Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
Just dug out the letter from my tory MP dated 31/32016 where i had raised concerns about several issues if we were to leave, on health care provision " many European healthcare arrangements are related to theEEA and there is no reason why we would not continue to be part of those" he went on to say my concerns on future residency status would be similarly covered by EEA. So have i been dupped?
Very interesting reading, especially for those who want to know what's going wrong. As expected, it's much more complex than just 'privatisation!' or 'unions'.
Blimey:
If these funds cannot be identified, then I recommend that a decision must be taken by the DfT to reduce the Thameslink 2018 specification to a level that the existing system reliability can support. Such a decision should be taken in January, 2017. If it was decided to do this, there are significant implications for paragraphs 4.1.3, 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 below: less rolling stock, drivers and depot facilities will be needed for Thameslink, and older rolling stock can be withdrawn quicker. But Thameslink will remain at 12 tph – half of what has been envisaged under the Thameslink programme.
Yep, it's a mess. Vast amounts have been spent on the Thameslink core, but it appears that the outskirts of the network needed investment as well.
As for he primary cause of the issues last year:
At the time of writing this the RMT and ASLEF leadership, supported currently by their members, the railway people in conductor and driver grades, are the primary cause for the system integrity to fail, by taking strike action in their dispute over Driver Only Operation, declining to work overtime and generally not supporting and undermining the system integrity. Before this formal action, there were clearly unusually high levels of short-term sickness. The action is obviously reducing the service to passengers, but also the needs of every other party in the system. If any other part of the system has a fault, the strike and overtime ban magnifies this many times. No element of the system is perfect, and it can all improve. But I am convinced by what I have seen that if the traincrew were to work in the normal manner that they have in previous years, the output of the system, a safe and reliable rail service for passengers, would be delivered in an acceptable manner, which would be similar to other commuter rail services in the South East. Their action is undermining the system, and its value to the country that funds it through fares and taxes. Whatever their motives, which are debatable, I do not support their action.
A slightly different perspective from the left's 'it's privatisation' screeches.
The report shows that what's happening on Southern is the result of a perfect storm of factors: increased usage, poor infrastructure, too many trains and infrastructure improvements. I see no evidence in this report than renationalisation would automagically help any of those factors.
Do people think Betfair is right to have ruled that Theresa May's post-election ministry is not yet formed? FWIW Wikipedia already has a page on TM's Second Ministry, formed 11 June 2017.
I think there is an arguable case that it hasn't proven its viability until the Queen's Speech goes through.
That's one of the two Baldwin precedents, that of 1924, where having won 67 more seats than the nearest opposition party he put forward a Queen's Speech, lost and went into opposition.
The second Baldwin precedent, that a government coming second in terms of votes and seats resigns at once, was ignored by O'Donnell and Brown in 2010. So that may have set a new precedent although it really shouldn't have done.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
I remember Noel Gallagher saying at the height of britpop he could have released a recording of himself taking a shit and the kids would have bought it in the millions. Same appears to be going on with corbyn.
Let me ask you clearly. If the EU say 'no deal without ECJ jurisdiction of EU citizens within the UK after Brexit' - do you accept that deal - yes or no?
Er - yes, you did. You said that we cannot ever have no deal. So the EU just insist on the role of the ECJ and to get a deal according to you we have to concede.
I hope Philip Hammond becomes PM as I am tired of the self centred previous leaders and possible future ones namely Boris..This country deserves some calm reassurance and In my estimation he is the best on offer at this present time.Hopefully he will be able to gain a greater consensus across the political divide over Brexit and if he does get the job I wish him well, through this difficult time for our country.
Corbyn's latest wacko plan is to pay teenagers £10 per hour. Its an obvious remarek that the tories spectacularly messed up the snap election campaign but they won't make the same mistake twice. The next election will again be on the economy and Corbyn's lala land promises will be examined in greater detail.
He's an egotistic campaigner who can promise the world but in a drawn out campaign he'll be exposed.
One of the great images of the 2008 local elections was John Macdonnell with his head in his hands as James Purnell spouted that same line about Cameron's party. Purnell himself later effectively admitted the line was rubbish by resigning the following year.
It
I'd argue that people didn't care because they didn't see a cat in hell's chance of him becoming PM. No-one did - until the exit poll.
2017 was the election where the safe assumption was somebody else would be voting to keep Corbyn out, so I don't have to. Very nearly an Oooooops.... there from the electorate.
You are in denial. What you need to get your head around is for many Corbyn was seen as the safer option than a Tory Majority.
safer option? do you really believe that ?
Yes. Absolutely.
For me personally, the repeated rhetoric of "no deal is better than a bad deal" was pure poison. It demonstrated that in the Tory party Brexit ideologues were in charge and the conservative pragmatists were nowhere.
On Brexit, the key economic issue of our generation, the pragmatism offered by Starmer was/is a far safer bet.
This alone overrode any doubts I might have had about Corbyn.
Yep - No Deal is better than a Bad Deal promised to inflict huge and longlasting damage to the UK economy. A government actively proposing such a prospect was showing itself to be utterly irresponsible and profoundly stupid.
Nonsense. It was part of strengthening the UK's negotiating position by making it clear the Government was prepared to walk away.
You may disagree. But you need to get your head around this. To me and many others the Conservative position was utterly toxic. It needed to be stopped.
That only makes sense if any deal - literally any deal at all, such as one that sees us paying a trillion euro a year for bugger all - is better than no deal.
"Sadiq Khan accused of ‘not doing his job’ over flying of Hezbollah terror flags Mayor asked if he’s seeking clarification on what constitutes a banned group, after the displaying of Hezbollah flags at Sunday’s Al Quds Day march"
I remember Noel Gallagher saying at the height of britpop he could have released a recording of himself taking a shit and the kids would have bought it in the millions. Same appears to be going on with corbyn.
Donald Trump said he could shoot somebody in Times square and his support would go up. He was probably right.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
If that's the EU's bottom line, then no deal is possible.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Quite so.
This could sink the whole deal.
There are dozens of similar issues that require either a major climbdown by the Tory negotiators, or walking away.
It is why Hard Brexit is nailed on.
It's why No Brexit is nailed on. It's the path of least resistance.
Except for the resistance of the 52% led by a re-invigorated Farage. That's the spectre that will ensure some form of Brexit is nailed on.
