Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Be careful what you wish for

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited September 28 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Be careful what you wish for

How they chortled.  For three months, loyal Conservative Leavers have had to endure the taunts of their opponents, sneering at the way in which Theresa May called an unnecessary election to secure a Brexit mandate and mislaid her majority.  And now their nemesis, Angela Merkel, has suffered a similar fate.  Despite many months of polls showing them cruising to a healthy win, the CDU and the CSU tallied just a third of the vote.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,407
    First!
  • 'The Leaver Dumbos'

    Let the trumpeting begin.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,149
    edited September 28
    Catchy ending. A succinct word indeed.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,530
    Mamihlapinatapai, (from the Yaghan language of Tierra del Fuego): “a look shared by two people, each wishing that the other would initiate something that they both desire but which neither wants to begin”

    Looking back the story of my early love life... or lack of it.
  • Good article. Mrs May's Florence speech looks to be the start of the UK climbdown, but there will need to be more - especially on the Irish border - and a form of words will need to be found to spare UK blushes. Meanwhile, the Bombardier news will surely confirm to the non moon-howlers in government that a trade deal with the US on anything other than terms totally dictated by the US is a non-starter.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,530
    Piers Morgan‏ @piersmorgan 2 mins2 minutes ago

    BREAKING:
    I'm hearing that Ben Stokes intervened to help two gay guys who were being abused by yobs, one of whom was armed with a bottle.

    From Zero to Hero? (Not Piers Morgan of course)
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,113

    Good article. Mrs May's Florence speech looks to be the start of the UK climbdown, but there will need to be more - especially on the Irish border - and a form of words will need to be found to spare UK blushes. Meanwhile, the Bombardier news will surely confirm to the non moon-howlers in government that a trade deal with the US on anything other than terms totally dictated by the US is a non-starter.

    I imagine there is a lot of people who would say they prefer to be dictated by the USA rather than the EU.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,530
    Yorkcity said:

    Good article. Mrs May's Florence speech looks to be the start of the UK climbdown, but there will need to be more - especially on the Irish border - and a form of words will need to be found to spare UK blushes. Meanwhile, the Bombardier news will surely confirm to the non moon-howlers in government that a trade deal with the US on anything other than terms totally dictated by the US is a non-starter.

    I imagine there is a lot of people who would say they prefer to be dictated by the USA rather than the EU.
    Not whilst Trump is in office....
  • I think it would be best for the UK to be trying as hard as possible to initiate changes and May's early approach of trying to keep silent was the worst possible approach. That forced the EU to start discussions and not to our benefit. If we're forced to initiate changes now that could only be a good thing.

    The reality is that for decades (since Delors) other people have been initiating the changes to the Community/EU and we have been dragged along as barely willing or unwilling participants. The prime mover who initiates something gets to set the terms of reference.

    Right now is our opportunity to be prime movers. To set out our stall of what we want and find a path to get there. If we wait for others to set the terms then they won't get to the destination we want but rather what they want.

    What Alastair has described is a cause for institutional paralysis and sclerosis which has long been one of Europe's greatest problems, but if played correctly it could be our strength. We need to be pushing rapidly ahead saying that this is where we want to go and how we get there. The EU's divided leaders with their own time constraints have as Alastair rightly points out little time, inclination or ability to come up with a united alternative so our proposal will ultimately form the basis of the outcome.

    Stop messing around and get on with it.
  • I wrote this on the last thread. TM seems to be saying we are out on the 29th March 2019, end of story

    'Theresa May at the Bank of England this morning stated very clearly that we will leave the EU on the 29th March 2019 and the transition should be viewed as an implementation period to provide time for business and government to adjust to the new order.

    It is clear she is determined to be out on the 29th March 2019 and the idea that the transition period is just to delay and frustrate Brexit is irrelevant, we will be out.

    This is the first time I have heard her say this with such clarity, will please the leavers but frustrate the remainers'
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,011
    Mr Meeks,

    You put your finger on the greatest problem the EU suffers from. It can never speak with one voice until it becomes a fully-fledged political union. It wants to do that, but those pesky voters keep getting in the way.

    How do you negotiate with a committee who seldom meet, have 27 different opinions, and only ask for money?

    The answer is ... with difficulty.

    Obviously, to some Remainers, it's all the Leavers fault for having the wrong type of opinion. I hope they will eventually grow out of it when they mature.
  • I wrote this on the last thread. TM seems to be saying we are out on the 29th March 2019, end of story

    'Theresa May at the Bank of England this morning stated very clearly that we will leave the EU on the 29th March 2019 and the transition should be viewed as an implementation period to provide time for business and government to adjust to the new order.

    It is clear she is determined to be out on the 29th March 2019 and the idea that the transition period is just to delay and frustrate Brexit is irrelevant, we will be out.

    This is the first time I have heard her say this with such clarity, will please the leavers but frustrate the remainers'

    And of course no payments to the EU if no agreement, the treaties lapse
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    edited September 28

    Piers Morgan‏ @piersmorgan 2 mins2 minutes ago

    BREAKING:
    I'm hearing that Ben Stokes intervened to help two gay guys who were being abused by yobs, one of whom was armed with a bottle.

    From Zero to Hero? (Not Piers Morgan of course)

    The initial scrap didn't seem unreasonable ie disarming a guy attacking people with a bottle, it was the afters. Also one of his party also tried to kick the guy on the floors head off and he was dressed in a similar manner to Alex hales.

    As was mentioned last night, one of the extra problems is that professional sports people are super fit and generally a lot stronger than your random idiot on the street and as a result can inflict a lot of damage.
  • Those who want more detail about the technicalities of a transition deal should study Mr Meeks' excellent piece on this thread and they should also take in David Allan Green's fascinating piece on the subject in the FT earlier in the week. Green is a lawyer and his piece is based on the legal requirements for transition.

    In summary

    1) Barnier's negotiating mandate dictates that a transition deal can only be discussed in phase 2 of the talks, after the "divorce details" (Ireland, money and citizens rights) have made "sufficient progress."

    2) The EU has said that any prolongation of some aspects of membership, such as participation in the single market "would require existing Union [budget, enforcement etc including ECJ] to apply."

    3) An agreement on transitional arrangements would require unanimous approval of the EU27, the European Parliament and (presumably) both houses at Westminster. A withdrawal agreement, on the other hand, can be approved by QMV, though it would also need the approval of the European and UK parliaments.

    So the legal, practical and political obstacles to any transition arrangement are such that the chances of achieving one in the very short time available are slim.

    This fact is not yet fully appreciated in political circles.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    Piers Morgan‏ @piersmorgan 2 mins2 minutes ago

    BREAKING:
    I'm hearing that Ben Stokes intervened to help two gay guys who were being abused by yobs, one of whom was armed with a bottle.

    From Zero to Hero? (Not Piers Morgan of course)

    I'd imagine he will be fine. If Gerrard can get off for attackintg a guy in a nightclub... this seems a more clear cut case of self defence?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438
    edited September 28

    Good article. Mrs May's Florence speech looks to be the start of the UK climbdown, but there will need to be more - especially on the Irish border - and a form of words will need to be found to spare UK blushes. Meanwhile, the Bombardier news will surely confirm to the non moon-howlers in government that a trade deal with the US on anything other than terms totally dictated by the US is a non-starter.

    What 'climbdown' on the Irish border do you envisage? The UK agrees 100% with the EU27 position on this, so I'm baffled as to what you mean; the obstacle is not the UK's position, or indeed the EU27's position on the Irish border specifically, but the refusal for the moment of the EU27 to discuss what actually needs to be discussed, namely the trade and customs framework into which the Irish border issue will fit.
  • I wrote this on the last thread. TM seems to be saying we are out on the 29th March 2019, end of story

    'Theresa May at the Bank of England this morning stated very clearly that we will leave the EU on the 29th March 2019 and the transition should be viewed as an implementation period to provide time for business and government to adjust to the new order.

    It is clear she is determined to be out on the 29th March 2019 and the idea that the transition period is just to delay and frustrate Brexit is irrelevant, we will be out.

    This is the first time I have heard her say this with such clarity, will please the leavers but frustrate the remainers'

    And of course no payments to the EU if no agreement, the treaties lapse
    So she's contradicting herself from a few days ago?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,113

    Yorkcity said:

    Good article. Mrs May's Florence speech looks to be the start of the UK climbdown, but there will need to be more - especially on the Irish border - and a form of words will need to be found to spare UK blushes. Meanwhile, the Bombardier news will surely confirm to the non moon-howlers in government that a trade deal with the US on anything other than terms totally dictated by the US is a non-starter.

