No, they'll do deranged cretins who got you into this mess".
"we'rone"
cant see that working myself
The time for a change.
Or more likely by the time an election comes people wilabout. See GE 2017
Only political anoraks are fighting Brexit, nobody else cares much
Which brings me right back to my original point. The next eBritain voted to Leave?" The public are results merchants.
5 years out that's a ant imagine a different future.
Brexit dwarfs everythinguble whammy.
What utter guff.
It excites the political anoraks nobody else. And for remainers it get worse as the answer can only ever be Armageddon.
anecdote
it was a quiz night in my village hall on Saturday and I had two remainers on my team doing the gloom scenario, UK is worst place in the world laughing stock etc
Me: so youre saying we're a bigger laughing stock than Trunps USA ? Them : well no, don't be stupid Me: so youre saying we're more unstable than Germany which currently doesn't have a government and where Merkel is in the poo Them: ws in a bit of turmoil and where just in with the pak Them: yeah suppose so
Point of order on Macron - his popularity ratings are improving; two union-called national days of action against his reforms have been damp squibs.
Indeed, and who in their right minds thinks Germany is currently less stable than Britain?!
I take it you don't read german newspapers ?
Are they worse than this?
"And that's the word that Nigel Lawson, not the Mail, used"
Oh yeah right, so if they quote some old has-been climate change denier, it doesn't count as their headline - like, they don't really think that themselves about 'Eeyore Phil'. Hahahah!
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union…"
If no agreement is reached, could it be argued that Article 50 has not been complied with?
But the onus is on the EU - it SHALL negotiate and conclude an agreement. Obligatory. If it doesn't, the Leaver state could argue that the EU has acted in bad faith and is in breach of its Treaty obligations.
Completely O/T, but does anybody here have any involvement with bright new ideas about what we might do with old tyre mountains?
Sometimes on Devon farms these mountains inexplicably catch fire, and the farmer is beside himself with grief at the loss of his tyre collection.
You can make them into jumps for horses. You can shred Indian tyres to make flooring for arenas for horses, but not first world ones because they have metal in them.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union…"
If no agreement is reached, could it be argued that Article 50 has not been complied with?
No, for the reasons quoted down thread there is a stop gap provision in 50 (3) "the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2..." The Treaties cease to apply whether there is an agreement or not.
The EU follows the rules when it feels like it. So, no pre-negotiation with the UK before Article 50 is triggered. But if nations want to bend the rules so they 'meet' the criteria to join the single currency, that's fine.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union…"
If no agreement is reached, could it be argued that Article 50 has not been complied with?
But the onus is on the EU - it SHALL negotiate and conclude an agreement. Obligatory. If it doesn't, the Leaver state could argue that the EU has acted in bad faith and is in breach of its Treaty obligations.
That will be really useful when the shops run out of food.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union…"
If no agreement is reached, could it be argued that Article 50 has not been complied with?
But the onus is on the EU - it SHALL negotiate and conclude an agreement. Obligatory. If it doesn't, the Leaver state could argue that the EU has acted in bad faith and is in breach of its Treaty obligations.
It excites the political anoraks nobody else. And for remainers it get worse as the answer can only ever be Armageddon.
anecdote
it was a quiz night in my village hall on Saturday and I had two remainers on my team doing the gloom scenario, UK is worst place in the world laughing stock etc
Me: so youre saying we're a bigger laughing stock than Trunps USA ? Them : well no, don't be stupid Me: so youre saying we're more unstable than Germany which currently doesn't have a government and where Merkel is in the poo Them: well no Me : Are we less stable than Spain ? Them: no have you see Catalonia Me: Italy ? Them: laughter Me: France where the president is less popular than Hollande and where 2 in 5 electors vote neo fascist ? Them: well France has always been a mess Me: so really everywhere is in a bit of turmoil and where just in with the pak Them: yeah suppose so
Point of order on Macron - his popularity ratings are improving; two union-called national days of action against his reforms have been damp squibs.
Indeed, and who in their right minds thinks Germany is currently less stable than Britain?!
Well, the main headlines in Bild are currently Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO and Harvey Weinstein. There seems to be very little about internal German politics, so it doesn't really support your contention that Germany is less stable than the UK at all.
Perhaps you should consider reading a more upmarket paper. Die Zeit or the Frankfurter Allgemeine, perhaps?
Somebody tell Faisal Islam that Switzerland is a member of Euratom.
Switzerland isn't a member of Euratom. It has a number of co-operation agreements with it. Bit similar to "access to Single Market", eg USA versus EU Member
Completely O/T, but does anybody here have any involvement with bright new ideas about what we might do with old tyre mountains?
Sometimes on Devon farms these mountains inexplicably catch fire, and the farmer is beside himself with grief at the loss of his tyre collection.
You can make them into jumps for horses. You can shred Indian tyres to make flooring for arenas for horses, but not first world ones because they have metal in them.
Completely O/T, but does anybody here have any involvement with bright new ideas about what we might do with old tyre mountains?
Sometimes on Devon farms these mountains inexplicably catch fire, and the farmer is beside himself with grief at the loss of his tyre collection.
You can make them into jumps for horses. You can shred Indian tyres to make flooring for arenas for horses, but not first world ones because they have metal in them.
Kids and matches, eh? Cuh.....
like those extremely careless badgers that seem always to get knocked over right by the side of the road...
Somebody tell Faisal Islam that Switzerland is a member of Euratom.
Switzerland isn't a member of Euratom. It has a number of co-operation agreements with it. Bit similar to "access to Single Market", eg USA versus EU Member
Since 2014, Switzerland has participated in Euratom programmes as an associated state.[1]
As of 2016, the community had co-operation agreements of various scopes with eight countries: the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and South Africa.[10]
It excites the political anoraks nobody else. And for remainers it get worse as the answer can only ever be Armageddon.
Leaving the fascinating and almost certainly fake anecdote to one side, have you not noticed that it's not Remain supporters but your fellow headbangers who are getting steadily angrier at present? They've moved on from Remoaners to demanding loyalty tests of Conservative politicians who previously supported Remain and haven't recanted to their sufficient satisfaction yet, to accusing a current serving Cabinet minister of treachery and sabotage.
It's almost as if Leave supporters know that it's going horribly wrong and have no clue how to proceed from here. We're past panic and hysteria, and onto hunt for the guilty and punishment of the innocent.
Rewards for the uninvolved, however, does not bode well for the Conservatives.
"It's almost as if Leave supporters know that it's going horribly wrong and have no clue how to proceed from here. We're past panic and hysteria, and onto hunt for the guilty and punishment of the innocent."
Spot on.
It's gone wrong because it was based on lies. I don't know if anyone watched a program called Detectives on BBC 2? A quite excellent documentary where we follow the Manchester police solve three separate murders.
What was interesting was how everything was done by simple procedure. Inspiration didn't play a part and the brilliance of the documentary was how the cases were allowed to unfold without commentary.
Watching how the murderers were undone it was difficult not to think about Brexit and how it unravelled when the thread of truth was broken. Or as Walter Scott said and as the Brexiterrs are learning to their cost "Oh the twisted web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
PBs Harvey Weinstein speaks
I don't think Roger has quite had a hand in 81 Oscars.