But at least some of the 52% will have realised that the money for NHS was a mirage. Further, many less informed voters will have visited other EU countries and realised that roaming charges have been abolished, although the Euro in their pocket is worth less than what it was.
Brexit could be terrible news for the car industry – the German car industry, that is. The hit to German carmakers from a “no-deal”, so-called “hard Brexit”, characterised by the introduction of WTO tariffs on imports, could be as catastrophic as the impact of the financial crisis and lead to a massive reduction in its trade surplus and huge, politically traumatic job cuts in its core industry. That, at least, is the message from a devastating study published by Deloitte’s German unit,
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
If that's the EU's bottom line, then no deal is possible.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Quite so.
This could sink the whole deal.
There are dozens of similar issues that require either a major climbdown by the Tory negotiators, or walking away. .
Why is it only the UK that has to compromise?
UK is the one leaving the club in a cream puff, what bit of that don't you get. Why would the 27 members still in the club need to compromise, there is only ONE desperate member. It will be take it or leave it , now beggar off back across the channel.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
If that's the EU's bottom line, then no deal is possible.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Quite so.
This could sink the whole deal.
There are dozens of similar issues that require either a major climbdown by the Tory negotiators, or walking away. .
Why is it only the UK that has to compromise?
UK is the one leaving the club in a cream puff, what bit of that don't you get. Why would the 27 members still in the club need to compromise, there is only ONE desperate member. It will be take it or leave it , now beggar off back across the channel.
Just dug out the letter from my tory MP dated 31/32016 where i had raised concerns about several issues if we were to leave, on health care provision " many European healthcare arrangements are related to theEEA and there is no reason why we would not continue to be part of those" he went on to say my concerns on future residency status would be similarly covered by EEA. So have i been dupped?
If you believed it you are a dupe. If a Tory's lips are moving you are being lied to.
Let me try and break this down for you. The EU can impose nothing on the UK. The EU are after various things such as rights for EU citizens after Brexit, ongoing interference in UK sovereignty (simply to make a point), ongoing freedom of movement and, of course, money. The UK really are only after a free trade deal. The EU cannot impose trade terms on the UK - if there is no deal there is no free trade for them either.
Therefore, if the EU offer the UK no trade deal, the UK will not need to offer the EU anything as there is really nothing else we really want. If they offer a trade deal in return for money or other terms, the question is simply whether the deal is worth the money. If the deal does not provide almost current access to services for the UK, it will not be worth signing. If we are locked out of EU services markets, we would be economically better off reverting to WTO rules on goods, since we have a large deficit in goods. There is no need to give the EU preferential access to the UK markets if they don't reciprocate. Nobody ever pays ongoing sums for a trade deal, since this is not free trade, so a one off payment is all that will ever be appropriate.
By asking for stupid things such as ECJ jurisdiction, the EU just make the tipping point on a free trade deal worse. We don't have to accept it, and we cannot be forced to accept it. Once you lose your fear of being an independent sovereign nation, you realise how weak the EU position really is.
I know you and your like are desperate to see the UK humiliated. But you simply cannot continue spouting about how the EU can impose their will on the UK when it is simply not true.
This is the issue that has to be addressed. Previous govts have spent far more than it has collected, Greece is an extreme example. Until or unless somebody has the bollox to address it the poorest people (you know, the ones you care about most) will suffer most. Low wages, high rents, expensive houses, too many people live here earning too little money.
.
.
The answer is high savings rates.
Singapore's household savings ratio is 24%. Switzerland's is 19%. China is 28%. Hong Kong is 14%. Germany is 10%.
We're at 3%. Almost all recessions are a consequence of changes in the savings rate. And the long-term equilibrium level for the UK is about 11%. To go from 3% to 11% would involve a recession on the scale of 1990-1992. And economies typically overshoot. If we were to go to 15%, that would be the worst recession in the UK since the 1930s.
I understand the correlation, but don't get the causation. How does high savings rate help? Is it merely an indicator?
The answer is that it's a bit of both.
Firstly, the insatiable demand for consumer credit in the UK starves business of bank funding. Since leaving fund management, I've become CFO of a fast growing technology business. This is a company that will leave this year doing around $100m of revenue. Our bank is Barclays. Do you know how much overdraft they'll give us? £150,000. The banks would rather lend money to consumers with credit cards (interest rate 20+%) than to businesses.
Secondly, there is an almost perfect correlation between savings rates and current account deficits. In other words, a current account deficit is a consequence of insufficient saving. Now, in a perfect world, you let exports grow while leaving consumption flat (which is the old fashioned definition of austerity). In the real world, savings rates normally move all in a rush as consumers stop spending to shore up their personal balance sheets.
Your company could use leasing equipment and factoring invoices to borrow if it needs finance.
Mr. 101au, point of order: a number of organisations/functions that should be multi-lateral have been constricted by the tentacles of Brussels and swallowed by the EU. Things like Erasmus, EURatom etc.
Agreement on these is in the UK and EU interest, but the UK stands to lose more if agreement cannot be reached.
[I agree entirely on the EU seemingly taking the piss over the ECJ].
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to
If that's the EU's bottom line, then no deal is possible.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Quite so.
This could sink the whole deal.
There are dozens of similar issues that require either a major climbdown by the Tory negotiators, or walking away. .
Why is it only the UK that has to compromise?
UK is the one leaving the club in a cream puff, what bit of that don't you get. Why would the 27 members still in the club need to compromise, there is only ONE desperate member. It will be take it or leave it , now beggar off back across the channel.
So, just like Scotland leaving the UK then?
Yes we would just take our own money and leave, we would not be whinging and whining and making big jessies of ourselves, only to then be humiliated and have the EU laughing in our faces. Given you don't live in either country why are you bothered, amazing that it is the emigrants that whine the most.
Let me try and break this down for you. The EU can impose nothing on the UK. The EU are after various things such as rights for EU citizens after Brexit, ongoing interference in UK sovereignty (simply to make a point), ongoing freedom of movement and, of course, money. The UK really are only after a free trade deal. The EU cannot impose trade terms on the UK - if there is no deal there is no free trade for them either.