    I imagine there is a lot of people who would say they prefer to be dictated by the USA rather than the EU.
    Not whilst Trump is in office....
    True,anyways the Foreign office policy of the UK been a bridge between the USA and the EU is for the birds now.
  • Piers Morgan‏ @piersmorgan 2 mins2 minutes ago

    BREAKING:
    I'm hearing that Ben Stokes intervened to help two gay guys who were being abused by yobs, one of whom was armed with a bottle.

    From Zero to Hero? (Not Piers Morgan of course)

    If that's the case he should be applauded.
  • I wrote this on the last thread. TM seems to be saying we are out on the 29th March 2019, end of story

    'Theresa May at the Bank of England this morning stated very clearly that we will leave the EU on the 29th March 2019 and the transition should be viewed as an implementation period to provide time for business and government to adjust to the new order.

    It is clear she is determined to be out on the 29th March 2019 and the idea that the transition period is just to delay and frustrate Brexit is irrelevant, we will be out.

    This is the first time I have heard her say this with such clarity, will please the leavers but frustrate the remainers'

    And of course no payments to the EU if no agreement, the treaties lapse
    So she's contradicting herself from a few days ago?
    No she is not - the transition is subject to agreement but if no agreement then no money
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    rkrkrk said:

    Piers Morgan‏ @piersmorgan 2 mins2 minutes ago

    BREAKING:
    I'm hearing that Ben Stokes intervened to help two gay guys who were being abused by yobs, one of whom was armed with a bottle.

    From Zero to Hero? (Not Piers Morgan of course)

    I'd imagine he will be fine. If Gerrard can get off for attackintg a guy in a nightclub... this seems a more clear cut case of self defence?
    There was no way a jury in Liverpool was ever going to find Steven Gerrard guilty of anything!
  • Here's the Ministerial Code of Conduct

    7.12 Ministers should take care to ensure that they do not become associated with non-public organisations whose objectives may in any degree conflict with Government policy and
    thus give rise to a conflict of interest.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579752/ministerial_code_december_2016.pdf
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,095
    What a rubbish response. If Johnson is doing this and it is in breach of the ministerial code then it is right that this is highlighted by whoever.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487
    PART 1

    I got home at 1am last night. I am suffering today.

    Why?

    I went to the Spectator's EU debate chaired by Andrew Neil at the British museum; "Britain and the EU: two different futures?", together with a very old friend.

    Very interesting.

    Panel included; Liam Halligan, Anne-Elisabeth Moutet, Frederik Erixon, James Forysth and Chris Darbyshire, CIO of Seven Investment Management.

    James Forsyth's view was very much on the British politics and cabinet splits. CETA+ v. EEA-minus. His view was that EEA-minus wouldn't happen, because the EU wouldn't allow the UK to set a precedent that you can have effective single market membership w/o free movement, plus in the UK it wouldn't work for us to just copy & paste all EU regulation. Divergence is inevitable, because the UK and EU will go in different directions politically, and therefore economically.

    Halligan was a bit more dogmatic. He is strongly for Leave, and robustly defends its opportunities. I expected this and his main role was to challenge doom. He doesn't see no deal as a problem, and free-trade deals are a nice-to-have but not essential. He believes Poland and Hungary will Leave soon.

    Chris Darbyshire was from the firm that sponsored the event. He set out a fairly standard London firm anti-Brexit pitch (bad idea, wrong time, not what we need) and then said the EU would fudge it, together with the UK, as always. We'd end up with something similar to the status quo. It was also very clear he wants this.

    Frederik Erixon was interesting. He said that (unlike 15 years ago) other than Juncker and Macron there is no consensus or drive for further EU integration, and he thinks the EU status quo will bumble along, with different power blocs emerging in the EU. He thought it possible in 10-15 years two or three other countries could also leave the EU. However, he also said he thought free trade deals between countries like Switzerland and China didn't matter very much, and other countries in Europe that had no trade deal with China were doing even more trade with China, and growing faster. He didn't do the parallel: that it might also be true of the UK-EU. Do free trade deals matter, or don't they? Somewhere in between, but he didn't explore it.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487
    PART 2

    But the most revealing comment of the night, for me, was that of Anne-Elisabeth - a French journalist and EU commentator. By her own admission she had done no preparation (only knew the questions 30 minutes in advance) so was more instinctive.

    She said she was in Brussels the night of Dave's deal. Everyone she spoke to (insiders) were shocked at how much the EU had given to the UK, and couldn't believe the UK had got away with it. She didn't explore (or compare) to the UK reaction, which was I felt instructive. Now, the UK has left, "they" are sad, but, if the UK does Leave, they are sparing virtually no thought for it. She had nothing to say on the future of the EU, and couldn't offer any thoughts on it when probed by Andrew Neil. Also instructive

    My takeaway was that the EU doesn't know where its going, the UK is split, and the UK and EU both (still) fundamentally misunderstand each other's politics. In the UK there's
    still little consensus on what our long-term relationship with the EU should be, and the EU haven't even bothered to think about it all, thinking the UK doesn't really matter anymore and just wanting to avoid setting a precedent. It's just one of several major problems the EU has.

    Therefore, I'm afraid to say, I came away thinking no deal is even more likely than when I went in.

    (PS. Afterwards, we got a photo together with Andrew Neil, had a few jars and so I feel rougher than Angela Merkel's political career today.)
  • I wrote this on the last thread. TM seems to be saying we are out on the 29th March 2019, end of story

    'Theresa May at the Bank of England this morning stated very clearly that we will leave the EU on the 29th March 2019 and the transition should be viewed as an implementation period to provide time for business and government to adjust to the new order.

    It is clear she is determined to be out on the 29th March 2019 and the idea that the transition period is just to delay and frustrate Brexit is irrelevant, we will be out.

    This is the first time I have heard her say this with such clarity, will please the leavers but frustrate the remainers'

    And of course no payments to the EU if no agreement, the treaties lapse
    So she's contradicting herself from a few days ago?
    No she is not - the transition is subject to agreement but if no agreement then no money
    This is what she said last Friday.

    Still I do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. The UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,250
    Morning all :)

    Strong speech by Jeremy Corbyn yesterday. We are at the start of a minimum four year Parliament so the difficult stuff can wait a little. I liked the idea of developers having their land banks taxed. There's plenty of land which they could be building on and getting the houses constructed we need.

    I also like the idea of going after the FOBTs and Paddy Power have conceded a £10 maximum stake will still be viable. That means we ought to be going much further down to £2. The relationship between the Conservative Party and some bookmakers acts as a block on meaningful progress.

    On matters Europe, yes we are "leaving" the EU on 29/3/19 but trying to spin this as some kind of victory for the Prime Minister I'll leave to her advisers and apologists.

    For 24 months after that date we will effectively still be governed by the rules of the club though without any say. During that period, which we can but hope won't be wasted by internal Conservative Party machinations and pointless elections, we will be able to crack on with shaping our post-EU economic and trading relationship with the rest of the world. The US as an example will be moving into a Presidential election cycle by the spring of 19.
  • I think the " nativist " vote in Meeks' beloved Hungary is more than one in eight. Much more.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,011
    edited September 28
    Mr Sandpit,

    "There was no way a jury in Liverpool was ever going to find Steven Gerrard guilty of anything."

    As with Ken Dodd. As he explains in his show ... a simple mistake, he was going on the tax-rate when he was a lad - tuppence in the pound. Still, the jury accepted that HMRC had made a genuine mistake.
  • @Casino_Royale - Thanks, very interesting.

    (Sorry to hear you feel rough today; being the PB correspondent at events like this is a tough gig, but someone has to do it.)
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 8,814
    edited September 28
    In considering Theresa May's confirmation this morning that we leave the EU on the 29th March 2019, (and of course that is the result of serving A50), a time will come very soon when she will have to make a decision.

    If the EU continue as they are and there is no prospect of an agreement Theresa May will just have to make an announcement from Downing Street that the UK government is not prepared to be blackmailed, and despite her conciliatory tone and offer to the EU, they are not listening and accordingly the UK Government will be withdrawing from the talks and will take the necessary action to defend the Country's interests in the time leading up to the 29th March 2019.

    I do believe she could get the backing of the voters in these circumstances but of course it is not the preferred route
  • I wrote this on the last thread. TM seems to be saying we are out on the 29th March 2019, end of story

    'Theresa May at the Bank of England this morning stated very clearly that we will leave the EU on the 29th March 2019 and the transition should be viewed as an implementation period to provide time for business and government to adjust to the new order.

