The more we can get into the Exit Agreement, the better for us. There isn't a lot of time, so we are looking at either minimal change or minimal agreement, in my view.
Or more agreed prior to the triggering of Article 50, whatever people may say in public. Article 50 is clearly lopsided and in other contractual contexts could well be deemed unfair.
If EU partners agree to pre-negotiations, yes. It's worth noting, though, that to a man and woman they have rejected it so far.
An MP has been charged in connection with alleged fraud offences. Glasgow East MP Natalie McGarry had been under investigation by police after a pro-independence group reported a potential financial discrepancy in its accounts.
Her constituency includes Easterhouse, sometimes cited as the most downtrodden council estate in Scotland. IDS famously visited it a few years ago. Glasgow East used to be one of the safest Labour seats in the UK.
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
Only halfwits thought Brexit would be cost-free. London will lose other EU offices, as well.
Equally, only halfwits believe Brexit will be entirely negative.
We left because we didn't want to be subject to the oppressive yoke of the European Union and its sovereignty-busting institutions. Such as the ECJ. And yet, here are we worrying that the opportunity to be subject to the ECJ, might be taken away from us.
Oh, but we can choose to be subject to the ECJ if we want to be and it will be our sovereign will to do so. Which is entirely different of course from being a member of a voluntary organisation wherein we are, er, subject to the ECJ.
At the moment the ECJ is wholly or partly sovereign over us, when it comes to:
customs union competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy commercial policy social policy economic, social and territorial cohesion agriculture environment consumer protection transport trans-European networks energy security and justice shared safety concerns in public health matters, limited to the aspects defined in the TFEU; research, technological development, space; development cooperation and humanitarian aid. And sport.
Getting out from under this horrible monster will take time, and won't be pretty. We may indeed remain subject to the ECJ when it comes to the single market. That will be it.
Otherwise, we will have our Freedom.
If we remain in the Single Market - it would be via the EEA route, and probably only possible via EFTA membership (or it will require modification of the EEA agreement itself). So the relevant authority would be the EFTA court.
This is entirely correct, and it's worth understanding why. When the EU and (say) Canada enter into a Free Trade Agreement, the treaty will be between Canada, the EU, Belgium, Luxembourg, etc. etc. etc.
Every country - and the EU itself - is party to the Treaty. For this reason, all trade agreements are subject to unanimity, and this is why the Netherlands was able to scupper a trade deal with the Ukraine.
However, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, the relationship between the EU and a departing state is decided by QMV. It would come into force as soon as the EU and the departing signed it, and not when all the individual countries (as they must inevitably do) ratify it.
That's not quite right. The Lisbon Treaty provides for the EU to have competence in agreeing trade deals by QMV (EU Parliamentary approval is also required). However, this is subject to some exceptions which require unanimity across all the countries:
However, there are instances for which unanimity is required, all 28 Member States have to agree (vote yes or no).
For the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in trade in services, the commercial aspects of intellectual property, and foreign direct investment, the Council has to vote unanimously, if the measures included (for example) limit the free movement of capital to and from third countries or regulate certain forms of indirect taxation.
The Council must also act unanimously if the decision to open the negotiations concerns: - trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where the agreement risks prejudicing the Union's cultural and linguistic diversity; - trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them.
If the agreement contains any of the aspects which require unanimity (ie. cultural and audiovisual services), the Council will have to vote by unanimity for the entire agreement.
In practice, any EU-UK deal will (probably) require unanamity, unless we go for something which deliberately excludes those areas which would require unanimity. This is a certainly a difficult point in the negotiations, and one reason why there is a danger that we might crash out with no deal even if it is in the interests of both sides.
You are right that we should try to slip as much into the Article 50 deal as possible, but I don't think that is likely to succeed. Article 50 is about the modalities of leaving, not the replacement deal.
The referendum was a (quite close) vote to leave the EU. It didn't decide what sort of Brexit we should have. Are we supposed to accept whatever the 3 Brexiteers Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson, come up without a vote in Parliament? Take back control - vote in Parliament!
Yes, exactly, it was a vote to leave the EU. We leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Legally, what are the prospects for leaving without triggering Article 50? Could we instead negotiate a deal via a treaty? Handing control of the timetable to the EU is burning our best card.
Obviously the EU might not be terribly keen to go down this route, and it looks like a moot point anyway given the briefings emanating from No 10.
Article 50 comes with an "Exit Agreement" which has to be agreed within two years unless there is a unanimous wish for extension. The Exit Agreement is agreed by Qualified Majority Voting in the European Council (ie heads of of government). The Agreement is then accepted or rejected in its entirety by the European Parliament. Then, with or without agreement we leave. What can be included in the Exit Agreement is vague.
Any other arrangements will have to be agreed by Treaty, which goes on a round robin of Commission (the bureaucrats led by Mr Juncker), Parliament then Commission. probably several passes. This can take years. Once it is agreed by those bodies, it then has to be written into national law in 30 or so parliaments (some countries have more than one parliament). Each of those parliaments have an effective veto and the whole ratification process takes a further couple of years.
The more we can get into the Exit Agreement, the better for us. There isn't a lot of time, so we are looking at either minimal change or minimal agreement, in my view.
There is a belief that Art 50 can be modified by unanimous agreement at the outset to create more time to secure Customs regulations into UK law and maintain the other mutual recognition issues etc.
There is also a belief (well, I believe) that the Conservatives would suffer greatly at the hands of UKIP if by the time of the May 2017 local elections they have failed to trigger article 50 to a timetable that would ensure that we would have left within two years. An electoral bonus of leaving by 2019 is just before 2020 there would be a significant fiscal bonus available to the government for pre-election largesse as a consequence of endng the UK's contributions to the EU budget.
So for political reasons, the act of trying to extend the timescale at the outset seems to be a non-starter for the UK government. And besides, it would require all 27 other EU countries to play ball.