It excites the political anoraks nobody else. And for remainers it get worse as the answer can only ever be Armageddon.
Leaving the fascinating and almost certainly fake anecdote to one side, have you not noticed that it's not Remain supporters but your fellow headbangers who are getting steadily angrier at present? They've moved on from Remoaners to demanding loyalty tests of Conservative politicians who previously supported Remain and haven't recanted to their sufficient satisfaction yet, to accusing a current serving Cabinet minister of treachery and sabotage.
It's almost as if Leave supporters know that it's going horribly wrong and have no clue how to proceed from here. We're past panic and hysteria, and onto hunt for the guilty and punishment of the innocent.
Rewards for the uninvolved, however, does not bode well for the Conservatives.
"It's almost as if Leave supporters know that it's going horribly wrong and have no clue how to proceed from here. We're past panic and hysteria, and onto hunt for the guilty and punishment of the innocent."
Spot on.
Agreed. Expect more of this as the full extent of the looming disaster becomes impossible to ignore or gloss over.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union…"
If no agreement is reached, could it be argued that Article 50 has not been complied with?
But the onus is on the EU - it SHALL negotiate and conclude an agreement. Obligatory. If it doesn't, the Leaver state could argue that the EU has acted in bad faith and is in breach of its Treaty obligations.
That is true, up to a point. Not every negotiation ends in agreement and sometimes that is not due to acting in bad faith by either party. Sometimes the two sides are so far apart that, with all the good faith in the world, an agreement cannot be reached.
If we have passed an inflection point in the polling on Brexit, Leavers need to think about how they can ever hope to win back support. Spending money on preparing the baricades for No Deal while using a premium rate helpline for Universal Credit is not going to work.
Mr. Pointer, if it's impossible to leave the EU without disaster, are we members, or captives? And who signed away so much power without ever consulting the electorate?
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union…"
If no agreement is reached, could it be argued that Article 50 has not been complied with?
But the onus is on the EU - it SHALL negotiate and conclude an agreement. Obligatory. If it doesn't, the Leaver state could argue that the EU has acted in bad faith and is in breach of its Treaty obligations.
That is true, up to a point. Not every negotiation ends in agreement and sometimes that is not due to acting in bad faith by either party. Sometimes the two sides are so far apart that, with all the good faith in the world, an agreement cannot be reached.
Except the Treaty OBLIGES them to. This is not two people arguing over - and failing to reach agreement on - the price of a car. This is 28 States ordering them to.
The UK's hand is stronger than many think. (Including perhaps those negotiating for the UK!)
It excites the political anoraks nobody else. And for remainers it get worse as the answer can only ever be Armageddon.
anecdote
it was a quiz night in my village hall on Saturday and I had two remainers on my team doing the gloom scenario, UK is worst place in the world laughing stock etc
Me: so youre saying we're a bigger laughing stock than Trunps USA ? Them : well no, don't be stupid Me: so youre saying we're more unstable than Germany which currently doesn't have a government and where Merkel is in the poo Them: well no Me : Are we less stable than Spain ? Them: no have you see Catalonia Me: Italy ? Them: laughter Me: France where the president is less popular than Hollande and where 2 in 5 electors vote neo fascist ? Them: well France has always been a mess Me: so really everywhere is in a bit of turmoil and where just in with the pak Them: yeah suppose so
Point of order on Macron - his popularity ratings are improving; two union-called national days of action against his reforms have been damp squibs.
Indeed, and who in their right minds thinks Germany is currently less stable than Britain?!
Well, the main headlines in Bild are currently Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO and Harvey Weinstein. There seems to be very little about internal German politics, so it doesn't really support your contention that Germany is less stable than the UK at all.
Perhaps you should consider reading a more upmarket paper. Die Zeit or the Frankfurter Allgemeine, perhaps?
"we're not these deranged cretins who got you into this mess, we're the whack job ideologues who'll get you in to an even bigger one"
cant see that working myself
The second part will convince Brexit headbangers who believe simply on the basis of time for a change.
Or more likely by the time an election comes people will be worried about housing, cost of living, NHS and all the other things ordinary people worry about. See GE 2017
Only political anoraks are fighting Brexit, nobody else cares much
Which brings me right back to my original point. The next election is likely to be dominated by the question: "do you think things have got better since Britain voted to Leave?" The public are results merchants.
5 years out that's a mad call, there are so many other things which can change. Basing everything on the Brexit prism is myopic. It's simply the product of a mindset that cant imagine a different future.
Indeed.
Some remainers are incandescent; but I remember people being incandescent about fuel prices in the late 90s, about BSE and foot and mouth. About Iraq, even. Not one of them influenced elections in any meaningful ways.
Several Remainers here suggest that Leavers need to own the decision. The reality is that we are. But we're also recognising that time didn't stop on 23rd June 2016. Accepting the result and its implementation are the necessary precursors to moving on. Remainers risk the TONY Benn syndrome of refighting the battles of the 70s in the 80s and 90s.
I was thinking about all the 'disaster is certain' predictions during my life:
Nuclear war Nuclear disaster eg Chernobyl New ice age Global warming Various other ecological disasters - birds dying, bees dying, oceans dying Oil running out The Middle Eastern oil fields being set alight in 1991 AIDS, BSE, bird flu etc The year 2000 computer problem The gazillions of finanical derivatives in 2008 Project Fear's predictions of a Leave vote
I'm sure I've forgotten many more.
I thought BSE's campaign was pretty unpleasant but I wouldn't go as far as grouping them with AIDS and Bird Flu.
Or more likely by the time an election comes people wilabout. See GE 2017
Only political anoraks are fighting Brexit, nobody else cares much
Which brings me right back to my original point. The next eBritain voted to Leave?" The public are results merchants.
5 years out that's a ant imagine a different future.
Brexit dwarfs everythinguble whammy.
What utter guff.
It excites the political anoraks nobody else. And for remainers it get worse as the answer can only ever be Armageddon.
anecdote
it was a quiz night in my village hall on Saturday and I had two remainers on my team doing the gloom scenario, UK is worst place in the world laughing stock etc
Me: so youre saying we're a bigger laughing stock than Trunps USA ? Them : well no, don't be stupid Me: so youre saying we're more unstable than Germany which currently doesn't have a government and where Merkel is in the poo Them: ws in a bit of turmoil and where just in with the pak Them: yeah suppose so
Point of order on Macron - his popularity ratings are improving; two union-called national days of action against his reforms have been damp squibs.
Indeed, and who in their right minds thinks Germany is currently less stable than Britain?!
I take it you don't read german newspapers ?
Are they worse than this?
"And that's the word that Nigel Lawson, not the Mail, used"
That bit is needlessly defensive, isn't it?
Dacre seems really sensitive about the "saboteur" thing. My theory is the GE result has shaken him to the core. Perhaps his kids came out as remainians/corbynistas or something.
Completely O/T, but does anybody here have any involvement with bright new ideas about what we might do with old tyre mountains?
Sometimes on Devon farms these mountains inexplicably catch fire, and the farmer is beside himself with grief at the loss of his tyre collection.