    It is clear she is determined to be out on the 29th March 2019 and the idea that the transition period is just to delay and frustrate Brexit is irrelevant, we will be out.

    This is the first time I have heard her say this with such clarity, will please the leavers but frustrate the remainers'

    And of course no payments to the EU if no agreement, the treaties lapse
    So she's contradicting herself from a few days ago?
    No she is not - the transition is subject to agreement but if no agreement then no money
    This is what she said last Friday.

    Still I do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. The UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership.
    Subject to the agreement
  • Good article. Mrs May's Florence speech looks to be the start of the UK climbdown, but there will need to be more - especially on the Irish border - and a form of words will need to be found to spare UK blushes. Meanwhile, the Bombardier news will surely confirm to the non moon-howlers in government that a trade deal with the US on anything other than terms totally dictated by the US is a non-starter.

    What 'climbdown' on the Irish border do you envisage? The UK agrees 100% with the EU27 position on this, so I'm baffled as to what you mean; the obstacle is not the UK's position, or indeed the EU27's position on the Irish border specifically, but the refusal for the moment of the EU27 to discuss what actually needs to be discussed, namely the trade and customs framework into which the Irish border issue will fit.

    I don't envisage a climbdown on the Irish border. As you say, there isn't one in the way there is on payments and citizens' rights. That is the problem. The very act of leaving the EU creates a significant headache that has no easy solution.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,384
    Mr. Royale, interesting thoughts. Your comment on the French journalist tally with what others wrote above regarding Macron's perspective (namely that the EU and UK fundamentally don't understand one another).
  • In considering Theresa May's confirmation this morning that we leave the EU on the 29th March 2019, (and of course that is the result of serving A50), a time will come very soon when she will have to make a decision.

    If the EU continue as they are and there is no prospect of an agreement Theresa May will just have to make an announcement from Downing Street that the UK government is not prepared to be blackmailed, and despite her conciliatory tone and offer to the EU, they are not listening and accordingly the UK Government will be withdrawing from the talks and will take the necessary action to defend the Country's interests in the time leading up to the 29th March 2019.

    I do believe she could get the backing of the voters in these circumstances but of course it is not the preferred route

    She doesn't need to withdraw from the talks - indeed, it would be a very bad idea to do so. But she will soon have to make it clear that the UK is developing a Plan B, in case the EU27 continue to refuse to discuss what Plan A might be.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 8,726

    In considering Theresa May's confirmation this morning that we leave the EU on the 29th March 2019, (and of course that is the result of serving A50), a time will come very soon when she will have to make a decision.

    If the EU continue as they are and there is no prospect of an agreement Theresa May will just have to make an announcement from Downing Street that the UK government is not prepared to be blackmailed, and despite her conciliatory tone and offer to the EU, they are not listening and accordingly the UK Government will be withdrawing from the talks and will take the necessary action to defend the Country's interests in the time leading up to the 29th March 2019.

    I do believe she could get the backing of the voters in these circumstances but of course it is not the preferred route

    Ha Ha she will have to make a decision.


    Not as simple as that is it.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,113
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Piers Morgan‏ @piersmorgan 2 mins2 minutes ago

    BREAKING:
    I'm hearing that Ben Stokes intervened to help two gay guys who were being abused by yobs, one of whom was armed with a bottle.

    From Zero to Hero? (Not Piers Morgan of course)

    I'd imagine he will be fine. If Gerrard can get off for attackintg a guy in a nightclub... this seems a more clear cut case of self defence?
    There was no way a jury in Liverpool was ever going to find Steven Gerrard guilty of anything!
    Similar happened to Ian Bootham, jury could not make a decision over his assault charge.If I recall correctly , when he was playing for England.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698

    I think the " nativist " vote in Meeks' beloved Hungary is more than one in eight. Much more.

    Has Moniker got a new moniker?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,999

    In considering Theresa May's confirmation this morning that we leave the EU on the 29th March 2019, (and of course that is the result of serving A50), a time will come very soon when she will have to make a decision.

    If the EU continue as they are and there is no prospect of an agreement Theresa May will just have to make an announcement from Downing Street that the UK government is not prepared to be blackmailed, and despite her conciliatory tone and offer to the EU, they are not listening and accordingly the UK Government will be withdrawing from the talks and will take the necessary action to defend the Country's interests in the time leading up to the 29th March 2019.

    I do believe she could get the backing of the voters in these circumstances but of course it is not the preferred route

    She doesn't need to withdraw from the talks - indeed, it would be a very bad idea to do so. But she will soon have to make it clear that the UK is developing a Plan B, in case the EU27 continue to refuse to discuss what Plan A might be.
    Total abject failure.
  • In considering Theresa May's confirmation this morning that we leave the EU on the 29th March 2019, (and of course that is the result of serving A50), a time will come very soon when she will have to make a decision.

    If the EU continue as they are and there is no prospect of an agreement Theresa May will just have to make an announcement from Downing Street that the UK government is not prepared to be blackmailed, and despite her conciliatory tone and offer to the EU, they are not listening and accordingly the UK Government will be withdrawing from the talks and will take the necessary action to defend the Country's interests in the time leading up to the 29th March 2019.

    I do believe she could get the backing of the voters in these circumstances but of course it is not the preferred route

    Well she lied about not holding an early election, perhaps she'll lie over not leaving the EU and that a bad deal is better than no deal?
  • In considering Theresa May's confirmation this morning that we leave the EU on the 29th March 2019, (and of course that is the result of serving A50), a time will come very soon when she will have to make a decision.

    If the EU continue as they are and there is no prospect of an agreement Theresa May will just have to make an announcement from Downing Street that the UK government is not prepared to be blackmailed, and despite her conciliatory tone and offer to the EU, they are not listening and accordingly the UK Government will be withdrawing from the talks and will take the necessary action to defend the Country's interests in the time leading up to the 29th March 2019.

    I do believe she could get the backing of the voters in these circumstances but of course it is not the preferred route

    She doesn't need to withdraw from the talks - indeed, it would be a very bad idea to do so. But she will soon have to make it clear that the UK is developing a Plan B, in case the EU27 continue to refuse to discuss what Plan A might be.
    In the end there will be no choice unless the EU starts meaningful dialogue
  • Asking for a friend, what did happen to the row of the summer over the sequencing of the Brexit talks that David Davis and Theresa May promised us?
  • I can see the following scenario taking place: Jezza wins the next GE by a landslide, and then, amid much fanfare, Starmer enters negotiations with the EU to bring about an entirely new settlement in Labour's image. The opportunity to humiliate the hard Right and euro-sceptic Tories by unpicking their life's work would be too delicious for them to resist. It will also cement Jezza's place in history, making him a major player in the biggest political event in decades.
  • In considering Theresa May's confirmation this morning that we leave the EU on the 29th March 2019, (and of course that is the result of serving A50), a time will come very soon when she will have to make a decision.

    If the EU continue as they are and there is no prospect of an agreement Theresa May will just have to make an announcement from Downing Street that the UK government is not prepared to be blackmailed, and despite her conciliatory tone and offer to the EU, they are not listening and accordingly the UK Government will be withdrawing from the talks and will take the necessary action to defend the Country's interests in the time leading up to the 29th March 2019.

    I do believe she could get the backing of the voters in these circumstances but of course it is not the preferred route

    Ha Ha she will have to make a decision.


    Not as simple as that is it.
    There is no simple answer but it is a scenario that may have to be implemented but it will be the last resort
  • Jonathan said:

    Total abject failure.

    Well, if the EU27 don't want to do a deal, then they don't want to do a deal. Some of us warned about all that before the referendum, but the democratic decision was taken by voters, who had been fully warned about the risks. I can't see how anyone can blame Mrs May for EU intransigence. If necessary, we'll just have to work around it as best we can. It would be a disaster, of course, for both sides, but if that's what they want, that's what they want; we can't force them to act in their own interests.

    Having said all that, the mood music from the Barnier/Davis press conference seems quite positive, so perhaps the logjam is slowly clearing.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    edited September 28
    As reliable as the sun rising in the morning....

    Ken was on TV talking about Hitler again this morning.

    https://order-order.com/2017/09/28/ken-anti-semitism-fake-news/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    CD13 said:

    Mr Sandpit,

    "There was no way a jury in Liverpool was ever going to find Steven Gerrard guilty of anything."