On polls, The Telegraph cites a 400,000 strong survey by CNBC that showed voters thought Trump won.
That can't be a proper survey. No way you get 400,000 people doing the equivalent of a YouGov.
What's the American equivalent of the BPC?
I don't see pollsters publishing much except sample sizes, and some of them are rediculously small for day-to-day state polls. No data tables, weighting adjustments etc etc.
400,000 must surely be a voodoo poll, a proper sample of that size would cost millions to organise.
I'm with you, Morris. I don't believe that Mrs May has the guts, the willpower, and the negotiating skills to take Britain out of the EU in a full Brexit. She has promised that negotiations will start in earnest in January 2017, why wait 'til then? The clue is that she has no idea what to do after article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is proclaimed.
I am sure Mrs May has many ideas what to do but she has yet to decide which is feasible and, more importantly, which is acceptable to the British public.
On polls, The Telegraph cites a 400,000 strong survey by CNBC that showed voters thought Trump won.
That can't be a proper survey. No way you get 400,000 people doing the equivalent of a YouGov.
What's the American equivalent of the BPC?
I don't see pollsters publishing much except sample sizes, and some of them are rediculously small for day-to-day state polls.
400,000 must surely be a voodoo poll, a proper sample of that size would cost millions to organise.
I have to say, I know little about US polling, but it does seem absolutely all over the place. Masses of different organisations, some with tiny samples, little idea of methodology etc etc etc.
From Labour List: " Today’s package of rule changes has been voted through by delegates, cheering the Corbynsceptic elements in the party. Kezia Dugdale has announced that she personally will take up the place reserved on the NEC for Scottish Labour."
Probably the most significant decision that the conference will take this week.
here's a pretty good chance the Euro, if not the EU itself, goes pop with it.
Depends what is meant by 'goes pop'. Deutsche has the option of raising money by soaking its investors. Not nice for them, but as Matthew Lynn points out in the telly today, the politics of intervention are horrendous for Merkel.
I wouldn't like to be the lawyer drafting the prospectus for that capital-raising.
RBS soaked its investors in spring 2008. A fat lot of good it did them or it. Hoping the problem will go away which appears to be the German government's current stance (though I imagine more must be happening behind the scenes unless they have collectively gone batshit insane) is the road to ruin........
That's not quite right. The Lisbon Treaty provides for the EU to have competence in agreeing trade deals by QMV (EU Parliamentary approval is also required). However, this is subject to some exceptions which require unanimity across all the countries:
However, there are instances for which unanimity is required, all 28 Member States have to agree (vote yes or no).
For the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in trade in services, the commercial aspects of intellectual property, and foreign direct investment, the Council has to vote unanimously, if the measures included (for example) limit the free movement of capital to and from third countries or regulate certain forms of indirect taxation.
The Council must also act unanimously if the decision to open the negotiations concerns: - trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where the agreement risks prejudicing the Union's cultural and linguistic diversity; - trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them.
If the agreement contains any of the aspects which require unanimity (ie. cultural and audiovisual services), the Council will have to vote by unanimity for the entire agreement.
In practice, any EU-UK deal will (probably) require unanamity, unless we go for something which deliberately excludes those areas which would require unanimity. This is a certainly a difficult point in the negotiations, and one reason why there is a danger that we might crash out with no deal even if it is in the interests of both sides.
You are right that we should try to slip as much into the Article 50 deal as possible, but I don't think that is likely to succeed. Article 50 is about the modalities of leaving, not the replacement deal.
National parliaments have to ratify a previously agreed treaty into their law before it can be activated at the EU level. Sometimes parliaments or presidents baulk at that.
On polls, The Telegraph cites a 400,000 strong survey by CNBC that showed voters thought Trump won.
That can't be a proper survey. No way you get 400,000 people doing the equivalent of a YouGov.
What's the American equivalent of the BPC?
I don't see pollsters publishing much except sample sizes, and some of them are rediculously small for day-to-day state polls. No data tables, weighting adjustments etc etc.
400,000 must surely be a voodoo poll, a proper sample of that size would cost millions to organise.
I've read that by the end of the election campaign Clinton will have spent 9 figures on polling. he OBama 2012 campagn did a 5000-10000 person poll every week per battleground state for 3 months before the election
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
As part of the plans, a new.
However, lawyers now say that the Brexit vote has cast doubt on whether the UK can host the new court, or even sign up to the unitary principal after it leaves the EU.
The system involves accepting EU law and rulings from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg which may be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
Only halfwits thought Brexit would be cost-free. London will lose other EU offices, as well.
Equally, only halfwits believe Brexit will be entirely negative.
We left because we didn't want to be subject to the oppressive yoke of the European Union and its sovereignty-busting institutions. Such as the ECJ. And yet, here are we worrying that the opportunity to be subject to the ECJ, might be taken away from us.
Oh, but we can choose to be subject to the ECJ if we want to be and it will be our sovereign will to do so. Which is entirely different of course from being a member of a voluntary organisation wherein we are, er, subject to the ECJ.
At the moment the ECJ is wholly or partly sovereign over us, when it comes to:
customs union competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy commercial policy social policy economic, social and territorial cohesion agriculture environment consumer protection transport trans-European networks energy security and justice shared safety concerns in public health matters, limited to the aspects defined in the TFEU; research, technological development, space; development cooperation and humanitarian aid. And sport.
Getting out from under this horrible monster will take time, and won't be pretty. We may indeed remain subject to the ECJ when it comes to the single market. That will be it.
Otherwise, we will have our Freedom.
1.
"We may indeed remain subject to the ECJ when it comes to the single market. That will be it."
Nigel Pearson...never been in any bother before....