Therefore, if the EU offer the UK no trade deal, the UK will not need to offer the EU anything as there is really nothing else we really want. If they offer a trade deal in return for money or other terms, the question is simply whether the deal is worth the money. If the deal does not provide almost current access to services for the UK, it will not be worth signing. If we are locked out of EU services markets, we would be economically better off reverting to WTO rules on goods, since we have a large deficit in goods. There is no need to give the EU preferential access to the UK markets if they don't reciprocate. Nobody ever pays ongoing sums for a trade deal, since this is not free trade, so a one off payment is all that will ever be appropriate.
By asking for stupid things such as ECJ jurisdiction, the EU just make the tipping point on a free trade deal worse. We don't have to accept it, and we cannot be forced to accept it. Once you lose your fear of being an independent sovereign nation, you realise how weak the EU position really is.
I know you and your like are desperate to see the UK humiliated. But you simply cannot continue spouting about how the EU can impose their will on the UK when it is simply not true.
Both sides will compromise on details within an overall agreement whose terms the EU27 will largely dictate.
Why do you think I am desperate to see the UK humiliated? Why would I want that for the country I live in, work in, own a business in and have all my family in?
Mr. B2, I think it happens when the Queen's Speech passes, or not.
Mr Morris, That does appear to be their interpretation of "ministry formed", although I am not convinced it is the technically correct one, which WP appears to be following.
BFex has thousands of pounds still on offer at 1.07-1.09 on TM being "PM after the election" and at the same odds on "Next Government" being a Tory minority one. Both bets appear to depend solely on every other party including the DUP not voting down the QS at a division next week (and in the case of the former bet TM not resigning instantly the QS is carried, and of the latter bet in not granting DUP a seat at the cabinet table), which would appear to be free money?
Let me try and break this down for you. The EU can impose nothing on the UK. The EU are after various things such as rights for EU citizens after Brexit, ongoing interference in UK sovereignty (simply to make a point), ongoing freedom of movement and, of course, money. The UK really are only after a free trade deal. The EU cannot impose trade terms on the UK - if there is no deal there is no free trade for them either.
Therefore, if the EU offer the UK no trade deal, the UK will not need to offer the EU anything as there is really nothing else we really want. If they offer a trade deal in return for money or other terms, the question is simply whether the deal is worth the money. If the deal does not provide almost current access to services for the UK, it will not be worth signing. If we are locked out of EU services markets, we would be economically better off reverting to WTO rules on goods, since we have a large deficit in goods. There is no need to give the EU preferential access to the UK markets if they don't reciprocate. Nobody ever pays ongoing sums for a trade deal, since this is not free trade, so a one off payment is all that will ever be appropriate.
By asking for stupid things such as ECJ jurisdiction, the EU just make the tipping point on a free trade deal worse. We don't have to accept it, and we cannot be forced to accept it. Once you lose your fear of being an independent sovereign nation, you realise how weak the EU position really is.
I know you and your like are desperate to see the UK humiliated. But you simply cannot continue spouting about how the EU can impose their will on the UK when it is simply not true.
Once you lose your fear of being an independent sovereign nation, you realise how weak the EU position really is.
Once you grasp the economic reality of WTO terms, you will realise what utter shite that idea really is
WTO terms is the least of it. There is also the added time and expense of actually exporting to the EU to factor in; while if we just walk away, on 29th March 2019 the UK ceases to be party to any international agreement of which it is part thanks to its membership of the EU. That will affect industries as diverse as aviation and pharmaceuticals, while having absolutely zero impact on the EU27. No amount of swivel-eyed willy waving gets us round that fact.
No amount of swivel-eyed willy waving gets us round that fact.
You are being unpatriotic (sic)
Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
@rcs1000 Secondly, there is an almost perfect correlation between savings rates and current account deficits. . . .
In other words, a current account deficit is a consequence of insufficient saving.
An accounting identity connects the sectoral balances in the economy: the sum of public, private and external balances is zero. You are saying the latter two move in offsetting fluctuations, so that implies stability in the public sector balance. The government’s efforts to control that may be the underlying causal factor.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
If that's the EU's bottom line, then no deal is possible.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Quite so.
This could sink the whole deal.
There are dozens of similar issues that require either a major climbdown by the Tory negotiators, or walking away.
It is why Hard Brexit is nailed on.
It's why No Brexit is nailed on. It's the path of least resistance.
Except for the resistance of the 52% led by a re-invigorated Farage. That's the spectre that will ensure some form of Brexit is nailed on.
Farage and his ilk will play a key role in ensuring No Brexit. Why? Because as soon as it looks like we're drifting towards a very soft Brexit, they will be crying, "This is not Brexit!"
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
If that's the EU's bottom line, then no deal is possible.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Quite so.
This could sink the whole deal.
There are dozens of similar issues that require either a major climbdown by the Tory negotiators, or walking away. .
Why is it only the UK that has to compromise?
UK is the one leaving the club in a cream puff, what bit of that don't you get. Why would the 27 members still in the club need to compromise, there is only ONE desperate member. It will be take it or leave it , now beggar off back across the channel.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
If that's the EU's bottom line, then no deal is possible.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Quite so.
This could sink the whole deal.
There are dozens of similar issues that require either a major climbdown by the Tory negotiators, or walking away. .
Why is it only the UK that has to compromise?
Both sides will compromise on details within an overall agreement whose terms the EU27 will largely dictate.
No-one "dictates" to Britain.
No-one.
You sound like my Corbynista girlfriend when I try and explain why Corbyn's plans to nationalise foreign owned companies and the financing therein will be problematic to the markets and the rest of the world.
Mr. B2, I think it happens when the Queen's Speech passes, or not.
Mr Morris, That does appear to be their interpretation of "ministry formed", although I am not convinced it is the technically correct one, which WP appears to be following.
BFex has thousands of pounds still on offer at 1.07-1.09 on TM being "PM after the election" and at the same odds on "Next Government" being a Tory minority one. Both bets appear to depend solely on every other party including the DUP not voting down the QS at a division next week (and in the case of the former bet TM not resigning instantly the QS is carried, and of the latter bet in not granting DUP a seat at the cabinet table), which would appear to be free money?
The Betfair rules are quiet clear.
Plus I know the person who set the rules, it is also to stop a squatter PM like Brown ballsing things up.
This is the issue that has to be addressed. Previous govts have spent far more than it has collected, Greece is an extreme example. Until or unless somebody has the bollox to address it the poorest people (you know, the ones you care about most) will suffer most. Low wages, high rents, expensive houses, too many people live here earning too little money.
Google Singapore for the route we should be taking.
