balls things up, but as long as we sign on the dotted line, they don't care about our feelings. They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements." Of course they don't care about our feelings, just as we don't care about theirs, but I believe that they have calculated wrongly, and in fact have got themselves tied up in groupthink. We won't sign on the dotted line for tens of billions of Euros for nothing much in return (and without even knowing what we're getting for our money).
What we want is a comprehensive trade-only agreement. Although only hints at present, they look likely to offer us one. This comes in twice during the negotiations. After the exit terms and payments are agreed they propose to discuss the broad outlines and then well after exit itself agree the actual deal. If we crash out we lose the prospect of the thing we want AND we go over the cliff edge with all the negative consequences. They are pushing us hard, I agree, but I think there is good reason for them to believe we will agree,
It comes down to judgement but the EU has been here many times before. They have two very skilled and experienced trade negotiators in Michel Barnier and Sabine Weyand, and importantly they are technocrats, not politicians. A point that doesn't get made often is that technocrats tend to be better negotiators than politicians: they have a better grasp of the detail and they are less emotionally involved.
Caveat obviously. There's plenty of scope for messing up and as you say, maybe they will miscalculate.
Of course, they do have us over a barrel, but we are handcuffed to them, which they don't seem to have quite understood.
Only if we fail to agree. And because we will lose more than them, they expect us to blink before they do. And if we do blink, they win game set and match. Frances Coppola has a good piece on this Game theory in Brexitland
Why would you think May will blink, when you have just written a header arguing that she would suffer no political consequence from a failure of negotiations ? (Not that all this is particularly encouraging for the rest of us.)
Off topic, and at the risk of being a bit soppy...as a neophyte on this site I would like to thank everyone who has conversed or interacted with me. It has been refreshing to be on a site where people generally are uber-informed, and are prepared to defend their position with facts, vigour and (when challenged) links. Ad hominem attacks are a natural result of BTL comments, but I have found them to be almost never unprovoked. I try to be civil, even when I feel very strongly, and have found that it is almost always reciprocated. I am never here for a row, but am genuinely interested in views which challenge my own. Best wishes to all and good night ps F1 is the most dull excuse for a "sport"...
That comment was going really well until the last sentence...
AV is the worst, most regressive voting system imaginable?
I applaud your iconoclastic spirit, if not the direction it's leading you in.
Off topic, and at the risk of being a bit soppy...as a neophyte on this site I would like to thank everyone who has conversed or interacted with me. It has been refreshing to be on a site where people generally are uber-informed, and are prepared to defend their position with facts, vigour and (when challenged) links. Ad hominem attacks are a natural result of BTL comments, but I have found them to be almost never unprovoked. I try to be civil, even when I feel very strongly, and have found that it is almost always reciprocated. I am never here for a row, but am genuinely interested in views which challenge my own. Best wishes to all and good night ps F1 is the most dull excuse for a "sport"...
That comment was going really well until the last sentence...
AV is the worst, most regressive voting system imaginable?
Richard Nabavi, who was a most ardent Remainer, now badly wants to ingratiate with his ex-friends.
This has easily been his worst contribution on PB.
I mocked Richard for being one of 'les indecideds' before the referendum, but fair play to him he is the only one who claimed to be undecided, then plumped for Remain, whose behaviour post June 23rd has been consistent with someone who plausibly considered both sides.
Don't talk bullshit. Richard was as undecided as Cameron and Osborne. Richard only follows one policy.
Richard Nabavi, who was a most ardent Remainer, now badly wants to ingratiate with his ex-friends.
This has easily been his worst contribution on PB.
I mocked Richard for being one of 'les indecideds' before the referendum, but fair play to him he is the only one who claimed to be undecided, then plumped for Remain, whose behaviour post June 23rd has been consistent with someone who plausibly considered both sides.
Don't talk bullshit. Richard was as undecided as Cameron and Osborne. Richard only follows one policy.
He follows his master's [ mistress' ] voice.
If that were the case he'd be a Remoaner linking to every negative Brexit story he could... but he isn't
Richard Nabavi, who was a most ardent Remainer, now badly wants to ingratiate with his ex-friends.
This has easily been his worst contribution on PB.
I mocked Richard for being one of 'les indecideds' before the referendum, but fair play to him he is the only one who claimed to be undecided, then plumped for Remain, whose behaviour post June 23rd has been consistent with someone who plausibly considered both sides.
Don't talk bullshit. Richard was as undecided as Cameron and Osborne. Richard only follows one policy.
He follows his master's [ mistress' ] voice.
If that were the case he'd be a Remoaner linking to every negative Brexit story he could... but he isn't
No, he is being consistent. His previous master was Cameron - he supported his policies. Now May is his mistress, he licks her toes.