You can make them into jumps for horses. You can shred Indian tyres to make flooring for arenas for horses, but not first world ones because they have metal in them.
Kids and matches, eh? Cuh.....
Sounds rather like the old Glaswegian industrial units that ‘went on fire’ during the early ‘90s recession.
I'm not sure how far that feeling extends, and I don't think it the EU offer, and the EU acts like it.
I'd say that's more like it.
trace.
You suggest result " ?
That would be brave.
No, they'll do deranged cretins who got you into this mess".
"we'rone"
cant see that working myself
The time for a change.
Or more . See GE 2017
Only political anoraks are fighting Brexit, nobody else cares much
Which brings me right back to my original pvoted to Leave?" The public are results merchants.
5 years out that's a ant imagine a different future.
Brexit dwarfs everythinguble whammy.
What utter guff.
It excites the political anoraks nobody else. And for remainers it get worse as the answer can only ever be Armageddon.
anecdote
it was a quiz night in my village hall on Saturday and I had two remainers on my team doing the gloom scenario, UK is worst place in the world laughing stock etc
Point of order on Macron - his popularity ratings are improving; two union-called national days of action against his reforms have been damp squibs.
Indeed, and who in their right minds thinks Germany is currently less stable than Britain?!
I'm not sure how far that feeling extends, and I don't think it the EU offer, and the EU acts like it.
I'd say that's more like it.
trace.
You suggest result " ?
That would be brave.
No, they'll do deranged cretins who got you into this mess".
"we'rone"
cant see that working myself
The time for a change.
Or more likely by the time an election comes people wilabout. See GE 2017
Only political anoraks are fighting Brexit, nobody else cares much
Which brings me right back to my original point. The next eBritain voted to Leave?" The public are results merchants.
5 years out that's a ant imagine a different future.
Brexit dwarfs everythinguble whammy.
What utter guff.
It excites the political anoraks nobody else. And for remainers it get worse as the answer can only ever be Armageddon.
anecdote
Point of order on Macron - his popularity ratings are improving; two union-called national days of action against his reforms have been damp squibs.
Indeed, and who in their right minds thinks Germany is currently less stable than Britain?!
I take it you don't read german newspapers ?
Are they worse than this?
"And that's the word that Nigel Lawson, not the Mail, used"
It was Lawson who first used the scare of 72 million Turks at our border on Question Time. It crucially turned the tide in favour of Brexit as I said in a header at the time. The man should be taken from his Riviera chateau and be forced to live in Hartlepool.
It excites the political anoraks nobody else. And for remainers it get worse as the answer can only ever be Armageddon.
anecdote
it was a quiz night in my village hall on Saturday and I had two remainers on my team doing the gloom scenario, UK is worst place in the world laughing stock etc
Me: so youre saying we're a bigger laughing stock than Trunps USA ? Them : well no, don't be stupid Me: so youre saying we're more unstable than Germany which currently doesn't have a government and where Merkel is in the poo Them: well no Me : Are we less stable than Spain ? Them: no have you see Catalonia Me: Italy ? Them: laughter Me: France where the president is less popular than Hollande and where 2 in 5 electors vote neo fascist ? Them: well France has always been a mess Me: so really everywhere is in a bit of turmoil and where just in with the pak Them: yeah suppose so
Point of order on Macron - his popularity ratings are improving; two union-called national days of action against his reforms have been damp squibs.
Indeed, and who in their right minds thinks Germany is currently less stable than Britain?!
Well, the main headlines in Bild are currently Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO and Harvey Weinstein. There seems to be very little about internal German politics, so it doesn't really support your contention that Germany is less stable than the UK at all.
Perhaps you should consider reading a more upmarket paper. Die Zeit or the Frankfurter Allgemeine, perhaps?
I normally do, FAZ and Die Welt, which is where I quote the Merkel in trouble stories
BPs question was was there any German paper worse than the DMail
The trouble with the PB Brexiters is that in a 24-hour rolling news channel environment they fight strawmen. They say "look, what disaster?" and, point to the fact that the No.9 bus is still running and Arsene Wenger remains manager at the Emirates.
But very few people forecast a disaster if we voted to Leave. They, we, I said there would be a diminution in the wealth of the nation. For me, in the days of £10 packets of cigarettes, and 5p on the price of a ping, I don't think many people will notice. How would they be able to feel £4,300 worse off than otherwise in a few years? How will they measure the £100s of millions not invested, or care that Morgan Stanley's offices in E14 are emptier than hitherto?
So shouting "look there has been no disaster" is missing the point. We will all be poorer and we will be poorer for nothing.
And for those who say "but...but...they said immediately after the vote" - that again is operating on rolling news channel timings. In the real world the lag can be quite long.
Very few forecast disaster? The American President said we'd go to the back of the queue, the Chancellor said we'd need an emergency budget to send small boys up chimneys, and the Prime Minister saw a third world war.
As I have said on here before I think the significance of Brexit is being massively overstated by both Leavers and Remainers. The effect on our economy will be highly marginal and contentious. My expectation is we will neither have a lion roaring with its new found freedom or people trying to escape the starving and desperate crowds in a coracle as was being suggested on here yesterday. It will feel like business as usual.
[snip other interesting stuff]
Yes, but ... is what I would say in response to your hypothesis.
The direct effect of Brexit on the economy will likely be relatively small. It won't be "highly marginal and contentious" because we have already had an effect before leaving, but it won't probably be catastrophic. But only if we prioritise the economy over taking control, as I think we will do eventually. Brexit will be very disruptive, it will be costly in lots of ways, it will be a huge time sucker. The EU will impinge in our daily lives to a much greater extent than it did before we left. And we will have to do what the EU tells us without us having a say in the regulations we adopt. If we do all that we can have an arrangement that keeps important parts of what we have already.
Thing is, the only reason to vote Brexit is to take control, but to avoid serious repercussions we end up with the EU more in control than ever. Eventually we will have to accept the situation, but most people, whatever they voted, will think it's a nonsense.
It looks like Universal Credit could be the exocet missile heading the way of the Tory party on October 18th,the way that the numbers are stacking up TMay and her Tory government are facing defeat unless they somehow realise that helping the Just About Managing doesn't mean starving them and their children. Universal Credit has always been an unexploded bomb and it is about to go off.May could be gone next week.
Mr. Roger, can't speak for others, but personally I don't think that made a huge difference. The deal being derided, the Obama intervention, and the dangers being so overplayed that genuine warnings of potential problems went ignored, were all bigger factors in the result going the way it did.
"we're not these deranged cretins who got you into this mess, we're the whack job ideologues who'll get you in to an even bigger one"
cant see that working myself
The second part will convince Brexit headbangers who believe simply on the basis of time for a change.
Or more likely by the time an election comes people will be worried about housing, cost of living, NHS and all the other things ordinary people worry about. See GE 2017
Only political anoraks are fighting Brexit, nobody else cares much
Which brings me right back to my original point. The next election is likely to be dominated by the question: "do you think things have got better since Britain voted to Leave?" The public are results merchants.
