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
At least some of us know the difference between principal and principle.
Incidentally, I find the idea that the way to increase rates of housebuilding is to fine housebuilding companies for having the temerity to buy land to build houses on somewhat unconvincing.
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.
It works both ways.
From an EU technocrats point of view, giving a second chamber for review of single market rules to non-Eurozone members, stripping out "ever closer union" and tweaking benefit rules for the holy grail of free movement (temporarily) were no doubt big moves.
For the UK voter, looking for national parliamentary red cards, more flexibility on fisheries and agriculture, proper, tangible immigration controls, and a mechanism for repatriation of powers to flow back from, as well as toward, the EU it fell very short.
Worth remembering that many UK voters expectations were set by Cameron's 2013 Bloomberg speech, and his 2014 pitch to Tory Conference.
... 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.
I think the Bloomberg speech worked at the time because it made sense, it rang true. Had the EU taken him up on that then that would have been a worthy reform.
What we got was meaningless and would have been meaningless with or without Bloomberg. Maybe he should have said "not good enough" to the proposed reforms and stuck to his guns over Boomberg but its history now.
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.
In the cold light of day, and knowing what you know now, does that seem like a good reason on which to make such an existential choice for the nation's future?
The German elections could have been far worse if Schulz had won as he wanted to punish the UK for Brexit and the rise of the AfD and presence of the FDP in place of the SPD will shift the New German government in a marginally more pro UK position.
As for a transition period that will only occur if the UK agrees to pay the EU and maintain free movement which May has said she will for 2 years post Brexit. However even then 26% of UK voters and 42% of Leave voters will not accept any transition period at all according to the latest yougov and 52% of UK voters want any transition period to last a maximum of 2 years before full Brexit https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/09/27/voting-intention-conservatives-39-labour-43-22-24-/
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.
Even if we started today (which we won't) the country wouldn't be ready for nabka on 29/03/2019 so 'no deal' is an impossibility and she's going to have to eat shit at some point.
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.
What formal protection? Did we win back any of the many vetos we'd lost with Lisbon or before?
Words are all very nice but laws are set by procedures. What formal procedures like changes to voting mechanisms or vetos etc were agreed? Prior agreements like Lisbon included changes to voting mechanisms - what changes happened here formally?
I think the Bloomberg speech worked at the time because it made sense, it rang true. Had the EU taken him up on that then that would have been a worthy reform.
What we got was meaningless and would have been meaningless with or without Bloomberg. Maybe he should have said "not good enough" to the proposed reforms and stuck to his guns over Boomberg but its history now.
There's a lot of rewriting of history going on. What's the one thing people immediately criticised about Dave's deal? No meaningful change to free movement. You will not find this anywhere in the Bloomberg speech as a proposed reform.
... 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.
I disagree quite strongly with this Richard.
Cameron never put our whole EU membership on the line during negotiations, and played hardball, as Tim Shipman has so excellently described in his book "all out war". He was led too much by Heywood and Rogers (particularly Rogers) and folded on several cards before they were even put to the EU.
He could have played a longer game, or waited for the next EU treaty (building up an EU consensus for reform) or had a more diverse negotiation playbook, and advisory playbook.
It is very far from clear the deal was "as good as could be obtained" and I think he could have got a much better one. Even May might have managed to do so.
... 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.
History will be extremely unkind about David Cameron's negotiating abilities. Brussels needed to believe that in the event of inadequate progress, he could have recommended Leave to the British people. They never believed it for one moment - because he told them that he would always be recommending we stay.
... 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.
No, we would only have a veto on ourselves. They could proceed to use QMV for the Eurozone rules but they would not apply to us. Hence why that would have been a huge stride to get that agreed.
... 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.)
To people like you, it's a huge move. To the UK, it was "meh, whatever".
It just goes to show how massively politically apart EU federalists and the average UK voter are, which is, incidentally, the root cause of why we're Leaving.
I think the Bloomberg speech worked at the time because it made sense, it rang true. Had the EU taken him up on that then that would have been a worthy reform.
What we got was meaningless and would have been meaningless with or without Bloomberg. Maybe he should have said "not good enough" to the proposed reforms and stuck to his guns over Boomberg but its history now.
There's a lot of rewriting of history going on. What's the one thing people immediately criticised about Dave's deal? No meaningful change to free movement. You will not find this anywhere in the Bloomberg speech as a proposed reform.
It's what the Faragists complained about, its not what swung me. Leave got 52% not 13% that the Faragists got.
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.
You're sounding like Dave's ultimate fanboy again, a prime political spinner.
No, we would only have a veto on ourselves. They could proceed to use QMV for the Eurozone rules but they would not apply to us. Hence why that would have been a huge stride to get that agreed.
Do you not understand why that would be terrible for the UK? It would mean the Eurozone could, for example, move CCP clearing to the Eurozone even if we had stayed in the EU.
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.
