Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
I think that it cannot happen until we ourselves recognise that we ARE part of Europe rather than the plucky British bulldog standing alone on the white cliffs of history against the travails of Johnny Foreigner.
FPT. I’ve been trying to understand the issues around Open Skies. Should I understand that, because of the lapse of time since we joined the EU, there’s no agreement on landing rights, slots, etc between us and any EU member, and that the agreement between the EU and the US will no linger apply either, and that without a quick renegotiation we can only fly on planes which have pre-negotiated landing slots in EU, US, or wherever?
There’s two issues.
One is Open Skies, which is a reciprocal agreement for commercial airlines to operate throughout Europe (not just the EU) and between the Europe and the USA. The EU say that if we leave the EU we automatically withdraw from these agreements so British planes wouldn’t be allowed to fly to the EU or US (or even overfly them) on the day we leave the EU.
The other issue is regulation via EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency. EASA is responsible for ensuring safety of air travel as regulators, they issue certificates of airworthiness to planes and airlines, and licence certain professionals such as pilots, maintainence engineers, dispatchers, air traffic controllers, safety officers at airlines etc. In the UK, this work is mostly done by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) using power delegated to them by EASA. Some are suggesting that the day we leave the EU we will have no airworthy planes and no qualified pilots to fly them as our membership of EASA will lapse.
This is why it becomes a matter of realpolitik
Both of those could be solved by the UK being given membership of EASA and Open Skies on the same basis that they currently have.
If the EU were to impede those then it would (rightly) be perceived as an incredibly hostile act - something beyond offering/not offering benefits from membership of the EU.
IIRC the problem with remaining in EASA is incompatible with Mrs May and the Brexiteer red line of no ECJ jurisdiction post Brexit.
ECJ supremacy over all UK law. Not over one particular aspect of delegated authority.
That's not what May said, though. Obviously, the government dropping its insistence that the ECJ should not have any jurisdiction in the UK post-Brexit will free up a huge log-jam. But that takes us back to the politics of all this. Promises were made. If they are broken it may well be best for the country, but it will tear the Conservative party apart.
Did May actually spell that out in such detail?
Most Tories would be very relaxed about ECJ oversight of EASA or other technical agencies.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
Also makes the huge assumption that the EU aren't blamed for all our woes.
I'm a soft leaver, I'd take a ten year transation, I'd take EEA/EFTA, some form of BINO, so long as it shows real signs of ending ever closer union and slowly but surely returning democratic control to Parliament.
But Thrashing™.
It's outcome.
Resentment will build, not just towards our own establishment class, who appear to be the main cheerleaders, but to the unelected bureaucrats in the EU who sought to punish us for exercising our democratic rights.
And you think we'd want to go back?
The Express, Mail and Telegraph wiill throw all the blame at the feet of the EU; The patriotic Tory Government will, of course, have done its best
A popular enough explanation. But wrong. As we saw in GE2017 they threw everything they had at Corbyn and it had no effect.
Similarly, the full weight of the remain establishment has been pumping out non-stop Brexit-related doom and gloom since June 2016 - and the polls haven't shifted an inch.
It is, unfortunately, a matter of simple human psychology. When things go wrong, we seek a scapegoat. That scapegoat is always 'the other', never us. If things go wrong, the EU and the remain establishment who appeared to fight the process tooth and nail will be the ones to get the blame.
And that won't be the fault of the right wing press. It will be a matter of simple human psychology.
And once the EU has been blamed - as I agree it will be - what happens then?
there’s every chance that the EU overplay their hand here.
How?
The worst possible outcome for everybody is we crash out with no deals.
Given that is UK Government policy, hard to see how the EU suffers reputationally if that happens
That we decide the EU clearly don’t want to end up with a mutually agreeable trade deal, so we announce at the end of this year that we’re breaking off the talks and start preparing for an exit to WTO terms on 29th March 2019. With no money paid to the EU on the way out.
There’s lots to do and we need to get on with it, not wasting time with people who have no intention of striking a deal, or at best presenting a one-sided fait accompli at the 59th minute of the eleventh hour.
And it is a mere hop and skip from "only EASA" to free trade, customs union, widgets, etc.
Take Back Control
Cede control in those areas where it is deemed mutually beneficial at this point in time, while still maintaining the farce that we can do everything unilaterally
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: Boris Johnson accepts his comments on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe last week “could have been clearer” says Foreign Office spokesman.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
Also makes the huge assumption that the EU aren't blamed for all our woes.
I'm a soft leaver, I'd take a ten year transation, I'd take EEA/EFTA, some form of BINO, so long as it shows real signs of ending ever closer union and slowly but surely returning democratic control to Parliament.
But Thrashing™.
It's outcome.
Resentment will build, not just towards our own establishment class, who appear to be the main cheerleaders, but to the unelected bureaucrats in the EU who sought to punish us for exercising our democratic rights.
And you think we'd want to go back?
The Express, Mail and Telegraph wiill throw all the blame at the feet of the EU; The patriotic Tory Government will, of course, have done its best
A popular enough explanation. But wrong. As we saw in GE2017 they threw everything they had at Corbyn and it had no effect.
Similarly, the full weight of the remain establishment has been pumping out non-stop Brexit-related doom and gloom since June 2016 - and the polls haven't shifted an inch.
It is, unfortunately, a matter of simple human psychology. When things go wrong, we seek a scapegoat. That scapegoat is always 'the other', never us. If things go wrong, the EU and the remain establishment who appeared to fight the process tooth and nail will be the ones to get the blame.
And that won't be the fault of the right wing press. It will be a matter of simple human psychology.
And once the EU has been blamed - as I agree it will be - what happens then?
A good question. I would expect there to be a long, slow campaign to rejoin - but it would take a generation or so at least. I can't see it happening in the next twenty years. By then, the global political situation may look radically different. As may the EU. Predictions on such a long timeframe are meaningless.
Alternatively, we may become much more inward looking - the EU a distant memory as we focus on domestic solutions to domestic issues. If Corbyn gets in, the next five years may all be about dramatic wealth redistribution and shifts in the balance of power of British society. I supect if Corbyn got in the EU would no longer be top of the political agenda once we're out.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
I think that it cannot happen until we ourselves recognise that we ARE part of Europe rather than the plucky British bulldog standing alone on the white cliffs of history against the travails of Johnny Foreigner.
My fear is that he could make the situation worse.
This is the reality of the "accident waiting to happen" appointment. Oh how we laughed, whether up a zipline or on HIGNFY. But small children on the Piccadilly Line could have told you that he was unfit, and this is the manifestation of that.
There is no one on the planet who could not have foreseen this, nor any excuse to say: "this was never a possibility".
Yes, it's a direct mirror of what's happened in the US.