The secret of Singapore is the same secret of all the other great exporting powerhouses: Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, China and Hong Kong.
What do they all have in common? Low regulation? Not really, Germany and Switzerland are high regulation countries.
The answer is high savings rates.
Singapore's household savings ratio is 24%. Switzerland's is 19%. China is 28%. Hong Kong is 14%. Germany is 10%.
We're at 3%. That's basically an all time low. That's why you should be very, very concerned about the medium term outlook for the UK. Almost all recessions are a consequence of changes in the savings rate. And the long-term equilibrium level for the UK is about 11%. To go from 3% to 11% would involve a recession on the scale of 1990-1992. And economies typically overshoot. If we were to go to 15%, that would be the worst recession in the UK since the 1930s.
I understand the correlation, but don't get the causation. How does high savings rate help? Is it merely an indicator?
The answer is that it's a bit of both.
Firstly, the insatiable demand for consumer credit in the UK starves business of bank funding. Since leaving fund management, I've become CFO of a fast growing technology business. This is a company that will leave this year doing around $100m of revenue. Our bank is Barclays. Do you know how much overdraft they'll give us? £150,000. The banks would rather lend money to consumers with credit cards (interest rate 20+%) than to businesses.
Secondly, there is an almost perfect correlation between savings rates and current account deficits. In other words, a current account deficit is a consequence of insufficient saving. Now, in a perfect world, you let exports grow while leaving consumption flat (which is the old fashioned definition of austerity). In the real world, savings rates normally move all in a rush as consumers stop spending to shore up their personal balance sheets.
Surely the big issue is mortgages and the housing market. Proper restraint on property prices and banks would have to look elsewhere.
Mr. B2, I think it happens when the Queen's Speech passes, or not.
Mr Morris, That does appear to be their interpretation of "ministry formed", although I am not convinced it is the technically correct one, which WP appears to be following.
BFex has thousands of pounds still on offer at 1.07-1.09 on TM being "PM after the election" and at the same odds on "Next Government" being a Tory minority one. Both bets appear to depend solely on every other party including the DUP not voting down the QS at a division next week (and in the case of the former bet TM not resigning instantly the QS is carried, and of the latter bet in not granting DUP a seat at the cabinet table), which would appear to be free money?
It's a nice 7% return for your money being tied up for a week. If you feel brave.
I thought about this the other day, but not in the position to take risks with more than a few odd tens of quids these days.
Mr. Evershed, third practice. I know it should be FP3, technically, but I'm a wild and crazy maverick who does what he likes when it comes to acronyms.
This is the issue that has to be addressed. Previous govts have spent far more than it has collected, Greece is an extreme example. Until or unless somebody has the bollox to address it the poorest people (you know, the ones you care about most) will suffer most. Low wages, high rents, expensive houses, too many people live here earning too little money.
Google Singapore for the route we should be taking.
The secret of Singapore is the same secret of all the other great exporting powerhouses: Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, China and Hong Kong.
What do they all have in common? Low regulation? Not really, Germany and Switzerland are high regulation countries.
The answer is high savings rates.
Singapore's household savings ratio is 24%. Switzerland's is 19%. China is 28%. Hong Kong is 14%. Germany is 10%.
We're at 3%. That's basically an all time low. That's why you should be very, very concerned about the medium term outlook for the UK. Almost all recessions are a consequence of changes in the savings rate. And the long-term equilibrium level for the UK is about 11%. To go from 3% to 11% would involve a recession on the scale of 1990-1992. And economies typically overshoot. If we were to go to 15%, that would be the worst recession in the UK since the 1930s.
I understand the correlation, but don't get the causation. How does high savings rate help? Is it merely an indicator?
The answer is that it's a bit of both.
Firstly, the insatiable demand for consumer credit in the UK starves business of bank funding. Since leaving fund management, I've become CFO of a fast growing technology business. This is a company that will leave this year doing around $100m of revenue. Our bank is Barclays. Do you know how much overdraft they'll give us? £150,000. The banks would rather lend money to consumers with credit cards (interest rate 20+%) than to businesses.
Secondly, there is an almost perfect correlation between savings rates and current account deficits. In other words, a current account deficit is a consequence of insufficient saving. Now, in a perfect world, you let exports grow while leaving consumption flat (which is the old fashioned definition of austerity). In the real world, savings rates normally move all in a rush as consumers stop spending to shore up their personal balance sheets.
Thanks for explaining that Robert. Always interesting!
Hope the new job is exciting; banks really don't like overdrafts anymore, do they? I thought it was just me and my small business - but apparently not so much.....
You sound like my Corbynista girlfriend when I try and explain why Corbyn's plans to nationalise foreign owned companies and the financing therein will be problematic to the markets and the rest of the world.
Have you just accidentally outed yourself as SeanT's alter ego? ;O
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
If that's the EU's bottom line, then no deal is possible.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Quite so.
This could sink the whole deal.
There are dozens of similar issues that require either a major climbdown by the Tory negotiators, or walking away. .
Why is it only the UK that has to compromise?
Both sides will compromise on details within an overall agreement whose terms the EU27 will largely dictate.
I'm not sure about this 'deal' stuff. We're in danger of doing a generous deal on money and citizens rights and then hoping we'll get a good deal in return on trade. Is the European Parliament likely to agree to a nice transitional arrangement? I'm not sure. My guess is we'll be screwed.
Yes... But obviously we should always try and mitigate risk where possible... So for example it may be a good idea not to put combustible cladding on buildings, especially the high-rise variety.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
This could create an incredible legal vipers nest. To begin with, the Commission has forgotten to indicate its legal analysis. It would certainly help since this is of course a brand new debate, without precedent. The Article 50 agreement is a rather surprising concept. It seems to be an EU internal agreement that will morph into an external one in 2019. Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
Additionally, it seems at first sight paradoxical to grant after 2019 jurisdiction to the ECJ to deal with conflicts between a third state (which the UK will be after at that moment) and the EU or EU individuals. The UK would then become the only third state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, one wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state. Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents ! This time, the solution looks a lot like the leonine treaties imposed by England to China in the 19th century.
If that's the EU's bottom line, then no deal is possible.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Quite so.
This could sink the whole deal.
There are dozens of similar issues that require either a major climbdown by the Tory negotiators, or walking away. .
Why is it only the UK that has to compromise?
Both sides will compromise on details within an overall agreement whose terms the EU27 will largely dictate.