    As with Ken Dodd. As he explains in his show ... a simple mistake, he was going on the tax-rate when he was a lad - tuppence in the pound. Still, the jury accepted that HMRC had made a genuine mistake.

    The Ken Dodd trial was hillarious. He offered pretty much no actual evidence in his defence, just a string of well known character witnesses who humoured the jury well enough to have them let him off. George Carmen was his barrister, I believe the prosecutor was Brian Leveson (of more recent press enquiry fame).

    His case was mentioned in law textbooks, as an example of what can go wrong with a jury trial. The prosecutors of Gerrard should have had the case moved out of Liverpool.
  • In considering Theresa May's confirmation this morning that we leave the EU on the 29th March 2019, (and of course that is the result of serving A50), a time will come very soon when she will have to make a decision.

    If the EU continue as they are and there is no prospect of an agreement Theresa May will just have to make an announcement from Downing Street that the UK government is not prepared to be blackmailed, and despite her conciliatory tone and offer to the EU, they are not listening and accordingly the UK Government will be withdrawing from the talks and will take the necessary action to defend the Country's interests in the time leading up to the 29th March 2019.

    I do believe she could get the backing of the voters in these circumstances but of course it is not the preferred route

    She doesn't need to withdraw from the talks - indeed, it would be a very bad idea to do so. But she will soon have to make it clear that the UK is developing a Plan B, in case the EU27 continue to refuse to discuss what Plan A might be.
    In the end there will be no choice unless the EU starts meaningful dialogue
    Quite so, and that moment is coming very soon indeed.
  • I can see the following scenario taking place: Jezza wins the next GE by a landslide, and then, amid much fanfare, Starmer enters negotiations with the EU to bring about an entirely new settlement in Labour's image. The opportunity to humiliate the hard Right and euro-sceptic Tories by unpicking their life's work would be too delicious for them to resist. It will also cement Jezza's place in history, making him a major player in the biggest political event in decades.

    The next GE will be after we are out
  • Re Bombardier.

    Are Labour really criticising Theresa May for not being close enough/friendlier with Donald Trump?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 4,760
    I strongly doubt real Brexit is practicable. There is no transition possible to a new arrangement with the EU. (We can try to keep as much as possible of the current arrangement).

    We would have to exit to outer space and then attempt to stick it back together again. If it happens at all - the EU has more preferential trade agreements than anyone else but it has gaps, including with the USA, China and India - it will happen much later. We don't know at the start what would be in this agreement, but it would be certainly be much less than what we had as members. In the meantime, arrangements with other countries would be in abeyance while we sorted out our main EU one. Real Brexit therefore would see years of uncertainty and be very costly and painful.

    If the fact of leaving the EU were the most important thing to people, we would take the massive hit and move on. The Leave vote however was carried on the tiniest margins on the promise that there would be no significant cost to it. There isn't the mandate or probably the will for real Brexit.

    The alternatives are pretend Brexit or no Brexit at all. We aim to keep as much as possible of the current arrangements. Now that we are a third country, the extent to which are able to do that and on what terms is at the discretion of the EU, who don't owe us any favours.

    Boris Johnson, who has a prime ministerial career to promote, charges headlong into this delicate debacle. I am not sure how it's going to play out.

  • Re Bombardier.

    Are Labour really criticising Theresa May for not being close enough/friendlier with Donald Trump?

    Yep, I pointed out that yesterday as one of the more hilarious developments of the week.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,149

    PART 1

    I got home at 1am last night. I am suffering today.

    Why?

    I went to the Spectator's EU debate chaired by Andrew Neil at the British museum; "Britain and the EU: two different futures?", together with a very old friend.

    Very interesting.

    Panel included; Liam Halligan, Anne-Elisabeth Moutet, Frederik Erixon, James Forysth and Chris Darbyshire, CIO of Seven Investment Management.

    James Forsyth's view was very much on the British politics and cabinet splits. CETA+ v. EEA-minus. His view was that EEA-minus wouldn't happen, because the EU wouldn't allow the UK to set a precedent that you can have effective single market membership w/o free movement, plus in the UK it wouldn't work for us to just copy & paste all EU regulation. Divergence is inevitable, because the UK and EU will go in different directions politically, and therefore economically.

    Halligan was a bit more dogmatic. He is strongly for Leave, and robustly defends its opportunities. I expected this and his main role was to challenge doom. He doesn't see no deal as a problem, and free-trade deals are a nice-to-have but not essential. He believes Poland and Hungary will Leave soon.

    Chris Darbyshire was from the firm that sponsored the event. He set out a fairly standard London firm anti-Brexit pitch (bad idea, wrong time, not what we need) and then said the EU would fudge it, together with the UK, as always. We'd end up with something similar to the status quo. It was also very clear he wants this.

    Frederik Erixon was interesting. He said that (unlike 15 years ago) other than Juncker and Macron there is no consensus or drive for further EU integration, and he thinks the EU status quo will bumble along, with different power blocs emerging in the EU. He thought it possible in 10-15 years two or three other countries could also leave the EU. However, he also said he thought free trade deals between countries like Switzerland and China didn't matter very much, and other countries in Europe that had no trade deal with China were doing even more trade with China, and growing faster. He didn't do the parallel: that it might also be true of the UK-EU. Do free trade deals matter, or don't they? Somewhere in between, but he didn't explore it.

    Interesting comments, thank you.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    edited September 28

    Re Bombardier.

    Are Labour really criticising Theresa May for not being close enough/friendlier with Donald Trump?

    Its a bit like the criticism of May being too close for state visit invite, then tumbleweed when Macron has Donny over.
  • God, whoever called the snap election ought to resign or be sacked.

    Tories were not prepared for snap election, says Theresa May

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/government-and-public-sector/news/89351/excl-tories-were-not-prepared-snap-election-says
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,686

    PART 2

    But the most revealing comment of the night, for me, was that of Anne-Elisabeth - a French journalist and EU commentator. By her own admission she had done no preparation (only knew the questions 30 minutes in advance) so was more instinctive.

    She said she was in Brussels the night of Dave's deal. Everyone she spoke to (insiders) were shocked at how much the EU had given to the UK, and couldn't believe the UK had got away with it. She didn't explore (or compare) to the UK reaction, which was I felt instructive. Now, the UK has left, "they" are sad, but, if the UK does Leave, they are sparing virtually no thought for it. She had nothing to say on the future of the EU, and couldn't offer any thoughts on it when probed by Andrew Neil. Also instructive

    My takeaway was that the EU doesn't know where its going, the UK is split, and the UK and EU both (still) fundamentally misunderstand each other's politics. In the UK there's
    still little consensus on what our long-term relationship with the EU should be, and the EU haven't even bothered to think about it all, thinking the UK doesn't really matter anymore and just wanting to avoid setting a precedent. It's just one of several major problems the EU has.

    Therefore, I'm afraid to say, I came away thinking no deal is even more likely than when I went in.

    (PS. Afterwards, we got a photo together with Andrew Neil, had a few jars and so I feel rougher than Angela Merkel's political career today.)

    Excellent two posts, thanks - of course, because I'm looking for it, the interesting element is that at least in the EU they thought Dave's deal was important. When I think of how quickly it was and continues to be dismissed I suppose the conclusion is that the British people really didn't and don't understand the EU at all.

    Now, whether that is a reason to leave or not to leave, I'm not 100% sure.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,650
    Tomorrow's Sun Front Page?



    Remains to be seen if charges will be pressed. Could be difficult to come forward if you happened to be carrying a bottle at the time.
  • Jonathan said:

    Total abject failure.

    Well, if the EU27 don't want to do a deal, then they don't want to do a deal. Some of us warned about all that before the referendum, but the democratic decision was taken by voters, who had been fully warned about the risks. I can't see how anyone can blame Mrs May for EU intransigence. If necessary, we'll just have to work around it as best we can. It would be a disaster, of course, for both sides, but if that's what they want, that's what they want; we can't force them to act in their own interests.

    Having said all that, the mood music from the Barnier/Davis press conference seems quite positive, so perhaps the logjam is slowly clearing.

    I agree. There does seem to be signs of movement. It could just be that we are moving to a fudge. That would be very good news. The key issue is whether Tory moon-howlers like Fox and Boris will live with it and, if they can't, whether they can persuade Tory MPs to trigger a leadership contest that will lead to the delivery of the cliff edge they clearly seem to want.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,149

    Jonathan said:

    Total abject failure.