However, it can't last and delivery would break it. A Tory Party led by JRM (which it won't be) or a Labour Party led by Corbyn would both fail horribly in government because neither is remotely suited temperamentally to the demands of government. At that point, the governing party would suffer huge defections from voters - though to where remains an open question. Abstentions, the Lib Dems, a new or revived party on the left or right (as appropriate) are all possible. What isn't possible is the continuance of two blocks of support remaining at 40%+, neither of which is capable of governing.
It's a direct mirror of what is happening across the entire western world. The centre is being hollowed out with everything moving to one extreme or the other.
I have a theory about that but its too long to write at the moment....
Or as Churchill wrote - Sorry about the long letter but I didn't have time to write a short one.
In some respects it is worse in US, since it is hard to govern at all without some measure of cross-the-aisle consensus on at least some stuff.
As is well known, the American founding fathers were hostile to the notion of political parties so they wrote a constitution assuming parties wouldn’t form and which has so much distribution of power and checks and balances that it could easily become unworkable if strong party divisions did arise. It’s quite an achievement of the Americans that the system worked as long as it did.
we announce at the end of this year that we’re breaking off the talks and start preparing for an exit to WTO terms on 29th March 2019.
The Brexiteers would then need to explain why we walked away from "the easiest trade talks in history"
We can only have talks if both sides turn up and wish to discuss trade. When one side only wants to talk about money then the talks about trade don’t happen, so we spend the remaining time until the day we leave preparing for it.
we announce at the end of this year that we’re breaking off the talks and start preparing for an exit to WTO terms on 29th March 2019.
The Brexiteers would then need to explain why we walked away from "the easiest trade talks in history"
We can only have talks if both sides turn up and wish to discuss trade. When one side only wants to talk about money then the talks about trade don’t happen, so we spend the remaining time until the day we leave preparing for it.
Jesus fucking Christ you lot are amazing.
Rules of the game: talk money, then talk trade.
If we say "easiest trade talks in history" then I would effing well hope that whoever said that (if they said it) would have known that to get to those easiest trade talks, there would have to be the money thing solved first.
Throwing a ball up in the air and catching it at the summit of Everest is very easy....
My fear is that he could make the situation worse.
It’s certainly not good as an expat to see our Foreign Secretary wading into a situation and making things worse for some unfortunate bugger. A more diplomatic type person would be somewhat better in the role than the bumbling buffoon we have now.
@elashton: No 10 confirms that Patel “did discuss” some of aid budget going to Israeli army-run hospitals “but there’s no change in policy”
Ambiguous wording there. No 10 needs to be clear how this was discussed and who raised it. Anything other than 'the Israelis raised it and we rejected it' is inadequate and should be a resigning / dismissal matter. But then again, so should discussing policy with a foreign head of government on a private holiday without mentioning it to the PM or FO. So, for that matter, should be landing a British citizen with time in jail for something she didn't do, as a result of ill-informed ministerial comments.
Because there are two strands of conservatism - the political and the economic.
At present they are in conflict while for the last 40 years they haven't been.
I have confidence in the ability of our country folk to reinvent themselves, but it is a change which involves risk.
But they voted to take that risk because they saw the long term future as being brighter outside the EU.
If you are not willing to compromise on the economic risk to achieve the political objectives perhaps you are not a complete match for the conservatives? If that's the case then you need to figure out where you sit on the spectrum of activist - member - supporter - voter - nothing. It doesn't have to be the same place throughout your life (I started as a member, moved to supporter and now oscillate between supporter and voter)
Thanks Charles, my view is that the Tory party should always be championing sound money, pro business, free trade, low tax policies. If it doesn't, then it really shouldn't exist.
Hard/WTO Brexit is the antithesis of all that, instead of a cabinet of Churchills arguing against the prevailing mood we've got a cabinet of Lord Halifaxes appeasing the Leadbangers.
I'm going to keep on articulating those views, hoping sanity prevails, but I find it depressing so many in the Tory party are cheering the dismantling of one of Mrs Thatcher's finest policies, something in all likelihood makes someone like Jeremy Corbyn PM.
A disorderly Brexit will be damaging for the Tory party at the next general election and maybe for longer.
For me, the sine qua non is preserving national independence. A party could be economically sound, but if it was happy to see independence gradually extinguished, then I could not support it.
@elashton: No 10 confirms that Patel “did discuss” some of aid budget going to Israeli army-run hospitals “but there’s no change in policy”
Ambiguous wording there. No 10 needs to be clear how this was discussed and who raised it. Anything other than 'the Israelis raised it and we rejected it' is inadequate and should be a resigning / dismissal matter. But then again, so should discussing policy with a foreign head of government on a private holiday without mentioning it to the PM or FO. So, for that matter, should be landing a British citizen with time in jail for something she didn't do, as a result of ill-informed ministerial comments.
A Secretary of State forming her own private foreign policy should be a dismissal matter anyway. She should have been out on her ear on Friday.
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
Part of Europe but not part of the Continent?
Eh? "The label" does not say that non-continental European countries are to be treated differently to continental European countries.
Is Britain part of the Continent of Europe?
If not then it is not part of Europe.
Tectonic Brexit is now apparently a thing.
Scotland used to be part of Africa. Can tectonic movement be reversed?
In a couple of hundred million years, I'm sure we could accommodate your geographical objections. In the meantime, Britain is geologically part of Europe. Deal with it.
And Leavers wonder why many of us think they're completely doolally.
@elashton: No 10 confirms that Patel “did discuss” some of aid budget going to Israeli army-run hospitals “but there’s no change in policy”
Ambiguous wording there. No 10 needs to be clear how this was discussed and who raised it. Anything other than 'the Israelis raised it and we rejected it' is inadequate and should be a resigning / dismissal matter. But then again, so should discussing policy with a foreign head of government on a private holiday without mentioning it to the PM or FO. So, for that matter, should be landing a British citizen with time in jail for something she didn't do, as a result of ill-informed ministerial comments.
A Secretary of State forming her own private foreign policy should be a dismissal matter anyway. She should have been out on her ear on Friday.
I thought the Conservatives were in favour of enterprise?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
Part of Europe but not part of the Continent?
Eh? "The label" does not say that non-continental European countries are to be treated differently to continental European countries.
Is Britain part of the Continent of Europe?
If not then it is not part of Europe.
Geologically, yes. As is Iceland.
How about politically?
Remember - Continent cut off by fog in the Channel.
LOL. Actually, should have been half of Iceland, IIRC.
We’ve spent most of our history ‘engaged’ with Europe. Often, of course, in wars! In which we were involved because we thought, rightly or wrongly, that it was in our interest to be so.
The exception is, and I stand to be corrected, about 1820-1914. And even then Queen Victoria spent much of her time marrying off her daughters, once they were old enough, into European aristocracy.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
Also makes the huge assumption that the EU aren't blamed for all our woes.