5 years out that's a mad call, there are so many other things which can change. Basing everything on the Brexit prism is myopic. It's simply the product of a mindset that cant imagine a different future.
Indeed.
Some remainers are incandescent; but I remember people being incandescent about fuel prices in the late 90s, about BSE and foot and mouth. About Iraq, even. Not one of them influenced elections in any meaningful ways.
Several Remainers here suggest that Leavers need to own the decision. The reality is that we are. But we're also recognising that time didn't stop on 23rd June 2016. Accepting the result and its implementation are the necessary precursors to moving on. Remainers risk the TONY Benn syndrome of refighting the battles of the 70s in the 80s and 90s.
I was thinking about all the 'disaster is certain' predictions during my life:
Nuclear war Nuclear disaster eg Chernobyl New ice age Global warming Various other ecological disasters - birds dying, bees dying, oceans dying Oil running out The Middle Eastern oil fields being set alight in 1991 AIDS, BSE, bird flu etc The year 2000 computer problem The gazillions of finanical derivatives in 2008 Project Fear's predictions of a Leave vote
I'm sure I've forgotten many more.
I thought BSE's campaign was pretty unpleasant but I wouldn't go as far as grouping them with AIDS and Bird Flu.
What's happening with BSE/V.CJD?
About 10-15 years ago there was talk that hundreds of thousands of people could potentially die from V.CJD in the next 2-3 decades... Now you never hear anything about it and I think the total number of victims remains exceedingly low (fewer than 200) ?
It looks like Universal Credit could be the exocet missile heading the way of the Tory party on October 18th,the way that the numbers are stacking up TMay and her Tory government are facing defeat unless they somehow realise that helping the Just About Managing doesn't mean starving them and their children. Universal Credit has always been an unexploded bomb and it is about to go off.May could be gone next week.
It's almost as if Leave supporters know that it's going horribly wrong and have no clue how to proceed from here. We're past panic and hysteria, and onto hunt for the guilty and punishment of the innocent.
John Redwood knows how to proceed. Reality just needs to be a bit more like the inside of his head.
No, they'll do deranged cretins who got you into this mess".
"we'rone"
cant see that working myself
The time for a change.
Or more likely by the time an election comes people wilabout. See GE 2017
Only political anoraks are fighting Brexit, nobody else cares much
Which brings me right back to my original point. The next eBritain voted to Leave?" The public are results merchants.
5 years out that's a ant imagine a different future.
Brexit dwarfs everythinguble whammy.
What utter guff.
It excites the political anoraks nobody else. And for remainers it get worse as the answer can only ever be Armageddon.
anecdote
it was a quiz night in my village hall on Saturday and I had two remainers on my team doing the gloom scenario, UK is worst place in the world laughing stock etc
Me: so youre saying we're a bigger laughing stock than Trunps USA ? Them : well no, don't be stupid Me: so youre saying we're more unstable than Germany which currently doesn't have a government and where Merkel is in the poo Them: well no Me : Are we less stable than Spain ? Them: no have you see Catalonia Me: Italy ? Them: laughter Me: France where the president is less popular than Hollande and where 2 in 5 electors vote neo fascist ? Them: well France has always been a mess Me: so really everywhere is in a bit of turmoil and where just in with the pak Them: yeah suppose so
Point of order on Macron - his popularity ratings are improving; two union-called national days of action against his reforms have been damp squibs.
It does look (from a distance) that Macron has managed to achieve some sensible labour reforms without triggering the expected huge industrial and civil action.
Something that plenty of French presidents and PMs have failed to do over the past few decades.
Yes, it also seems to be disappointing an awful lot of people on the left and right.
The trouble with the PB Brexiters is that in a 24-hour rolling news channel environment they fight strawmen. They say "look, what disaster?" and, point to the fact that the No.9 bus is still running and Arsene Wenger remains manager at the Emirates.
But very few people forecast a disaster if we voted to Leave. They, we, I said there would be a diminution in the wealth of the nation. For me, in the days of £10 packets of cigarettes, and 5p on the price of a ping, I don't think many people will notice. How would they be able to feel £4,300 worse off than otherwise in a few years? How will they measure the £100s of millions not invested, or care that Morgan Stanley's offices in E14 are emptier than hitherto?
So shouting "look there has been no disaster" is missing the point. We will all be poorer and we will be poorer for nothing.
And for those who say "but...but...they said immediately after the vote" - that again is operating on rolling news channel timings. In the real world the lag can be quite long.
Very few forecast disaster? The American President said we'd go to the back of the queue, the Chancellor said we'd need an emergency budget to send small boys up chimneys, and the Prime Minister saw a third world war.
To be fair, Cameron may have got that right - but not because of Brexit. Maybe he made a few quid betting on President Trump?
It does look (from a distance) that Macron has managed to achieve some sensible labour reforms without triggering the expected huge industrial and civil action.
Something that plenty of French presidents and PMs have failed to do over the past few decades.
Macron has been canny in taking on the most indefensible practices and going on the attack over them. Labour unions can only really say, nice while they lasted. Bear in mind most people struggle in the private sector where there is no featherbedding.
If we have passed an inflection point in the polling on Brexit, Leavers need to think about how they can ever hope to win back support. Spending money on preparing the baricades for No Deal while using a premium rate helpline for Universal Credit is not going to work.
Davis seems to have won the PR war this week - focus is on Barnier looking frustrated by his own team's intransigence.
We've held out a generous offer and it's been rebuffed by those mean Eurocrats.
Leaving the fascinating and almost certainly fake anecdote to one side
Err, I'm not sure you should be making such allegations given the hissy fit you had last week.
I'm entirely happy to withdraw the suggestion that the incredibly convenient anecdote that fits with no experience I have had in real life talking with the most vociferous Remain supporters - who as a group tend to be far more interested in the affairs of other nations than all bar the most committed Leave supporters - was created for the purpose. No doubt Warwickshire's hardcore Remain supporters are an unusual subset.
LOL
Warwickshire is just a blissful place beyond your limited experience.
Southam lives in the best place in the UK - Leamington- according to a recent survey
But if you don't believe the anecdote then don't it wont have a huge impact on my life, I'm sure I'll survive
Leamington voted Remain - a little island of common sense in a sea of absurdity ;-)
I went for a bike ride the other day around the local villages and through Stoneleigh. There's a bugger of a short hill climb just past the little river there that I was not expecting. Anyway, once I got to the top and regained my breath, I felt the vague warmth of the early autumn breeze on my face, looked around me and realised just how lucky I am. Leamington and its envisions really are a very fine part of the world. Moving there from Southam was about the best thing we ever did.
Mr. Pointer, if it's impossible to leave the EU without disaster, are we members, or captives? And who signed away so much power without ever consulting the electorate?
Members, and nobody.
We are participating members of a mutually beneficial club. Leaving the club results in a loss of benefits.
We will be worse off than we were as members.
Leaving shows we have power. We have always had power. We didn't sign it away, until now.
We are now giving away power, and influence, and prosperity, to satisfy Farage's Little Englanders.
The trouble with the PB Brexiters is that in a 24-hour rolling news channel environment they fight strawmen. They say "look, what disaster?" and, point to the fact that the No.9 bus is still running and Arsene Wenger remains manager at the Emirates.