No-one "dictates" to Britain.
No-one.
Arthur Lowe from beyond the grave.
If we're desperate for a deal and they aren't then they certainly will dictate. Anyway hasn't the British government caving in on the sequencing basically destroyed the idea of a grand deal? We'll give them everything they want and then once we've done that we'll see if they might give us something in return. I wouldn't bet on it.
I note several Brexiteers are slowly realising that their dumb dream is turning into a nightmare of their own making. There must be a wiring fault in Leavers' addled minds that makes their ilk particularly slow on the uptake.
Listening to the tower block crisis it is becoming apparent to me that many in positions of authority including council officials, building inspectors, fire safety experts and the fire service are really looking at their legal liability and while checking the external cladding they are widening the scope of their inspections to comply with due diligence.
It seems in Camden’s case gas pipes in the common areas have been identified as non-compliant but also residents fire doors, some with self-closers detached, and indeed someone has suggested that a resident had made unsafe internal alterations to their apartment.
It is also quite clear that the fridges, freezers, washing machines and dryers could be unsafe as happened in the Grenfell fire, together with the maintenance of internal smoke detectors.
At present gas safety certificates are required annually on all gas boilers in rented apartments. It is becoming obvious that legislation is going to be required to extend fire safety certificates for whole buildings on an annual basis, and these will require internal inspections of all apartments.
The problem for Camden and many others is that on Thursday night they confirmed a problem with the outside cladding but said that the residents could remain in their apartments. However the residents called the council to a meeting and identified internal fire worries resulting in the comprehensive fire survey and the evacuation of the buildings at 8.00pm on Friday night, 24 hours after they were told it was safe to remain.
How could this have happened and it does raise questions as to just how responsible councils have been in conducting regular fire safety inspections previously and just who is signing them off.
Very big consequences for all involved in a watershed moment in the provision of fire safe accommodation throughout the UK
If that's the EU's bottom line, then no deal is possible.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Quite so.
This could sink the whole deal.
There are dozens of similar issues that require either a major climbdown by the Tory negotiators, or walking away. .
Why is it only the UK that has to compromise?
Both sides will compromise on details within an overall agreement whose terms the EU27 will largely dictate.
No-one "dictates" to Britain.
No-one.
Arthur Lowe from beyond the grave.
If we're desperate for a deal and they aren't then they certainly will dictate. Anyway hasn't the British government caving in on the sequencing basically destroyed the idea of a grand deal? We'll give them everything they want and then once we've done that we'll see if they might give us something in return. I wouldn't bet on it.
That assumes that the British government has caved in on sequencing which, despite what you read in the papers, is not the case.
If that's the EU's bottom line, then no deal is possible.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Quite so.
This could sink the whole deal.
There are dozens of similar issues that require either a major climbdown by the Tory negotiators, or walking away. .
Why is it only the UK that has to compromise?
Both sides will compromise on details within an overall agreement whose terms the EU27 will largely dictate.
No-one "dictates" to Britain.
No-one.
Arthur Lowe from beyond the grave.
If we're desperate for a deal and they aren't then they certainly will dictate. Anyway hasn't the British government caving in on the sequencing basically destroyed the idea of a grand deal? We'll give them everything they want and then once we've done that we'll see if they might give us something in return. I wouldn't bet on it.
Well not really, because anything we "give them" will be contingent on a final deal anyway. Complicating issue being British expats.
Let me try and break this down for you. The EU can impose nothing on the UK. The EU are after various things such as rights for EU citizens after Brexit, ongoing interference in UK sovereignty (simply to make a point), ongoing freedom of movement and, of course, money. The UK really are only after a free trade deal. The EU cannot impose trade terms on the UK - if there is no deal there is no free trade for them either.
Therefore, if the EU offer the UK no trade deal, the UK will not need to offer the EU anything as there is really nothing else we really want. If they offer a trade deal in return for money or other terms, the question is simply whether the deal is worth the money. If the deal does not provide almost current access to services for the UK, it will not be worth signing. If we are locked out of EU services markets, we would be economically better off reverting to WTO rules on goods, since we have a large deficit in goods. There is no need to give the EU preferential access to the UK markets if they don't reciprocate. Nobody ever pays ongoing sums for a trade deal, since this is not free trade, so a one off payment is all that will ever be appropriate.
By asking for stupid things such as ECJ jurisdiction, the EU just make the tipping point on a free trade deal worse. We don't have to accept it, and we cannot be forced to accept it. Once you lose your fear of being an independent sovereign nation, you realise how weak the EU position really is.
I know you and your like are desperate to see the UK humiliated. But you simply cannot continue spouting about how the EU can impose their will on the UK when it is simply not true.
If we're desperate for a deal and they aren't then they certainly will dictate. Anyway hasn't the British government caving in on the sequencing basically destroyed the idea of a grand deal? We'll give them everything they want and then once we've done that we'll see if they might give us something in return. I wouldn't bet on it.
Although we've visibly conceded the sequencing, they've subtly conceded that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed (initially they wanted the sequencing completed in stages) so although we will talk about what they want first we can still walk away from what we've offered that they want if they don't give us what we want in the end.
It's much easier for Britain to stand tall in the world as part of a strong European Union than by yearning for a state of affairs that has long gone.
As a thought experiment imagine you were an ardent federalist, just for a day. It would feel good.
If your EU came to pass, then Britain would only exist ceremonially, like Middlesex, or the Soke of Peterborough.
There is no such country as Britain. There is an island, which will continue to exist for the foreseeable future.
Quite. Was is the formal role of 'Britain' in the political entity called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? It doesn't even provide the name of our sporting teams.
Hmmm: no search on Google or BBC News shows any such story,
I think you might be the new Plato.
In fairness to Plato she was rtight about Trump.
Nope. Plato forecast a narrow Hillary victory. On the record on here for all to see. The idea that she is some sort of soothsayer is the stuff of PB myth.
It's much easier for Britain to stand tall in the world as part of a strong European Union than by yearning for a state of affairs that has long gone.
As a thought experiment imagine you were an ardent federalist, just for a day. It would feel good.
If your EU came to pass, then Britain would only exist ceremonially, like Middlesex, or the Soke of Peterborough.
There is no such country as Britain. There is an island, which will continue to exist for the foreseeable future.
Quite. Was is the formal role of 'Britain', in the political entity called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? It doesn't even provide the name of our sporting teams.