But the way some of you carry on, as if you're wishing for the country to go down in flames, makes me want to stand up, sing a rousing chorus of 'There'll always be an England' then go out and give Johnny Foreigner a Sound Thrashing™.
It's just counterproductive. If Brexit is a failure, it will be seen as the fault of the EU for being unreasonable and pushing us over the cliff edge. Blame will be apportioned and the EU will take its fair share. But so will the people in this country actively wishing for - in some cases appearing to cheer on - the worst possible outcome.
Resentment will build, not just towards our own establishment class, who appear to be the main cheerleaders, but to the unelected bureaucrats in the EU who sought to punish us for exercising our democratic rights.
And you think we'd want to go back?
The Express, Mail and Telegraph wiill throw all the blame at the feet of the EU; The patriotic Tory Government will, of course, have done its best
A popular enough explanation. But wrong. As we saw in GE2017 they threw everything they had at Corbyn and it had no effect.
Similarly, the full weight of the remain establishment has been pumping out non-stop Brexit-related doom and gloom since June 2016 - and the polls haven't shifted an inch.
It is, unfortunately, a matter of simple human psychology. When things go wrong, we seek a scapegoat. That scapegoat is always 'the other', never us. If things go wrong, the EU and the remain establishment who appeared to fight the process tooth and nail will be the ones to get the blame.
And that won't be the fault of the right wing press. It will be a matter of simple human psychology.
I'm not sure about that. Take Iraq. Are we blaming the Lib Dems for not getting behind it so it didn't work out? The Chilcot report may have take an age but it seemed to be a fair summary of how we got to the mess we did. Can we imagine a similar Brexit enquiry in a few years, with ashen-faced Theresa, Boris, Michael and Nigel facing the press afterwards?
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: Boris Johnson accepts his comments on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe last week “could have been clearer” says Foreign Office spokesman.
Loathsome individual. It's not that his original statement was unclear or confused it's that it was wrong.
A woman faces 5 more years in prison because of his incompetence and all he is interested in is his career.
Also makes the huge assumption that the EU aren't blamed for all our woes.
I'm a soft leaver, I'd take a ten year transation, I'd take EEA/EFTA, some form of BINO, so long as it shows real signs of ending ever closer union and slowly but surely returning democratic control to Parliament.
But the way some of you carry on, as if you're wishing for the country to go down in flames, makes me want to stand up, sing a rousing chorus of 'There'll always be an England' then go out and give Johnny Foreigner a Sound Thrashing™.
It's just counterproductive. If Brexit is a failure, it will be seen as the fault of the EU for being unreasonable and pushing us over the cliff edge. Blame will be apportioned and the EU will take its fair share. But so will the people in this country actively wishing for - in some cases appearing to cheer on - the worst possible outcome.
Resentment will build, not just towards our own establishment class, who appear to be the main cheerleaders, but to the unelected bureaucrats in the EU who sought to punish us for exercising our democratic rights.
And you think we'd want to go back?
The Express, Mail and Telegraph wiill throw all the blame at the feet of the EU; The patriotic Tory Government will, of course, have done its best
A popular enough explanation. But wrong. As we saw in GE2017 they threw everything they had at Corbyn and it had no effect.
Similarly, the full weight of the remain establishment has been pumping out non-stop Brexit-related doom and gloom since June 2016 - and the polls haven't shifted an inch.
It is, unfortunately, a matter of simple human psychology. When things go wrong, we seek a scapegoat. That scapegoat is always 'the other', never us. If things go wrong, the EU and the remain establishment who appeared to fight the process tooth and nail will be the ones to get the blame.
And that won't be the fault of the right wing press. It will be a matter of simple human psychology.
The Express, Mail and Telegraph throwing his history at Corbyn won't have changed many votes for the simple reason that very few of those reading those stories will have been on his side to begin with. It might have persuaded a few disillusioned to turn out.
The dog that didn't bark was what the Tory party didn't throw at Corbyn and the rest of his team.
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
Part of Europe but not part of the Continent?
Eh? "The label" does not say that non-continental European countries are to be treated differently to continental European countries.
Is Britain part of the Continent of Europe?
If not then it is not part of Europe.
Geologically, yes. As is Iceland.
How about politically?
Remember - Continent cut off by fog in the Channel.
LOL. Actually, should have been half of Iceland, IIRC.
We’ve spent most of our history ‘engaged’ with Europe. Often, of course, in wars! In which we were involved because we thought, rightly or wrongly, that it was in our interest to be so.
The exception is, and I stand to be corrected, about 1820-1914. And even then Queen Victoria spent much of her time marrying off her daughters, once they were old enough, into European aristocracy.
Nah, Britain was still closely involved in European affairs; it just wasn't part of any formal alliance system for most of that time. Who did Bismarck say the pivotal person was at the Congress of Berlin?
@elashton: No 10 confirms that Patel “did discuss” some of aid budget going to Israeli army-run hospitals “but there’s no change in policy”
Ambiguous wording there. No 10 needs to be clear how this was discussed and who raised it. Anything other than 'the Israelis raised it and we rejected it' is inadequate and should be a resigning / dismissal matter. But then again, so should discussing policy with a foreign head of government on a private holiday without mentioning it to the PM or FO. So, for that matter, should be landing a British citizen with time in jail for something she didn't do, as a result of ill-informed ministerial comments.
A Secretary of State forming her own private foreign policy should be a dismissal matter anyway. She should have been out on her ear on Friday.
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
Part of Europe but not part of the Continent?
Eh? "The label" does not say that non-continental European countries are to be treated differently to continental European countries.
Is Britain part of the Continent of Europe?
If not then it is not part of Europe.
Geologically, yes. As is Iceland.
How about politically?
Remember - Continent cut off by fog in the Channel.
LOL. Actually, should have been half of Iceland, IIRC.
We’ve spent most of our history ‘engaged’ with Europe. Often, of course, in wars! In which we were involved because we thought, rightly or wrongly, that it was in our interest to be so.
The exception is, and I stand to be corrected, about 1820-1914. And even then Queen Victoria spent much of her time marrying off her daughters, once they were old enough, into European aristocracy.
Nah, Britain was still closely involved in European affairs; it just wasn't part of any formal alliance system for most of that time. Who did Bismarck say the pivotal person was at the Congress of Berlin?
I said I stood to be corrected. Thanks. And the answer is don’t know. At my school one didn’t study history after the end of the IIIrd Form if one was doing science. Which I did. Arguably a big mistake.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
Also makes the huge assumption that the EU aren't blamed for all our woes.
But the way some of you carry on, as if you're wishing for the country to go down in flames, makes me want to stand up, sing a rousing chorus of 'There'll always be an England' then go out and give Johnny Foreigner a Sound Thrashing™.