    Well, if the EU27 don't want to do a deal, then they don't want to do a deal. Some of us warned about all that before the referendum, but the democratic decision was taken by voters, who had been fully warned about the risks. I can't see how anyone can blame Mrs May for EU intransigence. If necessary, we'll just have to work around it as best we can. It would be a disaster, of course, for both sides, but if that's what they want, that's what they want; we can't force them to act in their own interests.

    Having said all that, the mood music from the Barnier/Davis press conference seems quite positive, so perhaps the logjam is slowly clearing.
    Fair points indeed about warnings on the risk and, as we are often told about the EU being in the driving seat, that if they go for intransigence and punishment, which aids no w, there's only so much we can do.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,149

    In considering Theresa May's confirmation this morning that we leave the EU on the 29th March 2019, (and of course that is the result of serving A50), a time will come very soon when she will have to make a decision.

    If the EU continue as they are and there is no prospect of an agreement Theresa May will just have to make an announcement from Downing Street that the UK government is not prepared to be blackmailed, and despite her conciliatory tone and offer to the EU, they are not listening and accordingly the UK Government will be withdrawing from the talks and will take the necessary action to defend the Country's interests in the time leading up to the 29th March 2019.

    I do believe she could get the backing of the voters in these circumstances but of course it is not the preferred route

    Well she lied about not holding an early election, perhaps she'll lie over not leaving the EU and that a bad deal is better than no deal?
    I'm surprised you would be so bold to use the word lie - you do not believe she changed her mind?
  • calumcalum Posts: 2,696

    God, whoever called the snap election ought to resign or be sacked.

    Tories were not prepared for snap election, says Theresa May

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/government-and-public-sector/news/89351/excl-tories-were-not-prepared-snap-election-says

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,384
    Mr. Eagles, it is forgivable to be surprised by an ambush, except when you're the one springing it.
  • kle4 said:

    In considering Theresa May's confirmation this morning that we leave the EU on the 29th March 2019, (and of course that is the result of serving A50), a time will come very soon when she will have to make a decision.

    If the EU continue as they are and there is no prospect of an agreement Theresa May will just have to make an announcement from Downing Street that the UK government is not prepared to be blackmailed, and despite her conciliatory tone and offer to the EU, they are not listening and accordingly the UK Government will be withdrawing from the talks and will take the necessary action to defend the Country's interests in the time leading up to the 29th March 2019.

    I do believe she could get the backing of the voters in these circumstances but of course it is not the preferred route

    Well she lied about not holding an early election, perhaps she'll lie over not leaving the EU and that a bad deal is better than no deal?
    I'm surprised you would be so bold to use the word lie - you do not believe she changed her mind?
    It is possible she did both.
  • PART 2

    But the most revealing comment of the night, for me, was that of Anne-Elisabeth - a French journalist and EU commentator. By her own admission she had done no preparation (only knew the questions 30 minutes in advance) so was more instinctive.

    She said she was in Brussels the night of Dave's deal. Everyone she spoke to (insiders) were shocked at how much the EU had given to the UK, and couldn't believe the UK had got away with it. She didn't explore (or compare) to the UK reaction, which was I felt instructive. Now, the UK has left, "they" are sad, but, if the UK does Leave, they are sparing virtually no thought for it. She had nothing to say on the future of the EU, and couldn't offer any thoughts on it when probed by Andrew Neil. Also instructive

    My takeaway was that the EU doesn't know where its going, the UK is split, and the UK and EU both (still) fundamentally misunderstand each other's politics. In the UK there's
    still little consensus on what our long-term relationship with the EU should be, and the EU haven't even bothered to think about it all, thinking the UK doesn't really matter anymore and just wanting to avoid setting a precedent. It's just one of several major problems the EU has.

    Therefore, I'm afraid to say, I came away thinking no deal is even more likely than when I went in.

    (PS. Afterwards, we got a photo together with Andrew Neil, had a few jars and so I feel rougher than Angela Merkel's political career today.)

    Interesting, cheers. My perspective is that the EU has much bigger fish to deal with than Brexit and that the 27 are very happy to leave it with Barnier. They are not worried about "punishing" the UK because they know that leaving the EU will in and of itself cause the UK enough problems, with very few real upsides, to dissuade any other electorate that withdrawal is a good idea. How much was the Irish border discussed at the event?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    TOPPING said:

    PART 2

    But the most revealing comment of the night, for me, was that of Anne-Elisabeth - a French journalist and EU commentator. By her own admission she had done no preparation (only knew the questions 30 minutes in advance) so was more instinctive.

    She said she was in Brussels the night of Dave's deal. Everyone she spoke to (insiders) were shocked at how much the EU had given to the UK, and couldn't believe the UK had got away with it. She didn't explore (or compare) to the UK reaction, which was I felt instructive. Now, the UK has left, "they" are sad, but, if the UK does Leave, they are sparing virtually no thought for it. She had nothing to say on the future of the EU, and couldn't offer any thoughts on it when probed by Andrew Neil. Also instructive

    My takeaway was that the EU doesn't know where its going, the UK is split, and the UK and EU both (still) fundamentally misunderstand each other's politics. In the UK there's
    still little consensus on what our long-term relationship with the EU should be, and the EU haven't even bothered to think about it all, thinking the UK doesn't really matter anymore and just wanting to avoid setting a precedent. It's just one of several major problems the EU has.

    Therefore, I'm afraid to say, I came away thinking no deal is even more likely than when I went in.

    (PS. Afterwards, we got a photo together with Andrew Neil, had a few jars and so I feel rougher than Angela Merkel's political career today.)

    Excellent two posts, thanks - of course, because I'm looking for it, the interesting element is that at least in the EU they thought Dave's deal was important. When I think of how quickly it was and continues to be dismissed I suppose the conclusion is that the British people really didn't and don't understand the EU at all.

    Now, whether that is a reason to leave or not to leave, I'm not 100% sure.
    I remember that day very well, it was the day that I and many others on here decided we were voting Leave as the EU was clearly unreformable. Interesting that the reaction to the ‘deal’ within the EU was completely the other way.

    Good comments from @Casino_Royale, sounds like it was a fun night.
  • Mr. Eagles, it is forgivable to be surprised by an ambush, except when you're the one springing it.

    It is like if Flaminius had ambushed himself at Lake Trasimene.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,149

    Jonathan said:

    Total abject failure.

    Well, if the EU27 don't want to do a deal, then they don't want to do a deal. Some of us warned about all that before the referendum, but the democratic decision was taken by voters, who had been fully warned about the risks. I can't see how anyone can blame Mrs May for EU intransigence. If necessary, we'll just have to work around it as best we can. It would be a disaster, of course, for both sides, but if that's what they want, that's what they want; we can't force them to act in their own interests.

    Having said all that, the mood music from the Barnier/Davis press conference seems quite positive, so perhaps the logjam is slowly clearing.

    I agree. There does seem to be signs of movement. It could just be that we are moving to a fudge. That would be very good news. The key issue is whether Tory moon-howlers like Fox and Boris will live with it and, if they can't, whether they can persuade Tory MPs to trigger a leadership contest that will lead to the delivery of the cliff edge they clearly seem to want.

    EveryOne on both sides needs to be reminded of how delicious fudge is, and it'll all be fine.
  • TOPPING said:

    ... the interesting element is that at least in the EU they thought Dave's deal was important. When I think of how quickly it was and continues to be dismissed I suppose the conclusion is that the British people really didn't and don't understand the EU at all..

    Well, two of us understood that the deal was as good as could be obtained!

    It is an absolute tragedy that the UK decided to leave the EU, with all the attendant political and economic collateral damage, just at the time when we'd finally huge strides in reshaping the relationship to something much more palatable.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,319
    edited September 28

    I wrote this on the last thread. TM seems to be saying we are out on the 29th March 2019, end of story

    'Theresa May at the Bank of England this morning stated very clearly that we will leave the EU on the 29th March 2019 and the transition should be viewed as an implementation period to provide time for business and government to adjust to the new order.

    It is clear she is determined to be out on the 29th March 2019 and the idea that the transition period is just to delay and frustrate Brexit is irrelevant, we will be out.

    This is the first time I have heard her say this with such clarity, will please the leavers but frustrate the remainers'

    And of course no payments to the EU if no agreement, the treaties lapse
    On the politics of no agreement: hard to see Corbyn's Labour kicking up a fuss and saying "of course we have to pay the EU billions when we depart....." (He's already spent those billions ten times over.) So domestically, May gets effectively a free run at WTO. Even if it proves economically hard, Labour would have done no differently.