Indeed so. I don't recall Britain being beaten by South Africa at cricket last night nor do I grasp why Britain drew 2-2 with Britain in the big international football match a fortnight ago.
4/1 on Corbyn is good odds-setting. Of course if there's an election in the next 6 months he will win, but it is much more likely that (a) there won't be an election and/or (b) May'll resign.
By the way, whatever happened to the DUP? Are the talks continuing by means of Ouija Board?
Finally, there is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission’s 3 May Draft Guidelines foresee that for “(a) continued application of Union law; (b) citizens’ rights; and (c) application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations, (…) the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.” (This solution has naturally a connection with the desire to keep some aspects of EU law applied on the UK).
If that's the EU's bottom line, then no deal is possible.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Quite so.
This could sink the whole deal.
There are dozens of similar issues that require either a major climbdown by the Tory negotiators, or walking away. .
Why is it only the UK that has to compromise?
Both sides will compromise on details within an overall agreement whose terms the EU27 will largely dictate.
I'm not sure about this 'deal' stuff. We're in danger of doing a generous deal on money and citizens rights and then hoping we'll get a good deal in return on trade. Is the European Parliament likely to agree to a nice transitional arrangement? I'm not sure. My guess is we'll be screwed.
then we rescind our offers on money and citizen rights....but the EU really needs us to agree on these points AND would be hurt if we go on to WTO rules for their goods exports.
4/1 on Corbyn is good odds-setting. Of course if there's an election in the next 6 months he will win, but it is much more likely that (a) there won't be an election and/or (b) May'll resign.
By the way, whatever happened to the DUP? Are the talks continuing by means of Ouija Board?
I believe it is by means of evangelical Christian prayer in May's local Lodge.
F1: a plus side of the BBC throwing away the rights is that I don't have to listen to an idiot commentator shout "Boom!" during qualifying or the race.
Mr. B2, I think it happens when the Queen's Speech passes, or not.
Mr Morris, That does appear to be their interpretation of "ministry formed", although I am not convinced it is the technically correct one, which WP appears to be following.
BFex has thousands of pounds still on offer at 1.07-1.09 on TM being "PM after the election" and at the same odds on "Next Government" being a Tory minority one. Both bets appear to depend solely on every other party including the DUP not voting down the QS at a division next week (and in the case of the former bet TM not resigning instantly the QS is carried, and of the latter bet in not granting DUP a seat at the cabinet table), which would appear to be free money?
The Betfair rules are quiet clear.
Plus I know the person who set the rules, it is also to stop a squatter PM like Brown ballsing things up.
The rules say "This market will be settled on the formation of the first ministry (government) after assent is given by the reigning monarch after the next UK general election"
If that's the EU's bottom line, then no deal is possible.
No State can accept a situation where foreign nationals form a privileged caste, subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Quite so.
This could sink the whole deal.
There are dozens of similar issues that require either a major climbdown by the Tory negotiators, or walking away. .
Why is it only the UK that has to compromise?
Both sides will compromise on details within an overall agreement whose terms the EU27 will largely dictate.
No-one "dictates" to Britain.
No-one.
Arthur Lowe from beyond the grave.
If we're desperate for a deal and they aren't then they certainly will dictate. Anyway hasn't the British government caving in on the sequencing basically destroyed the idea of a grand deal? We'll give them everything they want and then once we've done that we'll see if they might give us something in return. I wouldn't bet on it.
Well not really, because anything we "give them" will be contingent on a final deal anyway. Complicating issue being British expats.
This is why there will be no "no deal" from the E.U, they need a deal for the 3 million citizens here and the Eastern block especially will want to make sure the rest of their citizens can move relatively easily to and from Britian. Britain will agree relatively free access to our jobs market for a free trade deal.
Mr. B2, I think it happens when the Queen's Speech passes, or not.
Mr Morris, That does appear to be their interpretation of "ministry formed", although I am not convinced it is the technically correct one, which WP appears to be following.
BFex has thousands of pounds still on offer at 1.07-1.09 on TM being "PM after the election" and at the same odds on "Next Government" being a Tory minority one. Both bets appear to depend solely on every other party including the DUP not voting down the QS at a division next week (and in the case of the former bet TM not resigning instantly the QS is carried, and of the latter bet in not granting DUP a seat at the cabinet table), which would appear to be free money?
The Betfair rules are quiet clear.
Plus I know the person who set the rules, it is also to stop a squatter PM like Brown ballsing things up.
The rules say "This market will be settled on the formation of the first ministry (government) after assent is given by the reigning monarch after the next UK general election"
The bet stays "live" until the following is all satisfied...
In a situation of no overall control the Government in power before the General Election gets the first chance at creating a government. If they cannot do so, the Prime Minister will resign.
Does the Prime Minister have to resign? The Prime Minister only has to resign if it is clear that they cannot command a majority of the House of Commons on votes of confidence or supply. This would be the case if the incumbent government fails to make a deal with one or more of the other parties, or if they lose a confidence motion in the House of Commons. The first parliamentary test would be the vote on any amendment to the Queen’s Speech
" Ms Bradshaw said: “I would be surprised if many residents would feel comfortable telling an MP who was publicly endorsed by paramilitaries only a few weeks ago they were intimidated by a flag glorifying one of those same groups. Instead they come to Alliance and others, often confidentially, as we realise people want to see positive community relations and good neighbourliness. ”
F1: a plus side of the BBC throwing away the rights is that I don't have to listen to an idiot commentator shout "Boom!" during qualifying or the race.
Morris I was reading the other day that F1 are not happy that there will be no free to air coverage.Cricket are now reflecting on their decision after 2005 ashes series really got into the nation's consciousness but now is nearly a minority sport for viewers .
Yes, the EU has the upper hand. We will have to compromise. It's a surprise Lord Ashcroft has only just grasped this.
I think you seriously misunderstand the good Lord's implication.
Or he drew a startlingly naive inference from it...
The only naivety on here is that exhibited by the Leavers and their quisling hangers-on who abandoned their europhile principles upon a narrow referendum defeat.
Mr. City, yeah, I've heard similar things. Indeed, I predicted (as did most people) sponsors would not be happy that their audiences would be diminished that way.
We'll see how things play out once the forthcoming Sky deal expires.