Leicester City boss Nigel Pearson appears to put his hands around the throat of Crystal Palace midfielder James McArthur after the midfielder 'said something' to him
When I were a lad, the binmen used to come round the back of the house every week to collect the dustbins. None of this wheeled nonsense. No fortnightly, or three-weekly or monthly collections. Every week.
.@TheEconomist literally asks us to judge male candidate on substance and female candidate on looks. #youseriousbro #debatenight https://t.co/RyKowhTa2l
The Economist We have deleted a misjudged Twitter poll on the candidates’ performance in last night’s presidential debate
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
As part of the plans, a new Unifie
However, lawyers now say that the Brexit vote has cast doubt on whether the UK can host the new court, or even sign up to the unitary principal after it leaves the EU.
The system involves accepting EU law and rulings from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg which may be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
Only halfwits thought Brexit would be cost-free. London will lose other EU offices, as well.
Equally, only halfwits believe Brexit will be entirely negative.
We left because we didn't want to be subject to the oppressive yoke of the European Union and its sovereignty-busting institutions. Such as the ECJ. And yet, here are we worrying that the opportunity to be subject to the ECJ, might be taken away from us.
Oh, but we can choose to be subject to the ECJ if we want to be and it will be our sovereign will to do so. Which is entirely different of course from being a member of a voluntary organisation wherein we are, er, subject to the ECJ.
At the moment the ECJ is wholly or partly sovereign over us, when it comes to:
customs union competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy commercial policy social policy economic, social and territorial cohesion agriculture environment consumer protection transport trans-European networks energy security and justice shared safety concerns in public health matters, limited to the aspects defined in the TFEU; research, technological development, space; development cooperation and humanitarian aid. And sport.
Getting out from under this horrible monster will take time, and won't be pretty. We may indeed remain subject to the ECJ when it comes to the single market. That will be it.
On Anglesey, there is no excuse for not having a fortnightly bin collection.
Three weeks is simply too long - what other chief executive pay and services haven't they cut to get into that ridiculous state of affairs.
We have had three weekly bin collections for a year now in Gwynedd. There is a further problem in that about half of the homes in our seaside village are second homes, such that the place resembles Wolverhampton-on-Sea in the summer. (I jest not, until a few years ago there was even a Welsh coast edition of the Express and Star). So it's quite common for the general waste to go six or nine weeks before someone is around to put it out on collection day.
This particular "gentleman" is also the successor to Corbyn as head of the Far Left, faux pacifist "Stop the War Coalition." a member of the Communist Party of Britain, and an apologist for both Stalin and the Kim regime in North Korea. The kind of revolting bastard who escapes practically all scrutiny on account of being Far Left, yet whose existence would be front page news if he were a Far Right henchman to Theresa May.
I have absolutely no doubt that he would turn the Morning Star into Britain's Pravda, and have the rest of the press purged of wrong thinkers or shut down by force, if given half a chance. Marxists and Nazis are two sides of the same coin, and the fact that the trades union movement has harboured and nurtured him for decades is one good reason not to mourn its continuing decline.
I'm with you, Morris. I don't believe that Mrs May has the guts, the willpower, and the negotiating skills to take Britain out of the EU in a full Brexit. She has promised that negotiations will start in earnest in January 2017, why wait 'til then? The clue is that she has no idea what to do after article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is proclaimed.
I am sure Mrs May has many ideas what to do but she has yet to decide which is feasible and, more importantly, which is acceptable to the British public.
I am a committed Brexiteer but my worry is that those wanting a hard Brexit will find that they are a considerable minority in the public. Theresa May will be aware of this and I am confident she will negotiate a way through that will receive the approval of the majority of the public and it may well not be a hard exit
I'm with you, Morris. I don't believe that Mrs May has the guts, the willpower, and the negotiating skills to take Britain out of the EU in a full Brexit. She has promised that negotiations will start in earnest in January 2017, why wait 'til then? The clue is that she has no idea what to do after article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is proclaimed.
I am sure Mrs May has many ideas what to do but she has yet to decide which is feasible and, more importantly, which is acceptable to the British public.
I am a committed Brexiteer but my worry is that those wanting a hard Brexit will find that they are a considerable minority in the public. Theresa May will be aware of this and I am confident she will negotiate a way through that will receive the approval of the majority of the public and it may well not be a hard exit
Thing is, with no running commentary, how on earth does she know what the hell the public wants?
I'm with you, Morris. I don't believe that Mrs May has the guts, the willpower, and the negotiating skills to take Britain out of the EU in a full Brexit. She has promised that negotiations will start in earnest in January 2017, why wait 'til then? The clue is that she has no idea what to do after article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is proclaimed.
I am sure Mrs May has many ideas what to do but she has yet to decide which is feasible and, more importantly, which is acceptable to the British public.
I am a committed Brexiteer but my worry is that those wanting a hard Brexit will find that they are a considerable minority in the public. Theresa May will be aware of this and I am confident she will negotiate a way through that will receive the approval of the majority of the public and it may well not be a hard exit
Thing is, with no running commentary, how on earth does she know what the hell the public wants?
Like all governments, the people leaning on her the heaviest won't be the ordinary public.
When I were a lad, the binmen used to come round the back of the house every week to collect the dustbins. None of this wheeled nonsense. No fortnightly, or three-weekly or monthly collections. Every week.
Yes but things have moved on. Conwy has been a success in recycling with wheeled triple trolley blocks for newspaper, plastic, and glass and cardboard with separate food waste which are all collected weekly. Additionally garden rubbish is collected fortnightly. It does work for most and the local press do not have many objections. It is just a matter of getting used to it.
I'm with you, Morris. I don't believe that Mrs May has the guts, the willpower, and the negotiating skills to take Britain out of the EU in a full Brexit. She has promised that negotiations will start in earnest in January 2017, why wait 'til then? The clue is that she has no idea what to do after article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is proclaimed.