    They might try and argue that the Govt. negotaitions have been a fiasco, but Labour's own position has been a fiasco - and May has gone to Florence and offered the olive branch. If the EU want to cover it in oil and set fire to it, then I believe the voters will see who has acted with bad faith. Those who voted Leave will be determined as having done the right thing in leaving; those who believed the EU a well-intentioned club of which we should be members will just have to gaze at their shoes.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,149

    Mr. Eagles, it is forgivable to be surprised by an ambush, except when you're the one springing it.

    It is like if Flaminius had ambushed himself at Lake Trasimene.
    I'm sure it's happened in history somewhere. Sure I heard a multi ethnic Austro-Hungarian Hungarian army managed it oncertainly.
  • kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Total abject failure.

    Well, if the EU27 don't want to do a deal, then they don't want to do a deal. Some of us warned about all that before the referendum, but the democratic decision was taken by voters, who had been fully warned about the risks. I can't see how anyone can blame Mrs May for EU intransigence. If necessary, we'll just have to work around it as best we can. It would be a disaster, of course, for both sides, but if that's what they want, that's what they want; we can't force them to act in their own interests.

    Having said all that, the mood music from the Barnier/Davis press conference seems quite positive, so perhaps the logjam is slowly clearing.
    Fair points indeed about warnings on the risk and, as we are often told about the EU being in the driving seat, that if they go for intransigence and punishment, which aids no w, there's only so much we can do.

    It's not punishment. The EU is not being vindictive. It has accepted the UK is leaving, but if the UK wants a trade deal with the EU it has to leave in a certain way. There are, for example, payments to meet obligations as a resigning member, then there are payments to be made for a transitional arrangement and potential ones for the final deal that comes after that.
  • TOPPING said:

    ... the interesting element is that at least in the EU they thought Dave's deal was important. When I think of how quickly it was and continues to be dismissed I suppose the conclusion is that the British people really didn't and don't understand the EU at all..

    Well, two of us understood that the deal was as good as could be obtained!

    It is an absolute tragedy that the UK decided to leave the EU, with all the attendant political and economic collateral damage, just at the time when we'd finally huge strides in reshaping the relationship to something much more palatable.
    "Huge strides"!?

    "As good as could be obtained" I can believe - but as good as could be obtained was quite frankly not very good. What "huge strides" were taken?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,340
    The Opposition is allowed to question what the government does. Some might even go as far as to say that that's one of its main jobs.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,149

    TOPPING said:

    ... the interesting element is that at least in the EU they thought Dave's deal was important. When I think of how quickly it was and continues to be dismissed I suppose the conclusion is that the British people really didn't and don't understand the EU at all..

    Well, two of us understood that the deal was as good as could be obtained!

    It is an absolute tragedy that the UK decided to leave the EU, with all the attendant political and economic collateral damage, just at the time when we'd finally huge strides in reshaping the relationship to something much more palatable.
    It might have been as good as could be obtained. That was part of the problem.

    If you asked me today if I'd have taken it if it were still on offer, maybe
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046
    edited September 28
    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    PART 2

    But the most revealing comment of the night, for me, was that of Anne-Elisabeth - a French journalist and EU commentator. By her own admission she had done no preparation (only knew the questions 30 minutes in advance) so was more instinctive.

    She said she was in Brussels the night of Dave's deal. Everyone she spoke to (insiders) were shocked at how much the EU had given to the UK, and couldn't believe the UK had got away with it. She didn't explore (or compare) to the UK reaction, which was I felt instructive. Now, the UK has left, "they" are sad, but, if the UK does Leave, they are sparing virtually no thought for it. She had nothing to say on the future of the EU, and couldn't offer any thoughts on it when probed by Andrew Neil. Also instructive

    My takeaway was that the EU doesn't know where its going, the UK is split, and the UK and EU both (still) fundamentally misunderstand each other's politics. In the UK there's
    still little consensus on what our long-term relationship with the EU should be, and the EU haven't even bothered to think about it all, thinking the UK doesn't really matter anymore and just wanting to avoid setting a precedent. It's just one of several major problems the EU has.

    Therefore, I'm afraid to say, I came away thinking no deal is even more likely than when I went in.

    (PS. Afterwards, we got a photo together with Andrew Neil, had a few jars and so I feel rougher than Angela Merkel's political career today.)

    Excellent two posts, thanks - of course, because I'm looking for it, the interesting element is that at least in the EU they thought Dave's deal was important. When I think of how quickly it was and continues to be dismissed I suppose the conclusion is that the British people really didn't and don't understand the EU at all.

    Now, whether that is a reason to leave or not to leave, I'm not 100% sure.
    I remember that day very well, it was the day that I and many others on here decided we were voting Leave as the EU was clearly unreformable. Interesting that the reaction to the ‘deal’ within the EU was completely the other way.

    Good comments from @Casino_Royale, sounds like it was a fun night.
    Does sound like a good..... and instructive ........evening. I think what comes across is that, fairly big player in Europe that we are (???were) we aren’t and won’t be the sole topic of EU discussion. They have other fish to fry.

    I suggest that, coupled with the Bombadier shenanigans, this should some British politicians pause for thought; our interests are not the most important issue on the planet.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698
    TOPPING said:

    Excellent two posts, thanks - of course, because I'm looking for it, the interesting element is that at least in the EU they thought Dave's deal was important. When I think of how quickly it was and continues to be dismissed I suppose the conclusion is that the British people really didn't and don't understand the EU at all.

    It also says something about the dynamics of the debate within the Tory party. Too many people actively wanted an excuse to stab Cameron in the back over it and the detail didn't really interest them.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,686

    Jonathan said:

    Total abject failure.

    Well, if the EU27 don't want to do a deal, then they don't want to do a deal. Some of us warned about all that before the referendum, but the democratic decision was taken by voters, who had been fully warned about the risks. I can't see how anyone can blame Mrs May for EU intransigence. If necessary, we'll just have to work around it as best we can. It would be a disaster, of course, for both sides, but if that's what they want, that's what they want; we can't force them to act in their own interests.

    Having said all that, the mood music from the Barnier/Davis press conference seems quite positive, so perhaps the logjam is slowly clearing.
    Wrong place wrong time so yes Theresa is to blame. Boy, was the last GE ever the wrong one to win.

    However Brexit turns out, this govt will be blamed, and blamed for years to come. Slight blip in quarterly GDP? Brexit/Tories. Employment ticks down, even only seasonally? Brexit/Tories. Etc, etc.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,319

    TOPPING said:

    ... the interesting element is that at least in the EU they thought Dave's deal was important. When I think of how quickly it was and continues to be dismissed I suppose the conclusion is that the British people really didn't and don't understand the EU at all..

    Well, two of us understood that the deal was as good as could be obtained!

    It is an absolute tragedy that the UK decided to leave the EU, with all the attendant political and economic collateral damage, just at the time when we'd finally huge strides in reshaping the relationship to something much more palatable.
    You really think that Brussels telling states what numbers and which refugees they must take - with no national say in it whatsoever - is "something much more palatable"?

    Delusional.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 4,760

    Jonathan said:

    Total abject failure.

    Well, if the EU27 don't want to do a deal, then they don't want to do a deal. Some of us warned about all that before the referendum, but the democratic decision was taken by voters, who had been fully warned about the risks. I can't see how anyone can blame Mrs May for EU intransigence. If necessary, we'll just have to work around it as best we can. It would be a disaster, of course, for both sides, but if that's what they want, that's what they want; we can't force them to act in their own interests.

    Having said all that, the mood music from the Barnier/Davis press conference seems quite positive, so perhaps the logjam is slowly clearing.
    The EU can't do a deal with us on a new arrangement before we leave, even if they wanted to. These things don't happen to a timetable or a plan. They may not happen at all. How long has the EU been working on trade agreements with the United States and India? If there is agreement it will be on retaining the status quo.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,149

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Total abject failure.

    Well, if the EU27 don't want to do a deal, then they don't want to do a deal. Some of us warned about all that before the referendum, but the democratic decision was taken by voters, who had been fully warned about the risks. I can't see how anyone can blame Mrs May for EU intransigence. If necessary, we'll just have to work around it as best we can. It would be a disaster, of course, for both sides, but if that's what they want, that's what they want; we can't force them to act in their own interests.

    Having said all that, the mood music from the Barnier/Davis press conference seems quite positive, so perhaps the logjam is slowly clearing.
    Fair points indeed about warnings on the risk and, as we are often told about the EU being in the driving seat, that if they go for intransigence and punishment, which aids no w, there's only so much we can do.