Listening to the tower block crisis it is becoming apparent to me that many in positions of authority including council officials, building inspectors, fire safety experts and the fire service are really looking at their legal liability and while checking the external cladding they are widening the scope of their inspections to comply with due diligence.
It seems in Camden’s case gas pipes in the common areas have been identified as non-compliant but also residents fire doors, some with self-closers detached, and indeed someone has suggested that a resident had made unsafe internal alterations to their apartment.
It is also quite clear that the fridges, freezers, washing machines and dryers could be unsafe as happened in the Grenfell fire, together with the maintenance of internal smoke detectors.
At present gas safety certificates are required annually on all gas boilers in rented apartments. It is becoming obvious that legislation is going to be required to extend fire safety certificates for whole buildings on an annual basis, and these will require internal inspections of all apartments.
The problem for Camden and many others is that on Thursday night they confirmed a problem with the outside cladding but said that the residents could remain in their apartments. However the residents called the council to a meeting and identified internal fire worries resulting in the comprehensive fire survey and the evacuation of the buildings at 8.00pm on Friday night, 24 hours after they were told it was safe to remain.
How could this have happened and it does raise questions as to just how responsible councils have been in conducting regular fire safety inspections previously and just who is signing them off.
Very big consequences for all involved in a watershed moment in the provision of fire safe accommodation throughout the UK
It also seems clear that this is not a party political issue of rich K&C council treating its poor tenants like shit, to the shame of those trying to make political capital as the building was still smoking.
It is going to be the case that the great majority of these towers are in Labour run councils. Just the nature of where they are situated - in poor inner cities.
Let me try and break this down for you. The EU can impose nothing on the UK. The EU are after various things such as rights for EU citizens after Brexit, ongoing interference in UK sovereignty (simply to make a point), ongoing freedom of movement and, of course, money. The UK really are only after a free trade deal. The EU cannot impose trade terms on the UK - if there is no deal there is no free trade for them either.
Therefore, if the EU offer the UK no trade deal, the UK will not need to offer the EU anything as there is really nothing else we really want. If they offer a trade deal in return for money or other terms, the question is simply whether the deal is worth the money. If the deal does not provide almost current access to services for the UK, it will not be worth signing. If we are locked out of EU services markets, we would be economically better off reverting to WTO rules on goods, since we have a large deficit in goods. There is no need to give the EU preferential access to the UK markets if they don't reciprocate. Nobody ever pays ongoing sums for a trade deal, since this is not free trade, so a one off payment is all that will ever be appropriate.
By asking for stupid things such as ECJ jurisdiction, the EU just make the tipping point on a free trade deal worse. We don't have to accept it, and we cannot be forced to accept it. Once you lose your fear of being an independent sovereign nation, you realise how weak the EU position really is.
I think you are broadly correct on what should be the strength of the UK's negotiating position, and thus what might be achieved if both parties behaved rationally in their respective citizens' interests.
However, the assumption of rational behaviour is questionable. Firstly, the EU seems hell bent on only having a deal that would be bad enough for the UK to serve to discourage anyone else from leaving. Secondly, there is the assumption that a Conservative UK government will rationally act only in the interests of all UK citizens. I think they be subject to the pervasive influence of global corporations which favour the continuance of the status quo and thus really want a free trade deal in all circumstances. For those reasons, despite what I agree should be a strong UK position, I fear that the UK will end up being railroaded into something far worse than we could have achieved.
Yes, the EU has the upper hand. We will have to compromise. It's a surprise Lord Ashcroft has only just grasped this.
I think you seriously misunderstand the good Lord's implication.
Or he drew a startlingly naive inference from it...
The only naivety on here is that exhibited by the Leavers and their quisling hangers-on who abandoned their europhile principles upon a narrow referendum defeat.
Feeling a little touchy this morning Bob? Perhaps realising that, To quote Emperor Hirohito, the situation has developed not necessarily to your advantage?
a) How do I post an image? Snipping tool didn't seem to work b) Same for imojis c) Re my test. Having decided I didn't want it at all I couldn't find a delete option
Comments
As for he primary cause of the issues last year:
At the time of writing this the RMT and ASLEF leadership, supported currently by their members, the railway people in conductor and driver grades, are the primary cause for the system integrity to fail, by taking strike action in their dispute over Driver Only Operation, declining to work overtime and generally not supporting and undermining the system integrity. Before this formal action, there were clearly unusually high levels of short-term sickness. The action is obviously reducing the service to passengers, but also the needs of every other party in the system. If any other part of the system has a fault, the strike and overtime ban magnifies this many times. No element of the system is perfect, and it can all improve. But I am convinced by what I have seen that if the traincrew were to work in the normal manner that they have in previous years, the output of the system, a safe and reliable rail service for passengers, would be delivered in an acceptable manner, which would be similar to other commuter rail services in the South East.
Their action is undermining the system, and its value to the country that funds it through fares and taxes. Whatever their motives, which are debatable, I do not support their action.
A slightly different perspective from the left's 'it's privatisation' screeches.
The report shows that what's happening on Southern is the result of a perfect storm of factors: increased usage, poor infrastructure, too many trains and infrastructure improvements. I see no evidence in this report than renationalisation would automagically help any of those factors.
That's one of the two Baldwin precedents, that of 1924, where having won 67 more seats than the nearest opposition party he put forward a Queen's Speech, lost and went into opposition.
The second Baldwin precedent, that a government coming second in terms of votes and seats resigns at once, was ignored by O'Donnell and Brown in 2010. So that may have set a new precedent although it really shouldn't have done.
Mayor asked if he’s seeking clarification on what constitutes a banned group, after the displaying of Hezbollah flags at Sunday’s Al Quds Day march"
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/sadiq-khan-accused-of-not-doing-his-job-over-flying-of-hezbollah-terror-flags/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/22/europe-waking-impact-hard-brexit/
Brexit could be terrible news for the car industry – the German car industry, that is. The hit to German carmakers from a “no-deal”, so-called “hard Brexit”, characterised by the introduction of WTO tariffs on imports, could be as catastrophic as the impact of the financial crisis and lead to a massive reduction in its trade surplus and huge, politically traumatic job cuts in its core industry. That, at least, is the message from a devastating study published by Deloitte’s German unit,
Unlucky...
"It's why No Brexit is nailed on. It's the path of least resistance."
What would be your reaction if Remain had won 52 - 48, and the Government had said ... "Oh, fuck 'em, we know better, we'll leave anyway."?