I am sure Mrs May has many ideas what to do but she has yet to decide which is feasible and, more importantly, which is acceptable to the British public.
I am a committed Brexiteer but my worry is that those wanting a hard Brexit will find that they are a considerable minority in the public. Theresa May will be aware of this and I am confident she will negotiate a way through that will receive the approval of the majority of the public and it may well not be a hard exit
Thing is, with no running commentary, how on earth does she know what the hell the public wants?
The issue, I think, is that Leavers think Brexit is done and dusted with the vote and don't see why there is any debate or shilly shallying. While Remainers are pissed off by the whole exercise and aren't engaging at all. Brexit doesn't resolve anything, which is what makes it interesting, although I think it was a mistake
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
As part of the plans, a new.
However, ay be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
Only halfwits thought Brexit would be cost-free. London will lose other EU offices, as well.
Equally, only halfwits believe Brexit will be entirely negative.
We left because we didn't want to be subject to the oppressive yoke of the European Union and its sovereignty-busting institutions. Such as the ECJ. And yet, here are we worrying that the opportunity to be subject to the ECJ, might be taken away from us.
Oh, but we can choose to be subject to the ECJ if we want to be and it will be our sovereign will to do so. Which is entirely different of course from being a member of a voluntary organisation wherein we are, er, subject to the ECJ.
At the moment the ECJ is wholly or partly sovereign over us, when it comes to:
customs union competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy commercial policy social policy economic, social and territorial cohesion agriculture environment consumer protection transport trans-European networks energy security and justice shared safety concerns in public health matters, limited to the aspects defined in the TFEU; research, technological development, space; development cooperation and humanitarian aid. And sport.
Getting out from under this horrible monster will take time, and won't be pretty. We may indeed remain subject to the ECJ when it comes to the single market. That will be it.
Otherwise, we will have our Freedom.
1.
"We may indeed remain subject to the ECJ when it comes to the single market. That will be it."
LOL
Hard Brexit it is then, and the ECJ is banished forever from our fair shores.
You see, even someone as insightful and intelligent as you has flipped from staying in the single market to hard Brexit within five posts.
Had Remain just edged the advisory referendum I'm sure all our embittered remainers would have welcomed a democratic debate and vote in parliament on the sort of "soft" or "hard" remain we wanted.
I'm with you, Morris. I don't believe that Mrs May has the guts, the willpower, and the negotiating skills to take Britain out of the EU in a full Brexit. She has promised that negotiations will start in earnest in January 2017, why wait 'til then? The clue is that she has no idea what to do after article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is proclaimed.
I am sure Mrs May has many ideas what to do but she has yet to decide which is feasible and, more importantly, which is acceptable to the British public.
I am a committed Brexiteer but my worry is that those wanting a hard Brexit will find that they are a considerable minority in the public. Theresa May will be aware of this and I am confident she will negotiate a way through that will receive the approval of the majority of the public and it may well not be a hard exit
Thing is, with no running commentary, how on earth does she know what the hell the public wants?
Do the public know what the public want. She is Prime Minister and it is her job to achieve the best deal and one that receives wide approval. It is a huge responsibility and will make or break her
'last night’s debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton drew a 46.2 overnight TV rating with a 63 share. That is 17% higher than the Mitt Romney and Barack Obama debate in 2012 pulled'
That's basically Superbowl numbers. BIG stage for Trump to have failed on
Yes it's amazing how easily the EEA/EFTA once sensible Brexiteers like Sean have come to accept the extreme option. A nonsense situation, given that there is no majority for such an outcome: Remain + EEA Leave = 55-60% majority I should guess.
Yes it's amazing how easily the EEA/EFTA once sensible Brexiteers like Sean have come to accept the extreme option. A nonsense situation, given that there is no majority for such an outcome: Remain + EEA Leave = 55-60% majority I should guess.
You could just as easily say that Leave + EEA Remain = 60-65% majority I should guess.
Mr Corbyn was also asked whether he would continue with UK air strikes against so-called Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq. The Labour leader opposed both interventions and is a former chairman of the Stop the War Coalition.
"I am not sure it's working," he said.
"I think there has to be a political solution, which brings together everyone with the exception of IS to isolate them."
The referendum was won off the back of whipping up fears about uncontrolled immigration. Disgraceful as that strategy was, any version of Brexit that does not address that will be failing to respect the referendum outcome.
So we can forget EEA Brexit. We are heading for a form of Brexit that will be going firm to hard. In practice I'm doubtful whether meaningful agreement will be reached in the time available on anything that goes much beyond basic functions. There is probably too much incoherence, lack of agreed strategy and incompetence on both sides of the negotiation to get a good result.
Yes it's amazing how easily the EEA/EFTA once sensible Brexiteers like Sean have come to accept the extreme option. A nonsense situation, given that there is no majority for such an outcome: Remain + EEA Leave = 55-60% majority I should guess.
Very tasty at the tentacle end; a bit tough higher up. The suckers were crispy.
Proper Galician polbo in paprika is one of the peak experiences of world gastronomy. I have eaten it in the shadow of Santiago cathedral. Sublime.
What wine did you have with it, Mr T? I bet you went for something expensive...
I'd presume something big and red. Or, to pick on it being seafood, a salty white. Verdejo.
We were on La Gomera. Wasn’t tremendously impressed by the cuisine generally, although we did have some excellent garlic prawns. When we go back ..... it was, overall, worth it, ...... we'll be going back to the place where we had those.
The referendum was won off the back of whipping up fears about uncontrolled immigration. Disgraceful as that strategy was, any version of Brexit that does not address that will be failing to respect the referendum outcome.
So we can forget EEA Brexit. We are heading for a form of Brexit that will be going firm to hard. In practice I'm doubtful whether meaningful agreement will be reached in the time available on anything that goes much beyond basic functions. There is probably too much incoherence, lack of agreed strategy and incompetence on both sides of the negotiation to get a good result.