But very few people forecast a disaster if we voted to Leave. They, we, I said there would be a diminution in the wealth of the nation. For me, in the days of £10 packets of cigarettes, and 5p on the price of a ping, I don't think many people will notice. How would they be able to feel £4,300 worse off than otherwise in a few years? How will they measure the £100s of millions not invested, or care that Morgan Stanley's offices in E14 are emptier than hitherto?
So shouting "look there has been no disaster" is missing the point. We will all be poorer and we will be poorer for nothing.
And for those who say "but...but...they said immediately after the vote" - that again is operating on rolling news channel timings. In the real world the lag can be quite long.
Very few forecast disaster? The American President said we'd go to the back of the queue, the Chancellor said we'd need an emergency budget to send small boys up chimneys, and the Prime Minister saw a third world war.
ahem, UK in back of the queue disaster shocker. Not quite a disaster and, as we have seen, most recently with Bombardier, the US does indeed send countries to the back of the queue, trade-wise so I'll give that one as an accurate forecast, indeed worse than forecast.
Emergency budget? A leave vote took us into the unknown. Prudent of the chancellor to say this would be needed, especially if it had been needed.
Third world war? Just saying that the EU was a force for peace.
Kids up chimneys? They fit much more easily than fat lads so actually this was a positive.
Completely O/T, but does anybody here have any involvement with bright new ideas about what we might do with old tyre mountains?
Sometimes on Devon farms these mountains inexplicably catch fire, and the farmer is beside himself with grief at the loss of his tyre collection.
You can make them into jumps for horses. You can shred Indian tyres to make flooring for arenas for horses, but not first world ones because they have metal in them.
Kids and matches, eh? Cuh.....
Sounds rather like the old Glaswegian industrial units that ‘went on fire’ during the early ‘90s recession.
Or the unexpected fire which completely destabilises a redundant woollen mill in a prime site.
Mr. P, so we didn't sign away anything when EurAtom ceased to be an independent body and got swallowed up by the EU? Or when swathes of vetoes were thrown away, to be replaced by QMV?
I think that's a position open to dispute.
Mr. Topping, "Third world war? Just saying that the EU was a force for peace." Ahem. That's stretching the meaning of words to an extent whereby the vocabulary and the meaning bear little resemblance to one another.
It excites the political anoraks nobody else. And for remainers it get worse as the answer can only ever be Armageddon.
anecdote
it was a quiz night in my village hall on Saturday and I had two remainers on my team doing the gloom scenario, UK is worst place in the world laughing stock etc
Me: so youre saying we're a bigger laughing stock than Trunps USA ? Them : well no, don't be stupid Me: so youre saying we're more unstable than Germany which currently doesn't have a government and where Merkel is in the poo Them: well no Me : Are we less stable than Spain ? Them: no have you see Catalonia Me: Italy ? Them: laughter Me: France where the president is less popular than Hollande and where 2 in 5 electors vote neo fascist ? Them: well France has always been a mess Me: so really everywhere is in a bit of turmoil and where just in with the pak Them: yeah suppose so
Point of order on Macron - his popularity ratings are improving; two union-called national days of action against his reforms have been damp squibs.
Indeed, and who in their right minds thinks Germany is currently less stable than Britain?!
Well, the main headlines in Bild are currently Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO and Harvey Weinstein. There seems to be very little about internal German politics, so it doesn't really support your contention that Germany is less stable than the UK at all.
Perhaps you should consider reading a more upmarket paper. Die Zeit or the Frankfurter Allgemeine, perhaps?
I normally do, FAZ and Die Welt, which is where I quote the Merkel in trouble stories
BPs question was was there any German paper worse than the DMail
I sent him Bild
According to the latest surveys on ARD, 75% of Germans think that a Jamaica coalition will be formed, 61% find it good or very good for Merkel to have a fourth term, and 63% are satisfied with her work. Those are hardly figures for a politician in trouble!
"we're not these deranged cretins who got you into this mess, we're the whack job ideologues who'll get you in to an even bigger one"
cant see that working myself
The second part will convince Brexit headbangers who believe simply on the basis of time for a change.
Or more likely by the time an election comes people will be worried about housing, cost of living, NHS and all the other things ordinary people worry about. See GE 2017
Only political anoraks are fighting Brexit, nobody else cares much
Which brings me right back to my original point. The next election is likely to be dominated by the question: "do you think things have got better since Britain voted to Leave?" The public are results merchants.
5 years out that's a mad call, there are so many other things which can change. Basing everything on the Brexit prism is myopic. It's simply the product of a mindset that cant imagine a different future.
Indeed.
Some remainers are incandescent; but I
I was thinking about all the 'disaster is certain' predictions during my life:
Nuclear war Nuclear disaster eg Chernobyl New ice age Global warming Various other ecological disasters - birds dying, bees dying, oceans dying Oil running out The Middle Eastern oil fields being set alight in 1991 AIDS, BSE, bird flu etc The year 2000 computer problem The gazillions of finanical derivatives in 2008 Project Fear's predictions of a Leave vote
I'm sure I've forgotten many more.
I thought BSE's campaign was pretty unpleasant but I wouldn't go as far as grouping them with AIDS and Bird Flu.
What's happening with BSE/V.CJD?
About 10-15 years ago there was talk that hundreds of thousands of people could potentially die from V.CJD in the next 2-3 decades... Now you never hear anything about it and I think the total number of victims remains exceedingly low (fewer than 200) ?
I think they all migrated to PB and only ever discuss Brexit
Somebody tell Faisal Islam that Switzerland is a member of Euratom.
Switzerland isn't a member of Euratom. It has a number of co-operation agreements with it. Bit similar to "access to Single Market", eg USA versus EU Member
Since 2014, Switzerland has participated in Euratom programmes as an associated state.[1]
As of 2016, the community had co-operation agreements of various scopes with eight countries: the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and South Africa.[10]
Strictly speaking, the reference the Wikipedia article links to explains Switzerland is NOT an associated country. (It has legal implications).
Mr. Roger, can't speak for others, but personally I don't think that made a huge difference. The deal being derided, the Obama intervention, and the dangers being so overplayed that genuine warnings of potential problems went ignored, were all bigger factors in the result going the way it did.
When he said it on Question Time you could hear the intake of breath amongst the audience. Shortly afterwards the Leave campain brought out their one and only broadcast whose central theme was the 72 million and it's effects on the NHS and life as it would become in the UK.
I haven't any doubt that it was tested and that was the claim that resonated. Brexit's secret weapon. Their USP. The rest was preaching to the choir.
"we're not these deranged cretins who got you into this mess, we're the whack job ideologues who'll get you in to an even bigger one"
cant see that working myself
The second part will convince Brexit headbangers who believe simply on the basis of time for a change.
Or more likely by the time an election comes people will be worried about housing, cost of living, NHS and all the other things ordinary people worry about. See GE 2017
Only political anoraks are fighting Brexit, nobody else cares much
Which brings me right back to my original point. The next election is likely to be dominated by the question: "do you think things have got better since Britain voted to Leave?" The public are results merchants.