Richard Nabavi, who was a most ardent Remainer, now badly wants to ingratiate with his ex-friends.
This has easily been his worst contribution on PB.
I mocked Richard for being one of 'les indecideds' before the referendum, but fair play to him he is the only one who claimed to be undecided, then plumped for Remain, whose behaviour post June 23rd has been consistent with someone who plausibly considered both sides.
Don't talk bullshit. Richard was as undecided as Cameron and Osborne. Richard only follows one policy.
He follows his master's [ mistress' ] voice.
If that were the case he'd be a Remoaner linking to every negative Brexit story he could... but he isn't
No, he is being consistent. His previous master was Cameron - he supported his policies. Now May is his mistress, he licks her toes.
He is one of the few Remain voters who hasn't turned into a childish troll, good for him
I used to live in Gib, all this talk is making me quite nostalgic. Halfway on my running route was the mosque which must be at one of the most southern points of Europe
Strange walking across the main airport runway to get into town !
Richard Nabavi, who was a most ardent Remainer, now badly wants to ingratiate with his ex-friends.
This has easily been his worst contribution on PB.
I mocked Richard for being one of 'les indecideds' before the referendum, but fair play to him he is the only one who claimed to be undecided, then plumped for Remain, whose behaviour post June 23rd has been consistent with someone who plausibly considered both sides.
Don't talk bullshit. Richard was as undecided as Cameron and Osborne. Richard only follows one policy. He follows his master's [ mistress' ] voice.
I completely disagree with his view that a Brexit breakdown wouldn't be a disaster for the Conservative party and I can't see why he would think that way. All Opposition parties should be distancing themselves from the Conservatives approach in case it doesn't work in which case they will rightly say "We told you so". The failure to secure a good Brexit outcome should lie solely at the feet of the Conservatives and I expect Opposition parties to make the most of this as the negotiations unfold.
@FF43: snip Only if we fail to agree. And because we will lose more than them, they expect us to blink before they do. And if we do blink, they win game set and match. Frances Coppola has a good piece on this Game theory in Brexitland
The comments section of this is a humdinger, particularly from a contributer called 1729Torus who gives referenced assertions about a post-Brexit Operation Stack crisis and the potential technical and legal inability of the UK to impose any trade tariffs on anyone pending a customs system IT upgrade project that already been bouncing along for 10 years, but would have to be respecified to deal with a quadrupling of tariffable volumes, and with many elements of the refresh only specifiable once the final Brexit deal has been signed.
I will bounce over his quote, you can find it if you want, and point straight at his references, which deal with this and other matters (e.g. Republic of Ireland overland export impact).
we pay 10billion a year to join a market where we have a huge deficit, and where we forgo 6-7billion in net tariffs.
I may be wrong, but I think you've made a mistake here. Tariffs aren't income, they're costs (specifically taxes). If Germany impose a tariff of 10million on British goods it's paid by German taxpayers to the German government. If Britain imposes a tariff of 7million on German goods, it's paid by British taxpayers to the British government. You can't subtract one from the other to come up with a "net tariff" of 3 million, since the money doesn't cross borders
If one person cuts half their leg off, and another person cuts three-quarters of their leg off, that's not a net gain/loss of a quarter of a leg.
I used to live in Gib, all this talk is making me quite nostalgic. Halfway on my running route was the mosque which must be at one of the most southern points of Europe
Strange walking across the main airport runway to get into town !
I am sure there will be a mosque on Crete or Cyprus?
Interesting that Lord Hayward thinks UKIP may be able to hold around 45-50 seats in the local elections. I think they may struggle to win more than around 20.
Yeesh. I suppose some at least must be doing good jobs and so outperform expectations based on their polling position.
Yes but with their share due to drop from 22% to around 10% it becomes very difficult for personal votes to counter the general swing. We saw that with popular LD MPs at the general election.
Although the LibDem NEV fell from 28% in 2009 to 14% in 2013 yet they only lost about a quarter of their councillors.
It depends on where the UKIP vote falls and how it changes relative to their local opponents.
And its possible that UKIP might make a few gains from Labour.
We might also see some Conservative gains in very unlikely places - there were some surprising individual results last year and most likely more to come in 2017.
Good points. I might do a UKIP defence list. Most of their seats are very marginal IIRC.
Proportionately the personal vote available to a councillor is significantly more than to an MP, because people are less tribal in a local election, more willing to give a good councillor from another party their vote, and because the difference between a good hard-working councillor who keeps in touch, and one who takes a ward for granted, is more obvious. Turnout is lower so the councillor also has greater ability to win through influencing who actually goes to the polls. And a good local ground war can make greater impact as the area to be covered is easier to deal with and so needs fewer activists (and lower turnout means greater reward). Hence the LibDems were particularly well-placed to hang on to a greater proportion of their councillors than the collapse in their national vote share would suggest.