Dont you mean the referendum was lost off the back of whipping up irrational fears of penury and revenge by vindictive neighbours ?
Yes it's amazing how easily the EEA/EFTA once sensible Brexiteers like Sean have come to accept the extreme option. A nonsense situation, given that there is no majority for such an outcome: Remain + EEA Leave = 55-60% majority I should guess.
Ashcroft's polling showed a clear majority prioritised controlling migration over single market access on a forced choice, though most voters want a free trade deal too
@Alanbrooke The means by which the referendum was lost are irrelevant for determining how the country proceeds going forward. If you want to keep refighting the last war, however, go ahead (the Leavers were extremely keen to keep referencing World War Two throughout the referendum campaign so perhaps this is only to be expected).
@Alanbrooke The means by which the referendum was lost are irrelevant for determining how the country proceeds going forward. If you want to keep refighting the last war, however, go ahead (the Leavers were extremely keen to keep referencing World War Two throughout the referendum campaign so perhaps this is only to be expected).
@Alanbrooke The means by which the referendum was lost are irrelevant for determining how the country proceeds going forward. If you want to keep refighting the last war, however, go ahead (the Leavers were extremely keen to keep referencing World War Two throughout the referendum campaign so perhaps this is only to be expected).
Can't recall WW2 being mentioned apart from Boris' ill-advised comment. Hardly extremely keen.
Nigel Pearson suspended this afternoon as Derby County's manager ahead of their game this evening away to Cardiff. N.B. "suspended" not sacked which is unusual in itself ..... hmm.
The referendum was won off the back of whipping up fears about uncontrolled immigration. Disgraceful as that strategy was, any version of Brexit that does not address that will be failing to respect the referendum outcome.
So we can forget EEA Brexit. We are heading for a form of Brexit that will be going firm to hard. In practice I'm doubtful whether meaningful agreement will be reached in the time available on anything that goes much beyond basic functions. There is probably too much incoherence, lack of agreed strategy and incompetence on both sides of the negotiation to get a good result.
But immigration wasn't on the ballot, and we are constantly assured by Leavers that immigration wasn't the main reason for Brexit.
@Alanbrooke The means by which the referendum was lost are irrelevant for determining how the country proceeds going forward. If you want to keep refighting the last war, however, go ahead (the Leavers were extremely keen to keep referencing World War Two throughout the referendum campaign so perhaps this is only to be expected).
chortle
Ive moved on from the last war quite some time ago, I'm more interested in winning the peace. You appear to be trapped by events in June since you cant understand why your compatriots rejected your point of view.
The referendum was won off the back of whipping up fears about uncontrolled immigration. Disgraceful as that strategy was, any version of Brexit that does not address that will be failing to respect the referendum outcome.
So we can forget EEA Brexit. We are heading for a form of Brexit that will be going firm to hard. In practice I'm doubtful whether meaningful agreement will be reached in the time available on anything that goes much beyond basic functions. There is probably too much incoherence, lack of agreed strategy and incompetence on both sides of the negotiation to get a good result.
Dont you mean the referendum was lost off the back of whipping up irrational fears of penury and revenge by vindictive neighbours ?
If Remain had won, that would be a legitimate grievance, but as Leave did win it is their claims, promises and lies that are rightly in the spotlight.
The referendum was won off the back of whipping up fears about uncontrolled immigration. Disgraceful as that strategy was, any version of Brexit that does not address that will be failing to respect the referendum outcome.
So we can forget EEA Brexit. We are heading for a form of Brexit that will be going firm to hard. In practice I'm doubtful whether meaningful agreement will be reached in the time available on anything that goes much beyond basic functions. There is probably too much incoherence, lack of agreed strategy and incompetence on both sides of the negotiation to get a good result.
But immigration wasn't on the ballot, and we are constantly assured by Leavers that immigration wasn't the main reason for Brexit.
Who said that? I'm pretty sure it was the main reason for voting leave, which I think is supported by polling evidence.
Nigel Pearson suspended this afternoon as Derby County's manager ahead of their game this evening away to Cardiff. N.B. "suspended" not sacked which is unusual in itself ..... hmm.
What chance his mug's on the front page of the Telegraph tomorrow - published just as tonight's match finishes?
The referendum was won off the back of whipping up fears about uncontrolled immigration. Disgraceful as that strategy was, any version of Brexit that does not address that will be failing to respect the referendum outcome.
So we can forget EEA Brexit. We are heading for a form of Brexit that will be going firm to hard. In practice I'm doubtful whether meaningful agreement will be reached in the time available on anything that goes much beyond basic functions. There is probably too much incoherence, lack of agreed strategy and incompetence on both sides of the negotiation to get a good result.
Dont you mean the referendum was lost off the back of whipping up irrational fears of penury and revenge by vindictive neighbours ?
If Remain had won, that would be a legitimate grievance, but as Leave did win it is their claims, promises and lies that are rightly in the spotlight.
Very tasty at the tentacle end; a bit tough higher up. The suckers were crispy.
Proper Galician polbo in paprika is one of the peak experiences of world gastronomy. I have eaten it in the shadow of Santiago cathedral. Sublime.
What wine did you have with it, Mr T? I bet you went for something expensive...
I'd presume something big and red. Or, to pick on it being seafood, a salty white. Verdejo.
We were on La Gomera. Wasn’t tremendously impressed by the cuisine generally, although we did have some excellent garlic prawns. When we go back ..... it was, overall, worth it, ...... we'll be going back to the place where we had those.
Did you hear them "speak" the whistling language on La Gomera?
I heard it once, in a remote valley. Spine-tingling.