5 years out that's a mad call, there are so many other things which can change. Basing everything on the Brexit prism is myopic. It's simply the product of a mindset that cant imagine a different future.
Indeed.
Some remainers are incandescent; but I
I was thinking about all the 'disaster is certain' predictions during my life:
Nuclear war Nuclear disaster eg Chernobyl New ice age Global warming Various other ecological disasters - birds dying, bees dying, oceans dying Oil running out The Middle Eastern oil fields being set alight in 1991 AIDS, BSE, bird flu etc The year 2000 computer problem The gazillions of finanical derivatives in 2008 Project Fear's predictions of a Leave vote
I'm sure I've forgotten many more.
I thought BSE's campaign was pretty unpleasant but I wouldn't go as far as grouping them with AIDS and Bird Flu.
What's happening with BSE/V.CJD?
About 10-15 years ago there was talk that hundreds of thousands of people could potentially die from V.CJD in the next 2-3 decades... Now you never hear anything about it and I think the total number of victims remains exceedingly low (fewer than 200) ?
I think they all migrated to PB and only ever discuss Brexit
Good piece Alastair, but I'm afraid it conflicts with a 26 tweet thread from @davidallengreen.
Well.
It does. But if it's the one I think it is, he goes all round the houses to try to find a reason why A50(3) doesn't really say what it really says. It really does. It is the elephant in the room of all revocation arguments.
Although revoking Article 50 is hypothetical, I think a key factor is how confident the EU Council/Commission would be of the legal position. If they thought a decision to refuse the revocation would end up in court or arbitration they might allow the revocation to proceed by default on a least impact basis.
Only 89% of 2017 Tories would vote for the party now...
So that’s better than Labour (88% of 2017 Vote) and Lib Dem (65%)......
Meanwhile Labour is ahead among ABC1, but the Tories lead in C2DE....and 92% of those intending to vote Tory think May would be the best PM while among Labour voters Corbyn gets 79%.....
It excites the political anoraks nobody else. And for remainers it get worse as the answer can only ever be Armageddon.
anecdote
it was a quiz night in my village hall on Saturday and I had two remainers on my team doing the gloom scenario, UK is worst turmoil and where just in with the pak Them: yeah suppose so
Point of order on Macron - his popularity ratings are improving; two union-called national days of action against his reforms have been damp squibs.
Indeed, and who in their right minds thinks Germany is currently less stable than Britain?!
Well, the main headlines in Bild are currently Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO and Harvey Weinstein. There seems to be very little about internal German politics, so it doesn't really support your contention that Germany is less stable than the UK at all.
Perhaps you should consider reading a more upmarket paper. Die Zeit or the Frankfurter Allgemeine, perhaps?
I normally do, FAZ and Die Welt, which is where I quote the Merkel in trouble stories
BPs question was was there any German paper worse than the DMail
I sent him Bild
According to the latest surveys on ARD, 75% of Germans would support a Jamaica coalition, 61% find it good or very good for Merkel to have a fourth term, and 63% are satisfied with her work. Those are hardly figures for a politician in trouble!
Seehofer is about to get a good kicking from his own party Jamaica is the only game in town and greens and FDP are at opposite ends of the political spectrum - Merkel has shakier partners than May and the DUP Nobody in the CDU is celebrating an electoral victory The AfD have one seventh of the vote East Germany dislikes Merkel and wont vote for her Diesel scandal
if you think all is sweetness and light in Germany good luck
Mr. P, so we didn't sign away anything when EurAtom ceased to be an independent body and got swallowed up by the EU? Or when swathes of vetoes were thrown away, to be replaced by QMV?
I think that's a position open to dispute.
Mr. Topping, "Third world war? Just saying that the EU was a force for peace." Ahem. That's stretching the meaning of words to an extent whereby the vocabulary and the meaning bear little resemblance to one another.
Just out of curiosity, what kinds of independent initiatives do you think a EurAtom outside the EU could have come up with? Surely regulating radioactive materials isn't a field where there is a huge number of creative options?
Mr. P, so we didn't sign away anything when EurAtom ceased to be an independent body and got swallowed up by the EU? Or when swathes of vetoes were thrown away, to be replaced by QMV?
I think that's a position open to dispute.
Mr. Topping, "Third world war? Just saying that the EU was a force for peace." Ahem. That's stretching the meaning of words to an extent whereby the vocabulary and the meaning bear little resemblance to one another.
Can we _really_ bother to go back to see what was said? I think grown-ups are aware of what was meant.
Although revoking Article 50 is hypothetical, I think a key factor is how confident the EU Council/Commission would be of the legal position. If they thought a decision to refuse the revocation would end up in court or arbitration they might allow the revocation to proceed by default on a least impact basis.
They would certainly have scope to um and ah about it and make it clear that we need to mean it.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
Good piece Alastair, but I'm afraid it conflicts with a 26 tweet thread from @davidallengreen.
Well.
It does. But if it's the one I think it is, he goes all round the houses to try to find a reason why A50(3) doesn't really say what it really says. It really does. It is the elephant in the room of all revocation arguments.
In much the same way that he went round the houses to explain why the Government would never invoke Article 50
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
A further point is that the ‘pour encourager les autres’ motivation is stronger for the EU27 than for the Commission. They don’t want their own electorates getting ideas.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
Although revoking Article 50 is hypothetical, I think a key factor is how confident the EU Council/Commission would be of the legal position. If they thought a decision to refuse the revocation would end up in court or arbitration they might allow the revocation to proceed by default on a least impact basis.
Although revocation is technically a legal step the whole Brexit process is essentially a political one and if the political will on both side was strong enough then revocation would happen. If, for instance, the UK had another general election and a government was elected on a manifesto which included revocation and the key players in the EU council of ministers were in agreement then a way would be found to revoke.
At the moment this sequence of events seems very unlikely but the theoretical possibility exists.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
Well, the main headlines in Bild are currently Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO and Harvey Weinstein. There seems to be very little about internal German politics, so it doesn't really support your contention that Germany is less stable than the UK at all.
Perhaps you should consider reading a more upmarket paper. Die Zeit or the Frankfurter Allgemeine, perhaps?
I normally do, FAZ and Die Welt, which is where I quote the Merkel in trouble stories
BPs question was was there any German paper worse than the DMail
I sent him Bild
According to the latest surveys on ARD, 75% of Germans would support a Jamaica coalition, 61% find it good or very good for Merkel to have a fourth term, and 63% are satisfied with her work. Those are hardly figures for a politician in trouble!