It's just counterproductive. If Brexit is a failure, it will be seen as the fault of the EU for being unreasonable and pushing us over the cliff edge. Blame will be apportioned and the EU will take its fair share. But so will the people in this country actively wishing for - in some cases appearing to cheer on - the worst possible outcome.
Resentment will build, not just towards our own establishment class, who appear to be the main cheerleaders, but to the unelected bureaucrats in the EU who sought to punish us for exercising our democratic rights.
And you think we'd want to go back?
The Express, Mail and Telegraph wiill throw all the blame at the feet of the EU; The patriotic Tory Government will, of course, have done its best
A popular enough explanation. But wrong. As we saw in GE2017 they threw everything they had at Corbyn and it had no effect.
Similarly, the full weight of the remain establishment has been pumping out non-stop Brexit-related doom and gloom since June 2016 - and the polls haven't shifted an inch.
It is, unfortunately, a matter of simple human psychology. When things go wrong, we seek a scapegoat. That scapegoat is always 'the other', never us. If things go wrong, the EU and the remain establishment who appeared to fight the process tooth and nail will be the ones to get the blame.
And that won't be the fault of the right wing press. It will be a matter of simple human psychology.
I'm not sure about that. Take Iraq. Are we blaming the Lib Dems for not getting behind it so it didn't work out? The Chilcot report may have take an age but it seemed to be a fair summary of how we got to the mess we did. Can we imagine a similar Brexit enquiry in a few years, with ashen-faced Theresa, Boris, Michael and Nigel facing the press afterwards?
Nigel will have sought asylum in the Russian Embassy by that stage.
we announce at the end of this year that we’re breaking off the talks and start preparing for an exit to WTO terms on 29th March 2019.
The Brexiteers would then need to explain why we walked away from "the easiest trade talks in history"
We can only have talks if both sides turn up and wish to discuss trade. When one side only wants to talk about money then the talks about trade don’t happen, so we spend the remaining time until the day we leave preparing for it.
Jesus fucking Christ you lot are amazing.
Rules of the game: talk money, then talk trade.
If we say "easiest trade talks in history" then I would effing well hope that whoever said that (if they said it) would have known that to get to those easiest trade talks, there would have to be the money thing solved first.
Throwing a ball up in the air and catching it at the summit of Everest is very easy....
Yes, but the rules of the game are constantly being changed by the other side, as they have realised there’s going to be a massive hole in their budget when we leave. So they’ve decided instead to blackmail us into paying a large bill for which there’s no legal basis, in exchange for even starting to discuss trade.
Well do you know what, we Brits don’t like being blackmailed, so rather than watching the clock running down we’re going to be proactive about preparing to leave instead.
@elashton: No 10 confirms that Patel “did discuss” some of aid budget going to Israeli army-run hospitals “but there’s no change in policy”
Ambiguous wording there. No 10 needs to be clear how this was discussed and who raised it. Anything other than 'the Israelis raised it and we rejected it' is inadequate and should be a resigning / dismissal matter. But then again, so should discussing policy with a foreign head of government on a private holiday without mentioning it to the PM or FO. So, for that matter, should be landing a British citizen with time in jail for something she didn't do, as a result of ill-informed ministerial comments.
A Secretary of State forming her own private foreign policy should be a dismissal matter anyway. She should have been out on her ear on Friday.
I did say that.
Sorry, yes you did.
I'm incredulous that Priti Patel is still in office. She has behaved disgracefully.
we announce at the end of this year that we’re breaking off the talks and start preparing for an exit to WTO terms on 29th March 2019.
The Brexiteers would then need to explain why we walked away from "the easiest trade talks in history"
We can only have talks if both sides turn up and wish to discuss trade. When one side only wants to talk about money then the talks about trade don’t happen, so we spend the remaining time until the day we leave preparing for it.
Jesus fucking Christ you lot are amazing.
Rules of the game: talk money, then talk trade.
If we say "easiest trade talks in history" then I would effing well hope that whoever said that (if they said it) would have known that to get to those easiest trade talks, there would have to be the money thing solved first.
Throwing a ball up in the air and catching it at the summit of Everest is very easy....
Yes, but the rules of the game are constantly being changed by the other side, as they have realised there’s going to be a massive hole in their budget when we leave. So they’ve decided instead to blackmail us into paying a large bill for which there’s no legal basis, in exchange for even starting to discuss trade.
Well do you know what, we Brits don’t like being blackmailed, so rather than watching the clock running down we’re going to be proactive about preparing to leave instead.
"We Brits" LOL - you mean your Angevin forebears!?
Edit: and as to your post. That's all very well - but what the hell did they expect?
@elashton: No 10 confirms that Patel “did discuss” some of aid budget going to Israeli army-run hospitals “but there’s no change in policy”
Ambiguous wording there. No 10 needs to be clear how this was discussed and who raised it. Anything other than 'the Israelis raised it and we rejected it' is inadequate and should be a resigning / dismissal matter. But then again, so should discussing policy with a foreign head of government on a private holiday without mentioning it to the PM or FO. So, for that matter, should be landing a British citizen with time in jail for something she didn't do, as a result of ill-informed ministerial comments.
A Secretary of State forming her own private foreign policy should be a dismissal matter anyway. She should have been out on her ear on Friday.
I did say that.
Sorry, yes you did.
I'm incredulous that Priti Patel is still in office. She has behaved disgracefully.
Because there are two strands of conservatism - the political and the economic.
At present they are in conflict while for the last 40 years they haven't been.
I have confidence in the ability of our country folk to reinvent themselves, but it is a change which involves risk.
But they voted to take that risk because they saw the long term future as being brighter outside the EU.
If you are not willing to compromise on the economic risk to achieve the political objectives perhaps you are not a complete match for the conservatives? If that's the case then you need to figure out where you sit on the spectrum of activist - member - supporter - voter - nothing. It doesn't have to be the same place throughout your life (I started as a member, moved to supporter and now oscillate between supporter and voter)
Thanks Charles, my view is that the Tory party should always be championing sound money, pro business, free trade, low tax policies. If it doesn't, then it really shouldn't exist.
Hard/WTO Brexit is the antithesis of all that, instead of a cabinet of Churchills arguing against the prevailing mood we've got a cabinet of Lord Halifaxes appeasing the Leadbangers.
I'm going to keep on articulating those views, hoping sanity prevails, but I find it depressing so many in the Tory party are cheering the dismantling of one of Mrs Thatcher's finest policies, something in all likelihood makes someone like Jeremy Corbyn PM.
A disorderly Brexit will be damaging for the Tory party at the next general election and maybe for longer.
For me, the sine qua non is preserving national independence. A party could be economically sound, but if it was happy to see independence gradually extinguished, then I could not support it.