The referendum was won off the back of whipping up fears about uncontrolled immigration. Disgraceful as that strategy was, any version of Brexit that does not address that will be failing to respect the referendum outcome.
So we can forget EEA Brexit. We are heading for a form of Brexit that will be going firm to hard. In practice I'm doubtful whether meaningful agreement will be reached in the time available on anything that goes much beyond basic functions. There is probably too much incoherence, lack of agreed strategy and incompetence on both sides of the negotiation to get a good result.
Dont you mean the referendum was lost off the back of whipping up irrational fears of penury and revenge by vindictive neighbours ?
If Remain had won, that would be a legitimate grievance, but as Leave did win it is their claims, promises and lies that are rightly in the spotlight.
ah right so the thicky voters were duped ?
I think youll find there was a wide spectrum of reasons why people voted out, it's one of the reasons Remainers are struggling to pinpont "the reason". Fact is there isnt one, there are many.
Very tasty at the tentacle end; a bit tough higher up. The suckers were crispy.
Proper Galician polbo in paprika is one of the peak experiences of world gastronomy. I have eaten it in the shadow of Santiago cathedral. Sublime.
What wine did you have with it, Mr T? I bet you went for something expensive...
I'd presume something big and red. Or, to pick on it being seafood, a salty white. Verdejo.
We were on La Gomera. Wasn’t tremendously impressed by the cuisine generally, although we did have some excellent garlic prawns. When we go back ..... it was, overall, worth it, ...... we'll be going back to the place where we had those.
Did you hear them "speak" the whistling language on La Gomera?
I heard it once, in a remote valley. Spine-tingling.
The Brexit spoils are already being fought over. I read that Milan is putting in a bid for the patent court that London was due to get when the European Patent is established.
Why? The European Patent Convention is not an EU institution and Britain will remain part of it after Brexit.
As part of the plans, a new.
However, ay be unpalatable for Brexit-supporting politicians.
Only halfwits thought Brexit would be cost-free. London will lose other EU offices, as well.
Equally, only halfwits believe Brexit will be entirely negative.
We left because we didn't want to be subject to the oppressive yoke of the European Union and its sovereignty-busting institutions. Such as the ECJ. And yet, here are we worrying that the opportunity to be subject to the ECJ, might be taken away from us.
Oh, but we can choose to be subject to the ECJ if we want to be and it will be our sovereign will to do so. Which is entirely different of course from being a member of a voluntary organisation wherein we are, er, subject to the ECJ.
At the moment the ECJ is wholly or partly sovereign over us, when it comes to:
1.
"We may indeed remain subject to the ECJ when it comes to the single market. That will be it."
LOL
Hard Brexit it is then, and the ECJ is banished forever from our fair shores.
You see, even someone as insightful and intelligent as you has flipped from staying in the single market to hard Brexit within five posts.
What chance the British People?
.
A good holding position would be something like the EEA, where we would still have to enact a fair chunk of EU law, for now. From there we would plot our escape route, over time.
I think that is the main reason that EFTA/EEA will not want us in. We would not be seen as wanting permanant membership, just passing through.
The referendum was won off the back of whipping up fears about uncontrolled immigration. Disgraceful as that strategy was, any version of Brexit that does not address that will be failing to respect the referendum outcome.
So we can forget EEA Brexit. We are heading for a form of Brexit that will be going firm to hard. In practice I'm doubtful whether meaningful agreement will be reached in the time available on anything that goes much beyond basic functions. There is probably too much incoherence, lack of agreed strategy and incompetence on both sides of the negotiation to get a good result.
But immigration wasn't on the ballot, and we are constantly assured by Leavers that immigration wasn't the main reason for Brexit.
No, we are told by polling that immigration wasn't the main reason for Brexit.
And all this fine tuning about the motives for brexit misses the point. The question is as simple as it looks: in or out?
Consider a refendum on whether there should be eggs or porridge for breakfast, where the vote is for eggs. Neither the fact that voters were told that porridge causes cancer, nor the fact that some hoped for boiled eggs and others for scrambled, makes any odds. Eggs of any kind conform to the outcome of the referendum.
We seem to be getting some revisionism about the influence of immigration on the referendum result. A couple of tweets from Matthew Goodwin on this are worth noting:
The referendum was won off the back of whipping up fears about uncontrolled immigration. Disgraceful as that strategy was, any version of Brexit that does not address that will be failing to respect the referendum outcome.
So we can forget EEA Brexit. We are heading for a form of Brexit that will be going firm to hard. In practice I'm doubtful whether meaningful agreement will be reached in the time available on anything that goes much beyond basic functions. There is probably too much incoherence, lack of agreed strategy and incompetence on both sides of the negotiation to get a good result.
Dont you mean the referendum was lost off the back of whipping up irrational fears of penury and revenge by vindictive neighbours ?
If Remain had won, that would be a legitimate grievance, but as Leave did win it is their claims, promises and lies that are rightly in the spotlight.
ah right so the thicky voters were duped ?
I think youll find there was a wide spectrum of reasons why people voted out, it's one of the reasons Remainers are struggling to pinpont "the reason". Fact is there isnt one, there are many.
There were multiple motivations to vote either Leave or Remain. No single reason on either side.
My point is that Leave has to deliver, and so far it has delivered nothing, not even Article 50.
We seem to be getting some revisionism about the influence of immigration on the referendum result. A couple of tweets from Matthew Goodwin on this are worth noting:
Very tasty at the tentacle end; a bit tough higher up. The suckers were crispy.
Proper Galician polbo in paprika is one of the peak experiences of world gastronomy. I have eaten it in the shadow of Santiago cathedral. Sublime.
What wine did you have with it, Mr T? I bet you went for something expensive...
I'd presume something big and red. Or, to pick on it being seafood, a salty white. Verdejo.