Seehofer is about to get a good kicking from his own party Jamaica is the only game in town and greens and FDP are at opposite ends of the political spectrum - Merkel has shakier partners than May and the DUP Nobody in the CDU is celebrating an electoral victory The AfD have one seventh of the vote East Germany dislikes Merkel and wont vote for her Diesel scandal
if you think all is sweetness and light in Germany good luck
Merkel is Theresa May with a 6 month delay
I didn't say all is sweetness and light in Germany. You claimed that it is less stable than the UK, which is patent nonsense. Merkel remains a popular leader (certainly compared to May) and most are confident that she'll be able to form a coalition with the FDP and Greens. Coalition governments are, of course, the norm in Germany and, while a coalition including both the FDP and Greens will be interesting, both parties have long experience as junior coalition partners and have pragmatists who will be keen to make it work.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
Yep - it's a point I have made a few times on here. If the UK government had invested a little time and effort in reaching out to voters in the EU27 member states, instead of pandering to the anti-EU rhetoric of the right wing English press, the UK might have a bit more leverage. As it is - and as AlanBrooke correctly observes - Brexit is a second-tier issue across Europe. Very few people are watching, very few people care. There is no link to Brexit and their futures, as far as they can see. That suits EU27 governments perfectly. If (when) things go wrong, it will just be the British playing games and wanting their cake while eating it, yet again - the same old story.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
Yep - it's a point I have made a few times on here. If the UK government had invested a little time and effort in reaching out to voter sin the EU27 member states, the UK might have a bit more leverage. As it is - as AlanBrooke correctly observes - Brexit is a second-tier issue across Europe. Very few people are watching, very few people care. There is no link to Brexit and their futures, as far as they can see. That suits EU27 governments perfectly. If (when) things go wrong, it will just be the British playing games and wanting their cake and eating, yet again - the same old story.
What few commentators, and no PB Brexiters have considered is what our attitude would be if any other EU country decided to leave. We would think...good luck to them...looking forward to being kept in touch....hope we can do some kind of deal...they want WHAT???? NO WAY...How dare they try to dictate terms to us, they are the ones leaving...etc..etc
Although revoking Article 50 is hypothetical, I think a key factor is how confident the EU Council/Commission would be of the legal position. If they thought a decision to refuse the revocation would end up in court or arbitration they might allow the revocation to proceed by default on a least impact basis.
Although revocation is technically a legal step the whole Brexit process is essentially a political one and if the political will on both side was strong enough then revocation would happen. If, for instance, the UK had another general election and a government was elected on a manifesto which included revocation and the key players in the EU council of ministers were in agreement then a way would be found to revoke.
At the moment this sequence of events seems very unlikely but the theoretical possibility exists.
I rarely disagree with you, Nick, but I do here. The EU is substantially a legal construct, which is both its strength and weakness. Its modus operandi is to agree to a process and attempt subsume the politics to that process. It's how it can get stuff done. We're seeing it with the Article 50 talks where the EU side is accused, accurately, of sticking to to a process and being inflexible. But what people don't sufficiently acknowledge in my view is how else would we get an agreement with a group of 27 individual states? It's not a peer-to-peer negotiation; it's consortium to third party.
The problem with the legal first approach is that no-one has a sense of ownership. It alienates, actually.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
Well, the main headlines in Bild are currently Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO and Harvey Weinstein. There seems to be very little about internal German politics, so it doesn't really support your contention that Germany is less stable than the UK at all.
Perhaps you should consider reading a more upmarket paper. Die Zeit or the Frankfurter Allgemeine, perhaps?
I normally do, FAZ and Die Welt, which is the DMail
I sent him Bild
According to the latest surveys on ARD, 75% of Germans would support a Jamaica coalition, 61% find it good or very good for Merkel to have a fourth term, and 63% are satisfied with her work. Those are hardly figures for a politician in trouble!
Seehofer is about to get a good kicking from his own party Jamaica is the only game
if you think all is sweetness and light in Germany good luck
Merkel is Theresa May with a 6 month delay
I didn't say all is sweetness and light in Germany. You claimed that it is less stable than the UK, which is patent nonsense. Merkel remains a popular leader (certainly compared to May) and most are confident that she'll be able to form a coalition with the FDP and Greens. Coalition governments are, of course, the norm in Germany and, while a coalition including both the FDP and Greens will be interesting, both parties have long experience as junior coalition partners and have pragmatists who will be keen to make it work.
I don't think it's patent nonsense at all
it's a month on and Germany has no government. It wont have for about another month and then it will be a sticking plaster job which will be in office if not power
Merkel's position like Mays is weaker than when she went to the electorate, she is on the slide and members of her own party are calling for her head,
Only Prime Minister Gove, Johnson, or Davis could revoke Article 50.
Boris by far the most likely. Leavers wishing him as PM may regret it.
(Remember how Boris loves Churchill - you can easily imagine him thinking abandoning Brexit is somehow a parallel to Churchill's abandoning of the Conservative party)
Only Prime Minister Gove, Johnson, or Davis could revoke Article 50.
Why would they want to?
If Brexit is likely lead to a monumental shit show and an electoral wipeout for the Tories.
As recent events have shown once again, Boris puts his personal ambitions above all else.
Boris aspires to be Churchill. This is what Lloyd-George said of Churchill:
""You will one day discover that the state of mind revealed in (your) letter is the reason why you do not win trust even where you command admiration. In every line of it, national interests are completely overshadowed by your personal concern.""
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
Effectively a ransom demand - "give us your money or else!"
Although revoking Article 50 is hypothetical, I think a key factor is how confident the EU Council/Commission would be of the legal position. If they thought a decision to refuse the revocation would end up in court or arbitration they might allow the revocation to proceed by default on a least impact basis.
Although revocation is technically a legal step the whole Brexit process is essentially a political one and if the political will on both side was strong enough then revocation would happen. If, for instance, the UK had another general election and a government was elected on a manifesto which included revocation and the key players in the EU council of ministers were in agreement then a way would be found to revoke.
At the moment this sequence of events seems very unlikely but the theoretical possibility exists.
I rarely disagree with you, Nick, but I do here. The EU is substantially a legal construct, which is both its strength and weakness. Its modus operandi is to agree to a process and attempt subsume the politics to that process. It's how it can get stuff done. We're seeing it with the Article 50 talks where the EU side is accused, accurately, of sticking to to a process and being inflexible. But what people don't sufficiently acknowledge in my view is how else would we get an agreement with a group of 27 individual states? It's not a peer-to-peer negotiation; it's consortium to third party.
The problem with the legal first approach is that no-one has a sense of ownership. It alienates, actually.
Disagree, and agree with Nick (!).
Look at Dave's Deal - it was criticised because people thought it would be struck down by the ECJ. The response was hold on...it's just been agreed by the EU27 heads of government. And at the end of the day, it is the political will that informs the court's decisions. Just like here - parliament passes a law and the courts implement it. If you are saying there has to be a formal law-making process before the ECJ can interpret that, then that is another issue..
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
It's confirmation that LEAVE was the correct choice - Who wants to be in a "Union" with "friends" and "partners" who intimidate, bully and blackmail?
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
If they make it clear up front that's how they are going to negotiate and explain the process in detail and our side agrees to negotiate on those terms, is that really bad faith?
For something comprising so few words, Article 50 is remarkably puzzling. The more you look at it, the more holes in it you see.
For example: "[The agreement] shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
What happens if the European Parliament doesn't give its consent?
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
If they make it clear up front that's how they are going to negotiate and explain the process in detail and our side agrees to negotiate on those terms, is that really bad faith?