Therefore, if the EU offer the UK no trade deal, the UK will not need to offer the EU anything as there is really nothing else we really want. If they offer a trade deal in return for money or other terms, the question is simply whether the deal is worth the money. If the deal does not provide almost current access to services for the UK, it will not be worth signing. If we are locked out of EU services markets, we would be economically better off reverting to WTO rules on goods, since we have a large deficit in goods. There is no need to give the EU preferential access to the UK markets if they don't reciprocate. Nobody ever pays ongoing sums for a trade deal, since this is not free trade, so a one off payment is all that will ever be appropriate.
By asking for stupid things such as ECJ jurisdiction, the EU just make the tipping point on a free trade deal worse. We don't have to accept it, and we cannot be forced to accept it. Once you lose your fear of being an independent sovereign nation, you realise how weak the EU position really is.
I know you and your like are desperate to see the UK humiliated. But you simply cannot continue spouting about how the EU can impose their will on the UK when it is simply not true.
Agreement on these is in the UK and EU interest, but the UK stands to lose more if agreement cannot be reached.
[I agree entirely on the EU seemingly taking the piss over the ECJ].
BFex has thousands of pounds still on offer at 1.07-1.09 on TM being "PM after the election" and at the same odds on "Next Government" being a Tory minority one. Both bets appear to depend solely on every other party including the DUP not voting down the QS at a division next week (and in the case of the former bet TM not resigning instantly the QS is carried, and of the latter bet in not granting DUP a seat at the cabinet table), which would appear to be free money?
Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
Secondly, there is an almost perfect correlation between savings rates and current account deficits.
. . .
In other words, a current account deficit is a consequence of insufficient saving.
An accounting identity connects the sectoral balances in the economy: the sum of public, private and external balances is zero. You are saying the latter two move in offsetting fluctuations, so that implies stability in the public sector balance. The government’s efforts to control that may be the underlying causal factor.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/878551096486133760
No-one.
Lord President Leadsom.
As a thought experiment imagine you were an ardent federalist, just for a day. It would feel good.
Plus I know the person who set the rules, it is also to stop a squatter PM like Brown ballsing things up.
I thought about this the other day, but not in the position to take risks with more than a few odd tens of quids these days.
Life is full of risks.
There is no such thing as a risk free existence.
Hope the new job is exciting; banks really don't like overdrafts anymore, do they? I thought it was just me and my small business - but apparently not so much.....
This place has GB shares for 2010 on p.14
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP10-36/RP10-36.pdf
And this has equivalent for 2015 on page 12
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7186/CBP-7186.pdf
Can't find the equivalent for 2017.
It seems in Camden’s case gas pipes in the common areas have been identified as non-compliant but also residents fire doors, some with self-closers detached, and indeed someone has suggested that a resident had made unsafe internal alterations to their apartment.
It is also quite clear that the fridges, freezers, washing machines and dryers could be unsafe as happened in the Grenfell fire, together with the maintenance of internal smoke detectors.
At present gas safety certificates are required annually on all gas boilers in rented apartments.
It is becoming obvious that legislation is going to be required to extend fire safety certificates for whole buildings on an annual basis, and these will require internal inspections of all apartments.
The problem for Camden and many others is that on Thursday night they confirmed a problem with the outside cladding but said that the residents could remain in their apartments. However the residents called the council to a meeting and identified internal fire worries resulting in the comprehensive fire survey and the evacuation of the buildings at 8.00pm on Friday night, 24 hours after they were told it was safe to remain.
How could this have happened and it does raise questions as to just how responsible councils have been in conducting regular fire safety inspections previously and just who is signing them off.
Very big consequences for all involved in a watershed moment in the provision of fire safe accommodation throughout the UK
Well not really, because anything we "give them" will be contingent on a final deal anyway. Complicating issue being British expats.
National Health Action got 5% in the Redditch constituency, they were founded on opposition to the Health and Social Care.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000892
By the way, whatever happened to the DUP? Are the talks continuing by means of Ouija Board?
And it's 'free' practice, hence the F.
This is why there will be no "no deal" from the E.U, they need a deal for the 3 million citizens here and the Eastern block especially will want to make sure the rest of their citizens can move relatively easily to and from Britian. Britain will agree relatively free access to our jobs market for a free trade deal.
In a situation of no overall control the Government in power before the General Election gets the first chance at creating a government. If they cannot do so, the Prime Minister will resign.
Does the Prime Minister have to resign?
The Prime Minister only has to resign if it is clear that they cannot command a majority of the House of Commons on votes of confidence or supply. This would be the case if the incumbent government fails to make a deal with one or more of the other parties, or if they lose a confidence motion in the House of Commons. The first parliamentary test would be the vote on any amendment to the Queen’s Speech
" Ms Bradshaw said: “I would be surprised if many residents would feel comfortable telling an MP who was publicly endorsed by paramilitaries only a few weeks ago they were intimidated by a flag glorifying one of those same groups. Instead they come to Alliance and others, often confidentially, as we realise people want to see positive community relations and good neighbourliness. ”
https://www.buzzfeed.com/siobhanfenton/a-dup-mp-has-been-accused-of-allowing-paramilitaries-to?utm_term=.qkj4Q8DPL#.ms6KoLlDO
We'll see how things play out once the forthcoming Sky deal expires.
It is going to be the case that the great majority of these towers are in Labour run councils. Just the nature of where they are situated - in poor inner cities.
However, the assumption of rational behaviour is questionable. Firstly, the EU seems hell bent on only having a deal that would be bad enough for the UK to serve to discourage anyone else from leaving. Secondly, there is the assumption that a Conservative UK government will rationally act only in the interests of all UK citizens. I think they be subject to the pervasive influence of global corporations which favour the continuance of the status quo and thus really want a free trade deal in all circumstances. For those reasons, despite what I agree should be a strong UK position, I fear that the UK will end up being railroaded into something far worse than we could have achieved.
test
a) How do I post an image? Snipping tool didn't seem to work
b) Same for imojis
c) Re my test. Having decided I didn't want it at all I couldn't find a delete option
Sorry for being stupid.
Emojis are just done by having a colon followed by a bracket or lower case P etc.
Like so
one for the George fans
https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/06/23/george-osborne-in-a-twitter-wilderness-that-all-you-got-george-you-disappointing-me/