We were on La Gomera. Wasn’t tremendously impressed by the cuisine generally, although we did have some excellent garlic prawns. When we go back ..... it was, overall, worth it, ...... we'll be going back to the place where we had those.
Did you hear them "speak" the whistling language on La Gomera?
I heard it once, in a remote valley. Spine-tingling.
So that's where the Clangers originally came from!
I wonder if it is!
It was a marvellous moment. A really remote part of the island. We were having a cerveza. I stepped out for a breath of fresh air, on a clear, warm, starlit night. Gorgeous
Then I heard this incredible "language", echoing down the valley. I love travel.
We had a demo of it. I’d like to hear it used “for real”. Apparently Franco banned it, and it effectively had to be revived after the old b.......d’s death. Now taught in the schools, apparently.
As you say, it’s one of the places where, because there’s no industry the sky’s clear.
The referendum was won off the back of whipping up fears about uncontrolled immigration. Disgraceful as that strategy was, any version of Brexit that does not address that will be failing to respect the referendum outcome.
So we can forget EEA Brexit. We are heading for a form of Brexit that will be going firm to hard. In practice I'm doubtful whether meaningful agreement will be reached in the time available on anything that goes much beyond basic functions. There is probably too much incoherence, lack of agreed strategy and incompetence on both sides of the negotiation to get a good result.
Dont you mean the referendum was lost off the back of whipping up irrational fears of penury and revenge by vindictive neighbours ?
If Remain had won, that would be a legitimate grievance, but as Leave did win it is their claims, promises and lies that are rightly in the spotlight.
ah right so the thicky voters were duped ?
I think youll find there was a wide spectrum of reasons why people voted out, it's one of the reasons Remainers are struggling to pinpont "the reason". Fact is there isnt one, there are many.
There were multiple motivations to vote either Leave or Remain. No single reason on either side.
My point is that Remain has to deliver, and so far it has delivered nothing, not even Article 50.
I think everyone agrees that declaring Article 50 immediately would have been foolish.
The referendum was won off the back of whipping up fears about uncontrolled immigration. Disgraceful as that strategy was, any version of Brexit that does not address that will be failing to respect the referendum outcome.
So we can forget EEA Brexit. We are heading for a form of Brexit that will be going firm to hard. In practice I'm doubtful whether meaningful agreement will be reached in the time available on anything that goes much beyond basic functions. There is probably too much incoherence, lack of agreed strategy and incompetence on both sides of the negotiation to get a good result.
Dont you mean the referendum was lost off the back of whipping up irrational fears of penury and revenge by vindictive neighbours ?
If Remain had won, that would be a legitimate grievance, but as Leave did win it is their claims, promises and lies that are rightly in the spotlight.
ah right so the thicky voters were duped ?
I think youll find there was a wide spectrum of reasons why people voted out, it's one of the reasons Remainers are struggling to pinpont "the reason". Fact is there isnt one, there are many.
There were multiple motivations to vote either Leave or Remain. No single reason on either side.
My point is that Remain has to deliver, and so far it has delivered nothing, not even Article 50.
Do they have the people, the clarity of thought as to what's needed and what they would look like when its finished?
@Tyson also said something interesting on this theme a few threads back:
I posted here during the Brown years that managerialism is fine for Govt, but once out of Govt Labour were going to hit a problem which is now all too evident. I really do not know what Labour moderates are about, and I'm one myself.
I thought that was a very telling point.
Labour "we're good at running things" Public "no, you're not" Labour " .... vote for us, get a microwave?"
For all their flaws, at least Corbyn and McDonnell have gone beyond Axelrod's "free microwave". "Vote for us, get socialism", with a coterie of cheerleading Momentumites keen to ensure that we all get it good and get it hard and get it proper.
Miliband was supposedly clever, but the free microwave was all he could come up with. Perhaps he was clever in a wonky way, not a "Big Ideas" way.
As for Cooper - supposedly one half of a partnership endowed with double super-brain power - surely she could have come up with something? But not in the leadership election, and as far as I can tell, not on the backbenches either.
A good holding position would be something like the EEA, where we would still have to enact a fair chunk of EU law, for now. From there we would plot our escape route, over time.
I think that is the main reason that EFTA/EEA will not want us in. We would not be seen as wanting permanant membership, just passing through.
That's the fudge option. We would pretend that it is only an interim step; they would pretend it was a permanent arrangement. We would pretend to control EU immigration while getting access to the Single Market; they would pretend our arrangement is significantly worse than EU membership and complete Freedom of Movement.
A tricky pretence to line up and I don't see the parties in anything like the frame of mind to go along with it. So I think it will be hard Brexit by default
Comments
Just bear that in mind.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/780656338628145153
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/27/remainers-rejection-of-brexit-is-the-sort-of-bitterness-that-onc/
However, there are instances for which unanimity is required, all 28 Member States have to agree (vote yes or no).
For the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in trade in services, the commercial aspects of intellectual property, and foreign direct investment, the Council has to vote unanimously, if the measures included (for example) limit the free movement of capital to and from third countries or regulate certain forms of indirect taxation.
The Council must also act unanimously if the decision to open the negotiations concerns:
- trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where the agreement risks prejudicing the
Union's cultural and linguistic diversity;
- trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously
disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of
Member States to deliver them.
If the agreement contains any of the aspects which require unanimity (ie. cultural and
audiovisual services), the Council will have to vote by unanimity for the entire agreement.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/CE and T&E Memo on the life cycle of EU international agreements FINAL.pdf
In practice, any EU-UK deal will (probably) require unanamity, unless we go for something which deliberately excludes those areas which would require unanimity. This is a certainly a difficult point in the negotiations, and one reason why there is a danger that we might crash out with no deal even if it is in the interests of both sides.
You are right that we should try to slip as much into the Article 50 deal as possible, but I don't think that is likely to succeed. Article 50 is about the modalities of leaving, not the replacement deal.