On the face of it I struggle to see any of these same factors applying to UKIP? My (very subjective!) impression is that many of their councillors are somewhat eccentric but rather lazy and ineffective older people, who were never really interested in the mundane bread and butter of local politics to begin with. So my instinct is that their losses will be severe.
we pay 10billion a year to join a market where we have a huge deficit, and where we forgo 6-7billion in net tariffs.
I may be wrong, but I think you've made a mistake here. Tariffs aren't income, they're costs (specifically taxes). If Germany impose a tariff of 10million on British goods it's paid by German taxpayers to the German government. If Britain imposes a tariff of 7million on German goods, it's paid by British taxpayers to the British government. You can't subtract one from the other to come up with a "net tariff" of 3 million, since the money doesn't cross borders
If one person cuts half their leg off, and another person cuts three-quarters of their leg off, that's not a net gain/loss of a quarter of a leg.
The Croydon attack: he was kicked, not stabbed. They used feet, not knives. Thusly I assume it was a spontaneous opportunist attack by a drunken mob, not a premeditated gang attack by a particular gang or group.
we pay 10billion a year to join a market where we have a huge deficit, and where we forgo 6-7billion in net tariffs.
I may be wrong, but I think you've made a mistake here. Tariffs aren't income, they're costs (specifically taxes). If Germany impose a tariff of 10million on British goods it's paid by German taxpayers to the German government. If Britain imposes a tariff of 7million on German goods, it's paid by British taxpayers to the British government. You can't subtract one from the other to come up with a "net tariff" of 3 million, since the money doesn't cross borders
If one person cuts half their leg off, and another person cuts three-quarters of their leg off, that's not a net gain/loss of a quarter of a leg.
h ttps://twitter.com/Fight4UK/status/736322308743258112
That's not relevant to the point I was making, Sunil
Excellent thread from Mr Navabi - I also agree with Mr Tyndall that the EU 's intention was to punt Gibraltar into the long grass and leave it as a post Brexit bilateral matter - though the useful idiots on both sides have found grievance and offence with an alacrity that the SNP would admire.
I think the polling also suggests that the British public will be more inclined to back the British government in any breakdown of talks - opposition parties seeking to take the EU's side for political gain - good luck with that!
Nice article. I agree breakdown in negotiations will cause a rally round the flag effect and it will help not hinder TM to look tough and uncompromising.
Where i differ is, if we really do leave without any sort of deal and people actually start losing their jobs and economic impact becomes personal - then i don't think just blaming the EU will work. At that point people will want to hear the government has a plan to fix things.
Perhaps the reason why the divorce has started on the wrong foot is because of the sentiment which pervades every dot and comma of the header. 'Bloody foreigners trying to rip us off'
This could have been written by Boris Johnson or Quentin Letts. It's disappointing because if someone as even- handed as Richard can't take a more detached view then what chance do we have when the ultras of the Mail the Express and the Sun get the bit between their teeth.
If this is our opening gambit it'll end acrimoniously. Accusing the other side of bad faith without an attempt to see their point of view might cheer the right-wing of the Tory party and re-energise UKIP but there's a wider audience and it's no way to treat a loyal partner of 48 years.
They didn't ask for the divorce. They didn't kick us out. Every time I hear one of their spokespeople they always sound measured and reasonable. Usually too reasonable. Treating them with distain and arrogance might be the British way but it doesn't look good and it'll more than likely end up costing us a fortune.
From the safe distance of a couple of thousand kilometres away, I had assumed that stuff like Simon Heffer's "let's restore the Imperial system of measurement" was an April Fool. Apparently he wasn't the only joker: what with this "singing the King of Spain's beard" nonsense from Michael Howard. Now, midweek it seems like these absurdities are actually being taken seriously. Is the UK having some kind of massive nervous btreakdown? As an ex-Brit, should I now be thinking af renouncing my UK citizenship on the grounds that the lunatics have taken over the asylum and a total meltdown of stupidity is on its way? If rationality has been so abandoned for rage, then the UK is going to be crippled. I don't buy the Dawkins "nasty backwater" guff, but if I believe the press (and to be honest the Brexit bollocks often on display here) then I feel genuinely concerned for the social and political cohesion of the U.K. The talks are tricky enough as it is, and trying to advise one side, when the other seems to have slipped the bonds of reason is not going to be especially productive. You guys have got to be kidding, right? Threats of War? Imperial measures? Blue passports? Yet meanwhile no constructive ideas for how your economy will function outside the single market.