But as David Davis did point out, we are, and always were a sovereign nation.
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
Part of Europe but not part of the Continent?
Eh? "The label" does not say that non-continental European countries are to be treated differently to continental European countries.
Is Britain part of the Continent of Europe?
If not then it is not part of Europe.
Geologically, yes. As is Iceland.
How about politically?
Remember - Continent cut off by fog in the Channel.
LOL. Actually, should have been half of Iceland, IIRC.
We’ve spent most of our history ‘engaged’ with Europe. Often, of course, in wars! In which we were involved because we thought, rightly or wrongly, that it was in our interest to be so.
The exception is, and I stand to be corrected, about 1820-1914. And even then Queen Victoria spent much of her time marrying off her daughters, once they were old enough, into European aristocracy.
Nah, Britain was still closely involved in European affairs; it just wasn't part of any formal alliance system for most of that time. Who did Bismarck say the pivotal person was at the Congress of Berlin?
Certainly we have a long track record of sending money across the Channel to further our political interests
there’s every chance that the EU overplay their hand here.
How?
The worst possible outcome for everybody is we crash out with no deals.
Given that is UK Government policy, hard to see how the EU suffers reputationally if that happens
That we decide the EU clearly don’t want to end up with a mutually agreeable trade deal, so we announce at the end of this year that we’re breaking off the talks and start preparing for an exit to WTO terms on 29th March 2019. With no money paid to the EU on the way out.
There’s lots to do and we need to get on with it, not wasting time with people who have no intention of striking a deal, or at best presenting a one-sided fait accompli at the 59th minute of the eleventh hour.
If we start right now we still won't be ready for hard Brexit. The new HMRC computer goes live 6 weeks before we quit. It's running late and over budget but assuming it works at 100% from day 1 we have hit 60% of capacity required by 'just leave'.
And that's just the internal problem with the WTO route. The external time pressures are even more acute
we announce at the end of this year that we’re breaking off the talks and start preparing for an exit to WTO terms on 29th March 2019.
The Brexiteers would then need to explain why we walked away from "the easiest trade talks in history"
We can only have talks if both sides turn up and wish to discuss trade. When one side only wants to talk about money then the talks about trade don’t happen, so we spend the remaining time until the day we leave preparing for it.
Jesus fucking Christ you lot are amazing.
Rules of the game: talk money, then talk trade.
If we say "easiest trade talks in history" then I would effing well hope that whoever said that (if they said it) would have known that to get to those easiest trade talks, there would have to be the money thing solved first.
Throwing a ball up in the air and catching it at the summit of Everest is very easy....
Yes, but the rules of the game are constantly being changed by the other side, as they have realised there’s going to be a massive hole in their budget when we leave. So they’ve decided instead to blackmail us into paying a large bill for which there’s no legal basis, in exchange for even starting to discuss trade.
Well do you know what, we Brits don’t like being blackmailed, so rather than watching the clock running down we’re going to be proactive about preparing to leave instead.
Nobody likes being blackmailed, that's not something we can claim as part of our national character...
If some high-profile Leavers made claims about how easy the trade talks were going to be based on an entirely unrealistic projection of how the other side were going to act - that's their mistake.
Mr. D, indeed. To rag on ITV News again, I was very surprised there was not even a whisper about Boris' idiotic utterance.
Yes, there is a lot of news at the moment but its not a difficult story to explain, has a human element and there doesn't seem to be any defence.
Conceivably, ITN have worked out what should be obvious, that the less said about this the better for Mrs Z-R, and have voluntarily D noticed themselves. Good for them, if so.
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
Part of Europe but not part of the Continent?
Eh? "The label" does not say that non-continental European countries are to be treated differently to continental European countries.
Is Britain part of the Continent of Europe?
If not then it is not part of Europe.
Geologically, yes. As is Iceland.
How about politically?
Remember - Continent cut off by fog in the Channel.
LOL. Actually, should have been half of Iceland, IIRC.
We’ve spent most of our history ‘engaged’ with Europe. Often, of course, in wars! In which we were involved because we thought, rightly or wrongly, that it was in our interest to be so.
The exception is, and I stand to be corrected, about 1820-1914. And even then Queen Victoria spent much of her time marrying off her daughters, once they were old enough, into European aristocracy.
Nah, Britain was still closely involved in European affairs; it just wasn't part of any formal alliance system for most of that time. Who did Bismarck say the pivotal person was at the Congress of Berlin?
I said I stood to be corrected. Thanks. And the answer is don’t know. At my school one didn’t study history after the end of the IIIrd Form if one was doing science. Which I did. Arguably a big mistake.
Thanks Charles, my view is that the Tory party should always be championing sound money, pro business, free trade, low tax policies. If it doesn't, then it really shouldn't exist.
Hard/WTO Brexit is the antithesis of all that, instead of a cabinet of Churchills arguing against the prevailing mood we've got a cabinet of Lord Halifaxes appeasing the Leadbangers.
I'm going to keep on articulating those views, hoping sanity prevails, but I find it depressing so many in the Tory party are cheering the dismantling of one of Mrs Thatcher's finest policies, something in all likelihood makes someone like Jeremy Corbyn PM.
A disorderly Brexit will be damaging for the Tory party at the next general election and maybe for longer.
Would you think EEA is the best route therefore? Upholds the referendum, whilst causing least (or no) economic damage?
It's where I'd go. Though personally I'd probably prefer EFTA+, accepting that isn't likely I'd go with EEA for five to ten years before negotiating out of EEA and straight to EFTA+.
Of course, this should've been discussed and agreed a year ago, with plans and applications to EFTA in place before serving article 50, whilst assuring the rest of the EU that EEA was where we were going.
Too late now. The Conservatives have Soviet Unioned it up.
The Express, Mail and Telegraph wiill throw all the blame at the feet of the EU; The patriotic Tory Government will, of course, have done its best
A popular enough explanation. But wrong. As we saw in GE2017 they threw everything they had at Corbyn and it had no effect.
Similarly, the full weight of the remain establishment has been pumping out non-stop Brexit-related doom and gloom since June 2016 - and the polls haven't shifted an inch.
It is, unfortunately, a matter of simple human psychology. When things go wrong, we seek a scapegoat. That scapegoat is always 'the other', never us. If things go wrong, the EU and the remain establishment who appeared to fight the process tooth and nail will be the ones to get the blame.
And that won't be the fault of the right wing press. It will be a matter of simple human psychology.
I'm not sure about that. Take Iraq. Are we blaming the Lib Dems for not getting behind it so it didn't work out? The Chilcot report may have take an age but it seemed to be a fair summary of how we got to the mess we did. Can we imagine a similar Brexit enquiry in a few years, with ashen-faced Theresa, Boris, Michael and Nigel facing the press afterwards?