So for political reasons, the act of trying to extend the timescale at the outset seems to be a non-starter for the UK government. And besides, it would require all 27 other EU countries to play ball.
Parents will have to show birth certificates to prove eligibility for the new two-weekly scheme on Anglesey.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-37483290
I don't see pollsters publishing much except sample sizes, and some of them are rediculously small for day-to-day state polls. No data tables, weighting adjustments etc etc.
400,000 must surely be a voodoo poll, a proper sample of that size would cost millions to organise.
Three weeks is simply too long - what other chief executive pay and services haven't they cut to get into that ridiculous state of affairs.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/liz-jones-wants-culled-hate-crime/
Claws come out between Melissa Kite and Liz Jones.
" Today’s package of rule changes has been voted through by delegates, cheering the Corbynsceptic elements in the party. Kezia Dugdale has announced that she personally will take up the place reserved on the NEC for Scottish Labour."
Probably the most significant decision that the conference will take this week.
http://tinyurl.com/zw7le96
Trump train.
CHOO CHOO !!
RBS soaked its investors in spring 2008. A fat lot of good it did them or it. Hoping the problem will go away which appears to be the German government's current stance (though I imagine more must be happening behind the scenes unless they have collectively gone batshit insane) is the road to ruin........
"We may indeed remain subject to the ECJ when it comes to the single market.
That will be it."
LOL
Leicester City boss Nigel Pearson appears to put his hands around the throat of Crystal Palace midfielder James McArthur after the midfielder 'said something' to him
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2944027/Leicester-City-boss-Nigel-Pearson-appears-hands-throat-Crystal-Palace-midfielder-James-McArthur.html
When I were a lad, the binmen used to come round the back of the house every week to collect the dustbins. None of this wheeled nonsense. No fortnightly, or three-weekly or monthly collections. Every week.
.@TheEconomist literally asks us to judge male candidate on substance and female candidate on looks. #youseriousbro #debatenight https://t.co/RyKowhTa2l
The Economist
We have deleted a misjudged Twitter poll on the candidates’ performance in last night’s presidential debate
"Otherwise, we will have our freedom."
So apart from that, Mrs Lincoln...
This particular "gentleman" is also the successor to Corbyn as head of the Far Left, faux pacifist "Stop the War Coalition." a member of the Communist Party of Britain, and an apologist for both Stalin and the Kim regime in North Korea. The kind of revolting bastard who escapes practically all scrutiny on account of being Far Left, yet whose existence would be front page news if he were a Far Right henchman to Theresa May.
I have absolutely no doubt that he would turn the Morning Star into Britain's Pravda, and have the rest of the press purged of wrong thinkers or shut down by force, if given half a chance. Marxists and Nazis are two sides of the same coin, and the fact that the trades union movement has harboured and nurtured him for decades is one good reason not to mourn its continuing decline.
Why are the comments disabled
https://twitter.com/Theuniondivvie/status/780798084951539712
What chance the British People?
'last night’s debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton drew a 46.2 overnight TV rating with a 63 share. That is 17% higher than the Mitt Romney and Barack Obama debate in 2012 pulled'
That's basically Superbowl numbers. BIG stage for Trump to have failed on
Wow. You create a lot of rubbish Mr Meeks.
:-)
True but isn;t that what the BIS driven 'shock absorber' capital is supposed to do MS Free? make investors bear losses as opposed to tax payers?
Yes it's amazing how easily the EEA/EFTA once sensible Brexiteers like Sean have come to accept the extreme option. A nonsense situation, given that there is no majority for such an outcome: Remain + EEA Leave = 55-60% majority I should guess.
Face it you lost.
"I am not sure it's working," he said.
"I think there has to be a political solution, which brings together everyone with the exception of IS to isolate them."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37487312
So he's ok talking to AQ and Al-Nusra Front then? I bet ISIS will be heartbroken not to be invited to the talks.
So we can forget EEA Brexit. We are heading for a form of Brexit that will be going firm to hard. In practice I'm doubtful whether meaningful agreement will be reached in the time available on anything that goes much beyond basic functions. There is probably too much incoherence, lack of agreed strategy and incompetence on both sides of the negotiation to get a good result.
LEAVE 48%
REMAIN 48%
Ive moved on from the last war quite some time ago, I'm more interested in winning the peace.
You appear to be trapped by events in June since you cant understand why your compatriots rejected your point of view.
Restrictions on national parliaments is a feature not a bug of the EU.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3430870/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-speak-England.html
https://inforrm.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/sun-dads-army.jpg
I think youll find there was a wide spectrum of reasons why people voted out, it's one of the reasons Remainers are struggling to pinpont "the reason". Fact is there isnt one, there are many.
Wonderful. Sounds just like the Clangers.
And all this fine tuning about the motives for brexit misses the point. The question is as simple as it looks: in or out?
Consider a refendum on whether there should be eggs or porridge for breakfast, where the vote is for eggs. Neither the fact that voters were told that porridge causes cancer, nor the fact that some hoped for boiled eggs and others for scrambled, makes any odds. Eggs of any kind conform to the outcome of the referendum.
Sad.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/778538760677969920
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/777614854777626629
My point is that Leave has to deliver, and so far it has delivered nothing, not even Article 50.
Pincipally from yourself
As you say, it’s one of the places where, because there’s no industry the sky’s clear.
You have to let go emotionally doc.
Miliband was supposedly clever, but the free microwave was all he could come up with. Perhaps he was clever in a wonky way, not a "Big Ideas" way.
As for Cooper - supposedly one half of a partnership endowed with double super-brain power - surely she could have come up with something? But not in the leadership election, and as far as I can tell, not on the backbenches either.
A tricky pretence to line up and I don't see the parties in anything like the frame of mind to go along with it. So I think it will be hard Brexit by default