    It's not punishment. The EU is not being vindictive. It has accepted the UK is leaving, but if the UK wants a trade deal with the EU it has to leave in a certain way. There are, for example, payments to meet obligations as a resigning member, then there are payments to be made for a transitional arrangement and potential ones for the final deal that comes after that.
    I Said If, Not Are. I'm not opposed to paying in a lot more than most are, depending on what we get.

    And some clearly would like to punish , it's silly to pretend otherwise. Hopefully those people are not leading things.

    But clearly they have already upped the bill from initial comments which shows what are our actual obligations is unclear. So discussing amounts is not intransigence from us either.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,319

    The Opposition is allowed to question what the government does. Some might even go as far as to say that that's one of its main jobs.
    Couldn't they have got somebody else to posit those thoughts though - somebody not covered in a whole heap of hypocrisy, after his time at the heart of "whiter than white" Tony Bair's Government?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797

    The Opposition is allowed to question what the government does. Some might even go as far as to say that that's one of its main jobs.
    Indeed. These sort of organisations are usually left to backbenchers, rather than Secretaries of State. Boris is sailing somewhat close to the wind here.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698
    edited September 28

    TOPPING said:

    ... the interesting element is that at least in the EU they thought Dave's deal was important. When I think of how quickly it was and continues to be dismissed I suppose the conclusion is that the British people really didn't and don't understand the EU at all..

    Well, two of us understood that the deal was as good as could be obtained!

    It is an absolute tragedy that the UK decided to leave the EU, with all the attendant political and economic collateral damage, just at the time when we'd finally huge strides in reshaping the relationship to something much more palatable.
    "Huge strides"!?

    "As good as could be obtained" I can believe - but as good as could be obtained was quite frankly not very good. What "huge strides" were taken?
    Don't underestimate the significance of a formal statement that the EU was a multi-currency union. That's a fundamental break with the idea that there's a single destination. (And made people like me feel uncomfortable about the Remain campaign.)
  • The Opposition is allowed to question what the government does. Some might even go as far as to say that that's one of its main jobs.
    Of course they are but it doesn't make every question they raise legitimate (though some may be) or mean it is "Uh oh" just because they said something.

    The very fact its their job is precisely why we need to take what they say with a pinch of salt.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438
    edited September 28

    You really think that Brussels telling states what numbers and which refugees they must take - with no national say in it whatsoever - is "something much more palatable"?

    Delusional.

    You don't seem to have quite noticed that we are exempt from that.

    That is the whole point - we already had a very good range of opt-outs on many key problem areas, and Dave's deal added to that excellent protection for the City (more than we'll get under any conceivable Brexit arrangement, incidentally), and, crucially, a formal recognition that we're not signed up to ever-closer union. The latter was an amazing concession given the EU's quasi-religious stance on this; the practical result of it would have been that we would have effectively become an Associate Member in all but name - but with full voting rights. Ever-closer union would have continued in the Eurozone, no doubt, but we would have been able to stand aside from it.

    Sadly, all that was thrown away.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,420
    Interesting that May's speech called for making the case for free markets, and that the economy can't be run on the basis of ideology.

    But free markets ARE an ideology. It may be one she agrees with, but it is an ideology.

    If she merely views it as the natural order and not an ideology, how do you make a case for it?That would be like making a case for gravity.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,686
    dixiedean said:

    Interesting that May's speech called for making the case for free markets, and that the economy can't be run on the basis of ideology.

    But free markets ARE an ideology. It may be one she agrees with, but it is an ideology.

    If she merely views it as the natural order and not an ideology, how do you make a case for it?That would be like making a case for gravity.

    Good point.
  • TOPPING said:

    ... the interesting element is that at least in the EU they thought Dave's deal was important. When I think of how quickly it was and continues to be dismissed I suppose the conclusion is that the British people really didn't and don't understand the EU at all..

    Well, two of us understood that the deal was as good as could be obtained!

    It is an absolute tragedy that the UK decided to leave the EU, with all the attendant political and economic collateral damage, just at the time when we'd finally huge strides in reshaping the relationship to something much more palatable.
    "Huge strides"!?

    "As good as could be obtained" I can believe - but as good as could be obtained was quite frankly not very good. What "huge strides" were taken?
    Don't underestimate the significance of a formal statement that the EU was a multi-currency union. That's a fundamental break with the idea that there's a single destination. (And made people like me feel uncomfortable about the Remain campaign.)
    We always had an opt-out so I put zero significance on that. Quite frankly the issue was not whether we could stay with our own currency which was already confirmed by Treaties since Maastricht. The issue was that the Eurozone has sufficient votes to unilaterally change the laws for the entire Union for any QMV issue.

    A "huge stride" would have been as suggested during the renegotiations "double QMV" that required a QMV of both those nations in the Eurozone and out of it for a new rule to apply to the whole union rather than only the Eurozone. But that didn't happen.

    A statement to confirm what was already confirmed by the Maastricht Treaty is utterly, utterly meaningless and hold zero significance let alone being a huge stride.
  • dixiedean said:

    Interesting that May's speech called for making the case for free markets, and that the economy can't be run on the basis of ideology.

    But free markets ARE an ideology. It may be one she agrees with, but it is an ideology.

    If she merely views it as the natural order and not an ideology, how do you make a case for it?That would be like making a case for gravity.

    Science.

    Physics is science and gravity is a part of it. Economics is a social science. Free markets are not simply an ideology.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 24,952
    kle4 said:

    In considering Theresa May's confirmation this morning that we leave the EU on the 29th March 2019, (and of course that is the result of serving A50), a time will come very soon when she will have to make a decision.

    If the EU continue as they are and there is no prospect of an agreement Theresa May will just have to make an announcement from Downing Street that the UK government is not prepared to be blackmailed, and despite her conciliatory tone and offer to the EU, they are not listening and accordingly the UK Government will be withdrawing from the talks and will take the necessary action to defend the Country's interests in the time leading up to the 29th March 2019.

    I do believe she could get the backing of the voters in these circumstances but of course it is not the preferred route

    Well she lied about not holding an early election, perhaps she'll lie over not leaving the EU and that a bad deal is better than no deal?
    I'm surprised you would be so bold to use the word lie - you do not believe she changed her mind?
    In TSE world, David Cameron changes his mind as a public school man of principal and vision while Theresa May grammar school girl and firer of the most brilliant chancellor of all time lies
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,319

    You really think that Brussels telling states what numbers and which refugees they must take - with no national say in it whatsoever - is "something much more palatable"?

    Delusional.

    You don't seem to have quite noticed that we are exempt from that.

    That is the whole point - we already had a very good range of opt-outs on many key problem areas, and Dave's deal added to that excellent protection for the City (more than we'll get under any conceivable Brexit arrangement, incidentally), and, crucially, a formal recognition that we're not signed up to ever-closer union. The latter was an amazing concession given the EU's quasi-religious stance on this; the practical result of it would have been that we would have effectively become an Associate Member in all but name - but with full voting rights. Ever-closer union would have continued in the Eurozone, no doubt, but we would have been able to stand aside from it.

    Sadly, all that was thrown away.
    We are exempt from that for now - and by virtue of a vote to Leave, there has been no pressure to re-open. But if we had voted to Remain, there would have been massive pressure on us to be "good Europeans" and "do our fair share" (our fair share being based on contributions made to the Budget).

    As it is, I fully expect this to be the straw that breaks the Hungarian back, the Czech back, the ......
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487

    PART 2

    But the most revealing comment of the night, for me, was that of Anne-Elisabeth - a French journalist and EU commentator. By her own admission she had done no preparation (only knew the questions 30 minutes in advance) so was more instinctive.

    She said she was in Brussels the night of Dave's deal. Everyone she spoke to (insiders) were shocked at how much the EU had given to the UK, and couldn't believe the UK had got away with it. She didn't explore (or compare) to the UK reaction, which was I felt instructive. Now, the UK has left, "they" are sad, but, if the UK does Leave, they are sparing virtually no thought for it. She had nothing to say on the future of the EU, and couldn't offer any thoughts on it when probed by Andrew Neil. Also instructive

    My takeaway was that the EU doesn't know where its going, the UK is split, and the UK and EU both (still) fundamentally misunderstand each other's politics. In the UK there's
    still little consensus on what our long-term relationship with the EU should be, and the EU haven't even bothered to think about it all, thinking the UK doesn't really matter anymore and just wanting to avoid setting a precedent. It's just one of several major problems the EU has.

    Therefore, I'm afraid to say, I came away thinking no deal is even more likely than when I went in.