Yes, of course, since the Treaty doesn't provide for them to do that. On the contrary, it explicitly says they should take account of the future relationship.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
If they make it clear up front that's how they are going to negotiate and explain the process in detail and our side agrees to negotiate on those terms, is that really bad faith?
If they are pretending to negotiate but won't make any concessions or compromises or talk about other issues, yes. They have made a clearly impossible demand on the EU court having special jurisdiction outside the EU. It has become apparent they do not want a deal.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
It's an entity negotiating from what it considers to be a strong negotiating position. It doesn't feel that it has to make concessions or yet talk about things it doesn't want to. That's not bad faith, simply a belief that it holds the cards.
Comments
Ahem, pint I meant.
You can make them into jumps for horses. You can shred Indian tyres to make flooring for arenas for horses, but not first world ones because they have metal in them.
The EU follows the rules when it feels like it. So, no pre-negotiation with the UK before Article 50 is triggered. But if nations want to bend the rules so they 'meet' the criteria to join the single currency, that's fine.
Perhaps you should consider reading a more upmarket paper. Die Zeit or the Frankfurter Allgemeine, perhaps?
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/07/18/no-such-thing-as-associate-membership-euratom/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community
Since 2014, Switzerland has participated in Euratom programmes as an associated state.[1]
As of 2016, the community had co-operation agreements of various scopes with eight countries: the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and South Africa.[10]
The UK's hand is stronger than many think. (Including perhaps those negotiating for the UK!)
Dacre seems really sensitive about the "saboteur" thing. My theory is the GE result has shaken him to the core. Perhaps his kids came out as remainians/corbynistas or something.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/oct/13/the-scientists-persuading-terrorists-to-spill-their-secrets
Most people aren’t paying attention.
Despite the most disastrous conference speech of all time the Tories collapsed one whole point in the YouGov poll...
I’m afraid you’re going to have to find more substantial straws to clutch at..
BPs question was was there any German paper worse than the DMail
I sent him Bild
The direct effect of Brexit on the economy will likely be relatively small. It won't be "highly marginal and contentious" because we have already had an effect before leaving, but it won't probably be catastrophic. But only if we prioritise the economy over taking control, as I think we will do eventually. Brexit will be very disruptive, it will be costly in lots of ways, it will be a huge time sucker. The EU will impinge in our daily lives to a much greater extent than it did before we left. And we will have to do what the EU tells us without us having a say in the regulations we adopt. If we do all that we can have an arrangement that keeps important parts of what we have already.
Thing is, the only reason to vote Brexit is to take control, but to avoid serious repercussions we end up with the EU more in control than ever. Eventually we will have to accept the situation, but most people, whatever they voted, will think it's a nonsense.
Universal Credit has always been an unexploded bomb and it is about to go off.May could be gone next week.
About 10-15 years ago there was talk that hundreds of thousands of people could potentially die from V.CJD in the next 2-3 decades... Now you never hear anything about it and I think the total number of victims remains exceedingly low (fewer than 200) ?
Well.
We've held out a generous offer and it's been rebuffed by those mean Eurocrats.
I went for a bike ride the other day around the local villages and through Stoneleigh. There's a bugger of a short hill climb just past the little river there that I was not expecting. Anyway, once I got to the top and regained my breath, I felt the vague warmth of the early autumn breeze on my face, looked around me and realised just how lucky I am. Leamington and its envisions really are a very fine part of the world. Moving there from Southam was about the best thing we ever did.
We are participating members of a mutually beneficial club. Leaving the club results in a loss of benefits.
We will be worse off than we were as members.
Leaving shows we have power. We have always had power. We didn't sign it away, until now.
We are now giving away power, and influence, and prosperity, to satisfy Farage's Little Englanders.
It's tragic.
Emergency budget? A leave vote took us into the unknown. Prudent of the chancellor to say this would be needed, especially if it had been needed.
Third world war? Just saying that the EU was a force for peace.
Kids up chimneys? They fit much more easily than fat lads so actually this was a positive.
I think that's a position open to dispute.
Mr. Topping, "Third world war? Just saying that the EU was a force for peace." Ahem. That's stretching the meaning of words to an extent whereby the vocabulary and the meaning bear little resemblance to one another.
http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend-967.html
I haven't any doubt that it was tested and that was the claim that resonated. Brexit's secret weapon. Their USP. The rest was preaching to the choir.
#notgoingtohappen
So that’s better than Labour (88% of 2017 Vote) and Lib Dem (65%)......
Meanwhile Labour is ahead among ABC1, but the Tories lead in C2DE....and 92% of those intending to vote Tory think May would be the best PM while among Labour voters Corbyn gets 79%.....
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/711zi84n7n/TimesResults_171005_Trackers_VI_W.pdf
Jamaica is the only game in town and greens and FDP are at opposite ends of the political spectrum - Merkel has shakier partners than May and the DUP
Nobody in the CDU is celebrating an electoral victory
The AfD have one seventh of the vote
East Germany dislikes Merkel and wont vote for her
Diesel scandal
if you think all is sweetness and light in Germany good luck
Merkel is Theresa May with a 6 month delay
https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/918575538712842242
https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/918576451334692869
https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/918576676119998466
At the moment this sequence of events seems very unlikely but the theoretical possibility exists.
And @tyson revealed he has even started ranting and raving at known LEAVERS in pubs when he sees them trying to have a quiet evening drink...
It's ridiculous supposition/wishful thinking.
As recent events have shown once again, Boris puts his personal ambitions above all else.
The problem with the legal first approach is that no-one has a sense of ownership. It alienates, actually.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
it's a month on and Germany has no government. It wont have for about another month and then it will be a sticking plaster job which will be in office if not power
Merkel's position like Mays is weaker than when she went to the electorate, she is on the slide and members of her own party are calling for her head,
She has no successor as yet
That's much like the UK atm
(Remember how Boris loves Churchill - you can easily imagine him thinking abandoning Brexit is somehow a parallel to Churchill's abandoning of the Conservative party)
The EU is interested in empire-building but only for its own sake. It is the institutional format of Gordon Brown.
This is what Lloyd-George said of Churchill:
""You will one day discover that the state of mind revealed in (your) letter is the reason why you do not win trust even where you command admiration. In every line of it, national interests are completely overshadowed by your personal concern.""
Look at Dave's Deal - it was criticised because people thought it would be struck down by the ECJ. The response was hold on...it's just been agreed by the EU27 heads of government. And at the end of the day, it is the political will that informs the court's decisions. Just like here - parliament passes a law and the courts implement it. If you are saying there has to be a formal law-making process before the ECJ can interpret that, then that is another issue..
For example: "[The agreement] shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
What happens if the European Parliament doesn't give its consent?
When all on my mind was Gove
Now I find that most of the time
Gove's not enough in itself
The German car and Italian wine lobbies will be on the phone any day now and we'll get whatever deal we ask for from Barnier.
Keep the faith, and top up the Kool-Aid while you're at it.
https://www.oddschecker.com/baseball/mlb/world-series/winner
Back all the teams each-way - I'd recommend 2 at Ladbrokes & 2 at Coral.
The win book comes to 108.5% but the place book only 169.8%.
If you apportion stakes properly (c. 10/10/7/7) you'll come out ahead.