There are undoubtedly some in the Commission who would like to punish the EU, but they are peripheral to the negotiation - that is in the hands of Barnier, representing the EU27. There have been few, if any, indications from the member states that "punishment" is on the agenda. All seem pretty convinced that the UK's departure will, in and of itself, cause us quite enough harm, whatever deal we end up with.
The issue of payments is purely a political one, as are the issues around citizens' rights - both can and probably will be sorted out. The Irish border is a much more complicated, as was noted frequently before the referendum took place. I cannot see a way forward on that. Even if we decide to leave our border open and the EU reciprocate that would put us in breach of WTO rules as it would be potentially discriminatory - unless it is formalised in an agreement. But how do you formalise it in an agreement without significantly, or even completely, eliminating the UK's ability to do FTAs with anyone else?
Boris must be weighing up his options frantically. If he doesn't make a move, the fear must be that Labour defeats tired, hapless Theresa and he'll have to be LOTO against PM Jezza for half a decade or more. But surely Boris will feel that he's the one Tory who could defeat Jezza. What to do?
I think the Bloomberg speech worked at the time because it made sense, it rang true. Had the EU taken him up on that then that would have been a worthy reform.
What we got was meaningless and would have been meaningless with or without Bloomberg. Maybe he should have said "not good enough" to the proposed reforms and stuck to his guns over Boomberg but its history now.
There's a lot of rewriting of history going on. What's the one thing people immediately criticised about Dave's deal? No meaningful change to free movement. You will not find this anywhere in the Bloomberg speech as a proposed reform.
Yes, indeed so. What's more the Bloomberg speech wasn't primarily about demands for a special deal for the UK, it was a very well argued speech about his view of how the EU as a whole should move forward in the long term. Obviously if we had stayed, and the deal had been implemented, we'd now be continuing for the approach he outlined, and from a position of strength as one of the EU's largest and most successful economies.
"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.
I think the Bloomberg speech worked at the time because it made sense, it rang true. Had the EU taken him up on that then that would have been a worthy reform.
What we got was meaningless and would have been meaningless with or without Bloomberg. Maybe he should have said "not good enough" to the proposed reforms and stuck to his guns over Boomberg but its history now.
Indeed. The day of the ‘deal’ was the day that, on here anyway, a lot of Conservative fence-sitters came off the fence. Mostly for Leave, with Mr Nabavi and Mr Eagles being the honourable exceptions.
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.)
Very interesting pair of comments. Thanks for posting them.
... 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.
I disagree quite strongly with this Richard.
Cameron never put our whole EU membership on the line during negotiations, and played hardball, as Tim Shipman has so excellently described in his book "all out war". He was led too much by Heywood and Rogers (particularly Rogers) and folded on several cards before they were even put to the EU.
He could have played a longer game, or waited for the next EU treaty (building up an EU consensus for reform) or had a more diverse negotiation playbook, and advisory playbook.
It is very far from clear the deal was "as good as could be obtained" and I think he could have got a much better one. Even May might have managed to do so.
Agreed. Cameron clearly didn't want to jeopardise future goodwill by playing hardball over the negotiations, so either conceded points before he needed to or didn't even ask in the first place.
But the fundamental error was in the conceptual change between the Bloomberg Speech and his actual negotiating position. Originally, he wanted to reform the EU to make it work better for everyone; by contrast, he ended asking for some special favours for Britain.
That had two consequences. Firstly, it changed the dynamic from one where the other members were potential allies to one where they were opponents; and secondly, it reinforced an impression within Britain that the EU was an alien and malign entity.
Those effects might not have been particularly strong among many (indeed, I doubt many ever rationalised it in such terms at the time), but that's not to say the effect wasn't real all the same.
You're sounding like Dave's ultimate fanboy again, a prime political spinner.
Sad.
He was the best PM, apart from Maggie, of the half-century I've been following politics, so, yes, of course I'm a fan. I'm a fan because he was good, not the other way round.
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.
Equally, nor does it mean we can dismiss it simply because they're saying what you'd expect them to.
Indeed. The day of the ‘deal’ was the day that, on here anyway, a lot of Conservative fence-sitters came off the fence. Mostly for Leave, with Mr Nabavi and Mr Eagles being the honourable exceptions.
To be fair, given the EU stance after we have voted to leave with the exclamations of ever close union is the only solution to unhappiness with the EU within the remaining 27, I don't think he could have got the sort of deal fence sitters would have wanted i.e. guarantee that the UK didn't have to continue along the lines of ever closer union*, some restrictions on freedom of movement etc.
* Cameron at the time tried to sell that is one of the thing he had achieved, but it was some found to be false.
(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
Now, whether that is a reason to leave or not to leave, I'm not 100% sure.
I
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.
Thanks for the kind words (everyone).
That's what they say, you're only one country of 28, and that might even be what they think, but it doesn't mean we were a big player in Europe, and no longer be.
I think there's a level of apathy about Brexit that doesn't reflect its importance to the EU. They have lost 1/6th of their economy, 1/7th of their population, 1/4 of their military capability, their biggest financial centre and their second biggest net fiscal contributor.