Iraq was a legally dubious war, a decision taken without the consent of the electorate. I certainly don't recall it being in Labour's 2001 manifesto.
Brexit was a popular decision, voted on and mandated by the people. I think there was some kind of vote last year, where a majority decided to leave. Or maybe I imagined it...
Can you see the difference?
So no, I don't think we can imagine a similar Brexit enquiry in a few years, except in the fantasies of hardcore remain ultras.
For better or worse, the people have spoken. The bastards.
TBH, pinging girls bras wasn’t unusual back in the 50’s. If you could see the strap of course. Nor was tying girls pigtails togther round the handrail at the top of the bus seats if you could get to sit behind them.
I would class this as bullying rather than sexual harassment. And both bullying and sexual harassment have minor middling and extreme forms. But because bra pinging and dead legs occurred a lot in the past does not mean it should be tolerated, not in the past and not now.
Horseplay, I felt. No, not particularly proud of it.....
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
Part of Europe but not part of the Continent?
Eh? "The label" does not say that non-continental European countries are to be treated differently to continental European countries.
Is Britain part of the Continent of Europe?
If not then it is not part of Europe.
Geologically, yes. As is Iceland.
How about politically?
Remember - Continent cut off by fog in the Channel.
LOL. Actually, should have been half of Iceland, IIRC.
We’ve spent most of our history ‘engaged’ with Europe. Often, of course, in wars! In which we were involved because we thought, rightly or wrongly, that it was in our interest to be so.
The exception is, and I stand to be corrected, about 1820-1914. And even then Queen Victoria spent much of her time marrying off her daughters, once they were old enough, into European aristocracy.
Nah, Britain was still closely involved in European affairs; it just wasn't part of any formal alliance system for most of that time. Who did Bismarck say the pivotal person was at the Congress of Berlin?
The Congress of Berlin was about the declining Turkish, which Britain at the time viewed with concern as it was suspicious of Russian meddling which could affect British trade routes to India and the Far east. The Congress was about about Europe. It is quite commonly argued that British foreign policy in the 19th century was to avoid becoming entangled in continental European disputes.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
I think that it cannot happen until we ourselves recognise that we ARE part of Europe rather than the plucky British bulldog standing alone on the white cliffs of history against the travails of Johnny Foreigner.
Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are all part of Europe. They just happen to be in EFTA not the EU.
Indeed most of Russia is in Europe but it is in neither.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
I think that it cannot happen until we ourselves recognise that we ARE part of Europe rather than the plucky British bulldog standing alone on the white cliffs of history against the travails of Johnny Foreigner.
Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are all part of Europe. They just happen to be in EFTA not the EU.
Indeed most of Russia is in Europe but it is in neither.
Would you think EEA is the best route therefore? Upholds the referendum, whilst causing least (or no) economic damage?
It's where I'd go. Though personally I'd probably prefer EFTA+, accepting that isn't likely I'd go with EEA for five to ten years before negotiating out of EEA and straight to EFTA+.
Of course, this should've been discussed and agreed a year ago, with plans and applications to EFTA in place before serving article 50, whilst assuring the rest of the EU that EEA was where we were going.
Too late now. The Conservatives have Soviet Unioned it up.
I'd be happy with the EEA/EFTA route, however it wouldn't uphold the referendum.
The likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove said they wanted to end free movement of people with Brexit.
They have been working on this for a year, and the opener was Queen has £3k indirectly invested in BrightHouse (but voluntarily pays tax she doesn't have to). They are going to flog every ounce out of it.
A continent is one of several very large landmasses of the world.
"Land mass" refers to the total surface area of the land of a geographical region or country (which may include discontinuous pieces of land such as islands). It is written as two words to distinguish it from the usage "landmass", the contiguous area of land surrounded by ocean.
A continent is a large solid area of land.
FOAK, FOAK, FOAK, Britannica.
The British Isles are islands off the coast of the continent of Europe. They are not part of Europe. Imperfect recollections of the theory of plate tectonics have no bearing on this fact, in the same way that we have not discarded the concept of solid objects because we now know they are collections of little things like atoms and so on.
In the year after the UK narrowly voted to exit the European Union, there was a small but significant increase in the population's feeling of wellbeing, official statistics show.
A continent is one of several very large landmasses of the world.
"Land mass" refers to the total surface area of the land of a geographical region or country (which may include discontinuous pieces of land such as islands). It is written as two words to distinguish it from the usage "landmass", the contiguous area of land surrounded by ocean.
A continent is a large solid area of land.
FOAK, FOAK, FOAK, Britannica.
The British Isles are islands off the coast of the continent of Europe. They are not part of Europe. Imperfect recollections of the theory of plate tectonics have no bearing on this fact, in the same way that we have not discarded the concept of solid objects because we now know they are collections of little things like atoms and so on.
None of this is really relevant or helpful to our political choices.
Thanks Charles, my view is that the Tory party should always be championing sound money, pro business, free trade, low tax policies. If it doesn't, then it really shouldn't exist.
Hard/WTO Brexit is the antithesis of all that, instead of a cabinet of Churchills arguing against the prevailing mood we've got a cabinet of Lord Halifaxes appeasing the Leadbangers.
I'm going to keep on articulating those views, hoping sanity prevails, but I find it depressing so many in the Tory party are cheering the dismantling of one of Mrs Thatcher's finest policies, something in all likelihood makes someone like Jeremy Corbyn PM.
A disorderly Brexit will be damaging for the Tory party at the next general election and maybe for longer.
Would you think EEA is the best route therefore? Upholds the referendum, whilst causing least (or no) economic damage?
It's where I'd go. Though personally I'd probably prefer EFTA+, accepting that isn't likely I'd go with EEA for five to ten years before negotiating out of EEA and straight to EFTA+.
Of course, this should've been discussed and agreed a year ago, with plans and applications to EFTA in place before serving article 50, whilst assuring the rest of the EU that EEA was where we were going.
Too late now. The Conservatives have Soviet Unioned it up.
Shame that th EU refused to negotiate before Article 50 then, isn't it?
@matt_dathan: Brexit minister Steve Baker asks Labour: "WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?" in the latest chapter of the tedious Commons row on the impact assessments
They have been working on this for a year, and the opener was Queen has £3k indirectly invested in BrightHouse (but voluntarily pays tax she doesn't have to). They are going to flog every ounce out of it.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
I think that it cannot happen until we ourselves recognise that we ARE part of Europe rather than the plucky British bulldog standing alone on the white cliffs of history against the travails of Johnny Foreigner.
Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are all part of Europe. They just happen to be in EFTA not the EU.
Indeed most of Russia is in Europe but it is in neither.
In the year after the UK narrowly voted to exit the European Union, there was a small but significant increase in the population's feeling of wellbeing, official statistics show.