    (PS. Afterwards, we got a photo together with Andrew Neil, had a few jars and so I feel rougher than Angela Merkel's political career today.)

    Interesting, cheers. My perspective is that the EU has much bigger fish to deal with than Brexit and that the 27 are very happy to leave it with Barnier. They are not worried about "punishing" the UK because they know that leaving the EU will in and of itself cause the UK enough problems, with very few real upsides, to dissuade any other electorate that withdrawal is a good idea. How much was the Irish border discussed at the event?
    Virtually not at all, other than to make the obvious point that the reason the UK Government has been silent on this so far is that they're trying to square a position with the DUP.

    Also, that Brexit matters even more (economically) to EIRE than the UK.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698

    TOPPING said:

    ... the interesting element is that at least in the EU they thought Dave's deal was important. When I think of how quickly it was and continues to be dismissed I suppose the conclusion is that the British people really didn't and don't understand the EU at all..

    Well, two of us understood that the deal was as good as could be obtained!

    It is an absolute tragedy that the UK decided to leave the EU, with all the attendant political and economic collateral damage, just at the time when we'd finally huge strides in reshaping the relationship to something much more palatable.
    "Huge strides"!?

    "As good as could be obtained" I can believe - but as good as could be obtained was quite frankly not very good. What "huge strides" were taken?
    Don't underestimate the significance of a formal statement that the EU was a multi-currency union. That's a fundamental break with the idea that there's a single destination. (And made people like me feel uncomfortable about the Remain campaign.)
    We always had an opt-out so I put zero significance on that. Quite frankly the issue was not whether we could stay with our own currency which was already confirmed by Treaties since Maastricht. The issue was that the Eurozone has sufficient votes to unilaterally change the laws for the entire Union for any QMV issue.

    A "huge stride" would have been as suggested during the renegotiations "double QMV" that required a QMV of both those nations in the Eurozone and out of it for a new rule to apply to the whole union rather than only the Eurozone. But that didn't happen.

    A statement to confirm what was already confirmed by the Maastricht Treaty is utterly, utterly meaningless and hold zero significance let alone being a huge stride.
    Double QMV could never happen for obvious reasons. As a reductio ad absurdum, imagine if only one member were not in the Eurozone - they would suddenly have a veto on everything that was supposedly subject to QMV.
  • A statement to confirm what was already confirmed by the Maastricht Treaty is utterly, utterly meaningless and hold zero significance let alone being a huge stride.

    Wrong. Yes of course we had the opt-out, so we couldn't be forced to adopt the Euro, but for the first time we obtained formal protection against Eurozone hegemony. It was an absolutely crucial step forward.

    Now of course we are unprotected against the EU deciding to introduce rules damaging to the City, so there is no doubt that we've gone backwards on that by voting to leave.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,515
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Snip


    There is much common ground (or is that common sense ground?)

    House building needs available land to be used.

    There may be other ways of incentivising building rather than taxation. Penalties could be included as planning conditions, where the penalty has a greater value than a bit of taxation on the land, (which ultimately the consumer pays on the price of the house or the government funds as it has less corporation tax in the end) .

    Successful applications could come with a start and completion date for the development. Failure to comply (or extended prevarication and alterations to the plans) and the development is put out to tender for other developers to do the build. Do this for developments of over 30 bedrooms?

    You could have a formula that linked the time the land has been owned and vacant / empty / derelict / before planning permission was applied for (and therefore sitting there gaining value) and the Council demand for Social Content increasing as the vacant time lengthens.

    Green Belt land could be used. There is lots of it, just move the boundaries of towns out by a mile or two and designate more green belt. You don't have to reduce the total amount of Green Belt.

    FOBTs, I think the Conservative Party have begun to move on these. I'm not heavily into control, but they are evil and £2 stake is more accepable.

    I don't think many people fail to understand that a transition largely requires the rules to be complied with. Some on the outer edge think transition is bad and the thin end of the wedge. But there are views at both ends of the spectrum.

    I don't have an issue with Credit Card interest limits, to pick another topic of Labour conference. Just because you can lend money and charge interest it doesn't mean you should. I do find borrower in chief, John MacDonald, fighting for protection from high interest charges slightly oxymoronic.

    Capitalism needs to have a greater social conscience, it needs to be more morally aware. Maximising profit is not the be all and end all. We had the greed of the 1980s, and the greed of the 2000s. The later was worse and more excessive than the former (as all new incarnations ore bigger and better than the previous), resulting in more extreme differentiation between the haves and have nots. Jeremy Corbyn is not the answer, but that does not make all of his views wrong.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,340
    On topic, a good piece by Alastair. I would have thought a transitional deal on the basis of something like the status quo would be achievable. It does depend on how hard-ball the EU wants to play on the divorce settlement though. I doubt whether a number for the total bill can be agreed before the final settlement is sorted out. It may be that one way to break the deadlock is to agree payments for the transition period and for a No Deal Brexit initially, and to postpone talks on other payments subject to the success of the trade deal. Likewise, getting agreement of citizens' rights shouldn't be impossible.

    The real problem is the Irish border. If either side doesn't want to think outside the current framework, it's irresoluble. There must be a hard border if the rules on the Single Market are to be enforced and the UK is out - as the the government has said it wants to be. On the other hand, the EU wants to maintain the current open border. Unless some fundamental shift takes place on one of those three points (membership of the SM, application of the rules, or the acceptability of a hard border), the circle can't be squared.

    As Alastair says, however, Barnier's hands are tied by the Council, and the Council has a lot of internal politics to distract it from revising Barnier's guidance.
  • You really think that Brussels telling states what numbers and which refugees they must take - with no national say in it whatsoever - is "something much more palatable"?

    Delusional.

    You don't seem to have quite noticed that we are exempt from that.

    That is the whole point - we already had a very good range of opt-outs on many key problem areas, and Dave's deal added to that excellent protection for the City (more than we'll get under any conceivable Brexit arrangement, incidentally), and, crucially, a formal recognition that we're not signed up to ever-closer union. The latter was an amazing concession given the EU's quasi-religious stance on this; the practical result of it would have been that we would have effectively become an Associate Member in all but name - but with full voting rights. Ever-closer union would have continued in the Eurozone, no doubt, but we would have been able to stand aside from it.

    Sadly, all that was thrown away.
    No we couldn't stand aside from it as Lisbon had already given the EU the competencies it required to rule on almost any subject it wants to by QMV for which we could be outvoted routinely. If you think new rules and regulations wouldn't have applied to us because of a statement when the Treaties say the opposite then I'd like to know how and why the EU would start to create UK-exemptions to its rules and regulations when it never had before and the Treaties provide nothing to back that up?

    Saying we were not signed up when the QMV powers have already been handed over and we have gained no new ones is like saying the barn door won't be opened after the horse has already bolted and we can see the door is already open.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797

    TOPPING said:

    ... the interesting element is that at least in the EU they thought Dave's deal was important. When I think of how quickly it was and continues to be dismissed I suppose the conclusion is that the British people really didn't and don't understand the EU at all..

    Well, two of us understood that the deal was as good as could be obtained!

    It is an absolute tragedy that the UK decided to leave the EU, with all the attendant political and economic collateral damage, just at the time when we'd finally huge strides in reshaping the relationship to something much more palatable.
    "Huge strides"!?

    "As good as could be obtained" I can believe - but as good as could be obtained was quite frankly not very good. What "huge strides" were taken?
    Don't underestimate the significance of a formal statement that the EU was a multi-currency union. That's a fundamental break with the idea that there's a single destination. (And made people like me feel uncomfortable about the Remain campaign.)
    We always had an opt-out so I put zero significance on that. Quite frankly the issue was not whether we could stay with our own currency which was already confirmed by Treaties since Maastricht. The issue was that the Eurozone has sufficient votes to unilaterally change the laws for the entire Union for any QMV issue.

    A "huge stride" would have been as suggested during the renegotiations "double QMV" that required a QMV of both those nations in the Eurozone and out of it for a new rule to apply to the whole union rather than only the Eurozone. But that didn't happen.

    A statement to confirm what was already confirmed by the Maastricht Treaty is utterly, utterly meaningless and hold zero significance let alone being a huge stride.
    It didn’t help that David Cameron made a very good speech at Bloomberg about where he wanted to see the EU going in future, before he went into his negotiations with them. He then came back with about 5% of what he had talked about, and tried to sell it as a massive victory.

    It’s possible that if he hadn’t made the Bloomberg speech originally, he might have won the referendum. By failing to meet expectations he lost my vote.
This discussion has been closed.