You have less than 18 months to do the deal, you guys have got to be crisp and precise in your negotiations... And at the moment it is like dealing with an acid crazed version of the Honey Monster. You still have not got a full team of negotiators. What is this? Amateur hour at the circus? FFS UK, pull your socks up and get real!
Comments
[...]
@FF43: "They have set up their negotiating strategy so that we do agree. Now they may miscalculate or balls things up, but as long as we sign on the dotted line, they don't care about our feelings. They have calculated we won't walk away because of the payments, so there's no reason for them to dial back on one of their key requirements." Of course they don't care about our feelings, just as we don't care about theirs, but I believe that they have calculated wrongly, and in fact have got themselves tied up in groupthink. We won't sign on the dotted line for tens of billions of Euros for nothing much in return (and without even knowing what we're getting for our money).
What we want is a comprehensive trade-only agreement. Although only hints at present, they look likely to offer us one. This comes in twice during the negotiations. After the exit terms and payments are agreed they propose to discuss the broad outlines and then well after exit itself agree the actual deal. If we crash out we lose the prospect of the thing we want AND we go over the cliff edge with all the negative consequences. They are pushing us hard, I agree, but I think there is good reason for them to believe we will agree,
It comes down to judgement but the EU has been here many times before. They have two very skilled and experienced trade negotiators in Michel Barnier and Sabine Weyand, and importantly they are technocrats, not politicians. A point that doesn't get made often is that technocrats tend to be better negotiators than politicians: they have a better grasp of the detail and they are less emotionally involved.
Caveat obviously. There's plenty of scope for messing up and as you say, maybe they will miscalculate.
Of course, they do have us over a barrel, but we are handcuffed to them, which they don't seem to have quite understood.
Only if we fail to agree. And because we will lose more than them, they expect us to blink before they do. And if we do blink, they win game set and match. Frances Coppola has a good piece on this Game theory in Brexitland
A bit similar to dropping different parts of your Sky package at different dates, having once bought the whole bundle only to find that you didn't get much value out of many of the channels. It all seemed a bit pointless and expensive in the end.
Brexit Britain. Rational consumer.
ps F1 is the most dull excuse for a "sport"...
(Not that all this is particularly encouraging for the rest of us.)
No2AV 68%
Yes 2AV 32%
He follows his master's [ mistress' ] voice.
http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/results/2013/382/
I used to live in Gib, all this talk is making me quite nostalgic. Halfway on my running route was the mosque which must be at one of the most southern points of Europe
Strange walking across the main airport runway to get into town !
I will bounce over his quote, you can find it if you want, and point straight at his references, which deal with this and other matters (e.g. Republic of Ireland overland export impact).
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86403
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86399
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86376
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86369
Do these have a ring of truth or not?
If one person cuts half their leg off, and another person cuts three-quarters of their leg off, that's not a net gain/loss of a quarter of a leg.
Good article, but I think I put it better in three words: "failing and blaming" (or "fail and blame" if you have a taste for brevity)
On the face of it I struggle to see any of these same factors applying to UKIP? My (very subjective!) impression is that many of their councillors are somewhat eccentric but rather lazy and ineffective older people, who were never really interested in the mundane bread and butter of local politics to begin with. So my instinct is that their losses will be severe.
Thusly I assume it was a spontaneous opportunist attack by a drunken mob,
not a premeditated gang attack by a particular gang or group.
I think the polling also suggests that the British public will be more inclined to back the British government in any breakdown of talks - opposition parties seeking to take the EU's side for political gain - good luck with that!
Where i differ is, if we really do leave without any sort of deal and people actually start losing their jobs and economic impact becomes personal - then i don't think just blaming the EU will work.
At that point people will want to hear the government has a plan to fix things.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/03/may-says-jaw-jaw-will-be-uk-policy-towards-gibraltar
This could have been written by Boris Johnson or Quentin Letts. It's disappointing because if someone as even- handed as Richard can't take a more detached view then what chance do we have when the ultras of the Mail the Express and the Sun get the bit between their teeth.
If this is our opening gambit it'll end acrimoniously. Accusing the other side of bad faith without an attempt to see their point of view might cheer the right-wing of the Tory party and re-energise UKIP but there's a wider audience and it's no way to treat a loyal partner of 48 years.
They didn't ask for the divorce. They didn't kick us out. Every time I hear one of their spokespeople they always sound measured and reasonable. Usually too reasonable. Treating them with distain and arrogance might be the British way but it doesn't look good and it'll more than likely end up costing us a fortune.
You have less than 18 months to do the deal, you guys have got to be crisp and precise in your negotiations... And at the moment it is like dealing with an acid crazed version of the Honey Monster. You still have not got a full team of negotiators. What is this? Amateur hour at the circus? FFS UK, pull your socks up and get real!