In the year after the UK narrowly voted to exit the European Union, there was a small but significant increase in the population's feeling of wellbeing, official statistics show.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
I think that it cannot happen until we ourselves recognise that we ARE part of Europe rather than the plucky British bulldog standing alone on the white cliffs of history against the travails of Johnny Foreigner.
Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are all part of Europe. They just happen to be in EFTA not the EU.
Indeed most of Russia is in Europe but it is in neither.
@nickeardleybbc: UK gov't: 58 sector-by-sector Brexit impact assessments do not exist . There is a "wide mix" of analysis
These are the papers that Davis said were done, and that May had not read...
This is a bit like the Scottish Govt's legal advice on an Independent Scotland remaining in the EU
The present political climate is a complete shambles and undoubtedly Pritel and Boris should have resigned and there has to be a point when TM moves to conduct a proper shuffle.
The only thing that is keeping the conservative party in place is the shambles that is labour under Corbyn.
I find it amazing that labour are not 10-15% ahead in the polls.
It is looking increasinly likely none of the favourites for TM successor will be in the frame
They have been working on this for a year, and the opener was Queen has £3k indirectly invested in BrightHouse (but voluntarily pays tax she doesn't have to). They are going to flog every ounce out of it.
I know I was absolutely shocked, shocked I tell you, to find that a racing driver who first legged it to Switzerland then Monaco to minimize his tax bill, erhh minimizes his tax bill...
There are serious question raised, but the nonsense about the Queen is not a scandal in anyway.
Thanks Charles, my view is that the Tory party should always be championing sound money, pro business, free trade, low tax policies. If it doesn't, then it really shouldn't exist.
Hard/WTO Brexit is the antithesis of all that, instead of a cabinet of Churchills arguing against the prevailing mood we've got a cabinet of Lord Halifaxes appeasing the Leadbangers.
I'm going to keep on articulating those views, hoping sanity prevails, but I find it depressing so many in the Tory party are cheering the dismantling of one of Mrs Thatcher's finest policies, something in all likelihood makes someone like Jeremy Corbyn PM.
A disorderly Brexit will be damaging for the Tory party at the next general election and maybe for longer.
Would you think EEA is the best route therefore? Upholds the referendum, whilst causing least (or no) economic damage?
It's where I'd go. Though personally I'd probably prefer EFTA+, accepting that isn't likely I'd go with EEA for five to ten years before negotiating out of EEA and straight to EFTA+.
Of course, this should've been discussed and agreed a year ago, with plans and applications to EFTA in place before serving article 50, whilst assuring the rest of the EU that EEA was where we were going.
Too late now. The Conservatives have Soviet Unioned it up.
Shame that th EU refused to negotiate before Article 50 then, isn't it?
The biggest shame is that the government triggered Article 50 before doing any detailed scenario planning or knowing what it wanted.
we announce at the end of this year that we’re breaking off the talks and start preparing for an exit to WTO terms on 29th March 2019.
The Brexiteers would then need to explain why we walked away from "the easiest trade talks in history"
We can only have talks if both sides turn up and wish to discuss trade. When one side only wants to talk about money then the talks about trade don’t happen, so we spend the remaining time until the day we leave preparing for it.
Jesus fucking Christ you lot are amazing.
Rules of the game: talk money, then talk trade.
If we say "easiest trade talks in history" then I would effing well hope that whoever said that (if they said it) would have known that to get to those easiest trade talks, there would have to be the money thing solved first.
Throwing a ball up in the air and catching it at the summit of Everest is very easy....
Yes, but the rules of the game are constantly being changed by the other side, as they have realised there’s going to be a massive hole in their budget when we leave. So they’ve decided instead to blackmail us into paying a large bill for which there’s no legal basis, in exchange for even starting to discuss trade.
Well do you know what, we Brits don’t like being blackmailed, so rather than watching the clock running down we’re going to be proactive about preparing to leave instead.
Nobody likes being blackmailed, that's not something we can claim as part of our national character...
If some high-profile Leavers made claims about how easy the trade talks were going to be based on an entirely unrealistic projection of how the other side were going to act - that's their mistake.
Indeed, maybe we were naïve to think that the EU would actually want to negotiate a trade deal, but they don’t so life goes on and we prepare to leave without one.
In the year after the UK narrowly voted to exit the European Union, there was a small but significant increase in the population's feeling of wellbeing, official statistics show.
They have been working on this for a year, and the opener was Queen has £3k indirectly invested in BrightHouse (but voluntarily pays tax she doesn't have to). They are going to flog every ounce out of it.
I think the 'shocker' was actually that the administration of the Isle of Man knowingly allowed full VAT repayment claims on the basis of forms which state on their face that a significant percentages of planes' usage was/is for private leisure purposes.
Hamilton's was one of hundreds, and far from the most egregious case, given that the majority of his plane's usage is for business.
They have been working on this for a year, and the opener was Queen has £3k indirectly invested in BrightHouse (but voluntarily pays tax she doesn't have to). They are going to flog every ounce out of it.
I know I was absolutely shocked, shocked I tell you, to find that a racing driver who first legged it to Switzerland then Monaco to minimize his tax bill, erhh minimizes his tax bill...
There are serious question raised, but the nonsense about the Queen is not a scandal in anyway.
I think half the population of Monaco are participants in the ‘touring’ sports.
Let’s face it, I think most of us would, given the choice, choose to live somewhere sunny with low taxes.
Would you think EEA is the best route therefore? Upholds the referendum, whilst causing least (or no) economic damage?
It's where I'd go. Though personally I'd probably prefer EFTA+, accepting that isn't likely I'd go with EEA for five to ten years before negotiating out of EEA and straight to EFTA+.
Of course, this should've been discussed and agreed a year ago, with plans and applications to EFTA in place before serving article 50, whilst assuring the rest of the EU that EEA was where we were going.
Too late now. The Conservatives have Soviet Unioned it up.
I'd be happy with the EEA/EFTA route, however it wouldn't uphold the referendum.
The likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove said they wanted to end free movement of people with Brexit.
We can restrict free movement by implementing EU provision for making migrants register and requiring them to find a job or leave. People wanted action on the perception that we are drowning in foreigners. A compromise like this probably satisfies enough people to all us to move on.
What do the "end migration" lot want anyway. "We want you to buy our stuff. But you can't come here you aren't welcome". Best sales pitch ever...
we announce at the end of this year that we’re breaking off the talks and start preparing for an exit to WTO terms on 29th March 2019.
The Brexiteers would then need to explain why we walked away from "the easiest trade talks in history"
We can only have talks if both sides turn up and wish to discuss trade. When one side only wants to talk about money then the talks about trade don’t happen, so we spend the remaining time until the day we leave preparing for it.
Jesus fucking Christ you lot are amazing.
Rules of the game: talk money, then talk trade.
If we say "easiest trade talks in history" then I would effing well hope that whoever said that (if they said it) would have known that to get to those easiest trade talks, there would have to be the money thing solved first.
Throwing a ball up in the air and catching it at the summit of Everest is very easy....
Yes, but the rules of the game are constantly being changed by the other side, as they have realised there’s going to be a massive hole in their budget when we leave. So they’ve decided instead to blackmail us into paying a large bill for which there’s no legal basis, in exchange for even starting to discuss trade.
Well do you know what, we Brits don’t like being blackmailed, so rather than watching the clock running down we’re going to be proactive about preparing to leave instead.
Nobody likes being blackmailed, that's not something we can claim as part of our national character...
If some high-profile Leavers made claims about how easy the trade talks were going to be based on an entirely unrealistic projection of how the other side were going to act - that's their mistake.
Indeed, maybe we were naïve to think that the EU would actually want to negotiate a trade deal, but they don’t so life goes on and we prepare to leave without one.
I think you underestimate how much the Remainers on here are enjoying this period of self loathing - it's like some sort of kale intestine cleanse where they can evacuate all those horrid unfashionable lumps of white man's guilt that they are carrying around.
These are golden era for them - they've never had it so virtuously whingy.
Comments
That is the stated policy of our Prime Minister.
Most Tories would be very relaxed about ECJ oversight of EASA or other technical agencies.
There’s lots to do and we need to get on with it, not wasting time with people who have no intention of striking a deal, or at best presenting a one-sided fait accompli at the 59th minute of the eleventh hour.
And it is a mere hop and skip from "only EASA" to free trade, customs union, widgets, etc.
Take Back Control
Cede control in those areas where it is deemed mutually beneficial at this point in time, while still maintaining the farce that we can do everything unilaterally
Doesn't scan quite as well...
Alternatively, we may become much more inward looking - the EU a distant memory as we focus on domestic solutions to domestic issues. If Corbyn gets in, the next five years may all be about dramatic wealth redistribution and shifts in the balance of power of British society. I supect if Corbyn got in the EU would no longer be top of the political agenda once we're out.
There is no one on the planet who could not have foreseen this, nor any excuse to say: "this was never a possibility".
Is Britain part of the Continent of Europe?
If not then it is not part of Europe.
Some of that uplift was because of a profound dislike of Corbyn and his New Venezeula politics.
The question is how much it was counter-productive, when Labour went up from 9.3m to nearly 12.9m - and from 30.4% to 40.0%.
Or maybe reality was distorted because Ed really is REALLY crap?
Remember - Continent cut off by fog in the Channel.
Rules of the game: talk money, then talk trade.
If we say "easiest trade talks in history" then I would effing well hope that whoever said that (if they said it) would have known that to get to those easiest trade talks, there would have to be the money thing solved first.
Throwing a ball up in the air and catching it at the summit of Everest is very easy....
And Leavers wonder why many of us think they're completely doolally.
I thought the Conservatives were in favour of enterprise?
We’ve spent most of our history ‘engaged’ with Europe. Often, of course, in wars! In which we were involved because we thought, rightly or wrongly, that it was in our interest to be so.
The exception is, and I stand to be corrected, about 1820-1914. And even then Queen Victoria spent much of her time marrying off her daughters, once they were old enough, into European aristocracy.
A woman faces 5 more years in prison because of his incompetence and all he is interested in is his career.
The dog that didn't bark was what the Tory party didn't throw at Corbyn and the rest of his team.
Which I did. Arguably a big mistake.
Well do you know what, we Brits don’t like being blackmailed, so rather than watching the clock running down we’re going to be proactive about preparing to leave instead.
I'm incredulous that Priti Patel is still in office. She has behaved disgracefully.
Edit: and as to your post. That's all very well - but what the hell did they expect?
Albeit the cat is in No.10 and nominally our PM.
And that's just the internal problem with the WTO route. The external time pressures are even more acute
Nobody likes being blackmailed, that's not something we can claim as part of our national character...
If some high-profile Leavers made claims about how easy the trade talks were going to be based on an entirely unrealistic projection of how the other side were going to act - that's their mistake.
It's where I'd go. Though personally I'd probably prefer EFTA+, accepting that isn't likely I'd go with EEA for five to ten years before negotiating out of EEA and straight to EFTA+.
Of course, this should've been discussed and agreed a year ago, with plans and applications to EFTA in place before serving article 50, whilst assuring the rest of the EU that EEA was where we were going.
Too late now. The Conservatives have Soviet Unioned it up.
Brexit was a popular decision, voted on and mandated by the people. I think there was some kind of vote last year, where a majority decided to leave. Or maybe I imagined it...
Can you see the difference?
So no, I don't think we can imagine a similar Brexit enquiry in a few years, except in the fantasies of hardcore remain ultras.
For better or worse, the people have spoken. The bastards.
At this rate Gareth Southgate will be putting his boots on!
Indeed most of Russia is in Europe but it is in neither.
The likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove said they wanted to end free movement of people with Brexit.
It's painful
https://twitter.com/htscotpol/status/927876588099817472
A continent is one of several very large landmasses of the world.
"Land mass" refers to the total surface area of the land of a geographical region or country (which may include discontinuous pieces of land such as islands). It is written as two words to distinguish it from the usage "landmass", the contiguous area of land surrounded by ocean.
A continent is a large solid area of land.
FOAK, FOAK, FOAK, Britannica.
The British Isles are islands off the coast of the continent of Europe. They are not part of Europe. Imperfect recollections of the theory of plate tectonics have no bearing on this fact, in the same way that we have not discarded the concept of solid objects because we now know they are collections of little things like atoms and so on.
These are the papers that Davis said were done, and that May had not read...
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41893598
Despite Brexit...
https://twitter.com/carlgardner/status/927878954924544002
@matt_dathan: Brexit minister Steve Baker asks Labour: "WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?" in the latest chapter of the tedious Commons row on the impact assessments
https://twitter.com/SeemaMalhotra1/status/927874880426606593
The only thing that is keeping the conservative party in place is the shambles that is labour under Corbyn.
I find it amazing that labour are not 10-15% ahead in the polls.
It is looking increasinly likely none of the favourites for TM successor will be in the frame
There are serious question raised, but the nonsense about the Queen is not a scandal in anyway.
I'm rather more interested in the nation's wellbeing after March 2019.
Hamilton's was one of hundreds, and far from the most egregious case, given that the majority of his plane's usage is for business.
Let’s face it, I think most of us would, given the choice, choose to live somewhere sunny with low taxes.
What do the "end migration" lot want anyway. "We want you to buy our stuff. But you can't come here you aren't welcome". Best sales pitch ever...
These are golden era for them - they've never had it so virtuously whingy.