This matters.
The UK cannot be equated with Malta, Cyprus, Belgium and Luxembourg. I think there's a level of seriousness about Brexit for the EU that hasn't been recognised yet, and that's going to end up biting them on the bum as well as us.
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.
Well what are they then? Are you saying that they are part of the natural order of things? Supply and demand can act in a natural way, are they the ONLY factor to consider when constructing government policy? In which case you need to explain why they have not delivered rising living standards in the UK for the last decade.
Is that because we have not had enough of the free market? It is certainly an arguable point.
Or maybe we need more action to correct "market failings?"
This is all part of the way the Conservatives will shape out a positive agenda for the country. The Tory Party have not really given these arguments much thought for many years.
Boris must be weighing up his options frantically. If he doesn't make a move, the fear must be that Labour defeats tired, hapless Theresa and he'll have to be LOTO against PM Jezza for half a decade or more. But surely Boris will feel that he's the one Tory who could defeat Jezza. What to do?
Unless May gets a clear lead over Labour she will be gone by the end of the Brexit negotiations in 2019, if not by resignation by a vote of no confidence and I expect she would take the hint and do the former. Boris would then be the likely successor
Boris must be weighing up his options frantically. If he doesn't make a move, the fear must be that Labour defeats tired, hapless Theresa and he'll have to be LOTO against PM Jezza for half a decade or more. But surely Boris will feel that he's the one Tory who could defeat Jezza. What to do?
Strike. Force a leadership election. This would be very good for this site!!
"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.
I think the Bloomberg speech worked at the time because it made sense, it rang true. Had the EU taken him up on that then that would have been a worthy reform.
What we got was meaningless and would have been meaningless with or without Bloomberg. Maybe he should have said "not good enough" to the proposed reforms and stuck to his guns over Boomberg but its history now.
Indeed. The day of the ‘deal’ was the day that, on here anyway, a lot of Conservative fence-sitters came off the fence. Mostly for Leave, with Mr Nabavi and Mr Eagles being the honourable exceptions.
There was a mass of shrieking, shrill nonsense that day, stirred up by the Brexit Ultras who needed to discredit Dave at any cost. That Messrs Nabavi and Eagles kept cool heads amid that onslaught is to their enormous credit.
You're sounding like Dave's ultimate fanboy again, a prime political spinner.
Sad.
He was the best PM, apart from Maggie, of the half-century I've been following politics, so, yes, of course I'm a fan. I'm a fan because he was good, not the other way round.
I am too, but the recognition that the words "ever closer union" didn't apply to the UK was cosmetic. Your post was far too gushing.
It had no bearing on the existing treaties, or creeping competencies of the ECJ, and could be overridden in any future treaty (this was a glorified EU28 aide heads of terms with no legal basis) by any future Government.
We debated it to death from February 2016 onwards and it was, of course, what moved a lot of pb'ers to Leave.
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.
And this is how an election within the next couple of years comes about - the only way to square that circle is to have a "special status" for Northern Ireland staying within the Single Market, possibly even with some kind of Customs checks between NI and the UK mainland - but the DUP will cry bloody murder at that, and possibly withdraw support for the Tories.
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.)
Very interesting pair of comments. Thanks for posting them.
People are arguing about what Cameron's negotiating strategy should have been. That's irrelevant. Our alternatives are maintaining the status quo in some form or the wilderness. I don't feel the starkness of the choice facing us is sinking in. There are hypothetical arrangements that may transpire in the distant future, but they are not being discussed right now, let alone settled.
I am too, but the recognition that the words "ever closer union" didn't apply to the UK was cosmetic. .
It wasn't cosmetic, it was a written agreement with 27 other heads of state. An important step for them to take, as your report on last night's comments implies. The widespread failure in the UK to appreciate the significance of it was simply an example of the UK not understanding the EU.
Boris must be weighing up his options frantically. If he doesn't make a move, the fear must be that Labour defeats tired, hapless Theresa and he'll have to be LOTO against PM Jezza for half a decade or more. But surely Boris will feel that he's the one Tory who could defeat Jezza. What to do?
Unless May gets a clear lead over Labour she will be gone by the end of the Brexit negotiations in 2019, if not by resignation by a vote of no confidence and I expect she would take the hint and do the former. Boris would then be the likely successor
Why are you so confident of that? As far as I know, no sitting PM has been voted out of office by their own MPs - ever. Why would it be different this time?
If May doesn't go voluntarily, then I don't see the Tories replacing her.
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.
I am too, but the recognition that the words "ever closer union" didn't apply to the UK was cosmetic. .
It wasn't cosmetic, it was a written agreement with 27 other heads of state. An important step for them to take, as your report on last night's comments implies. The widespread failure in the UK to appreciate the significance of it was simply an example of the UK not understanding the EU.
Richard, I think you must realise that it is an article of faith that any disobliging comment by (say) Juncker is clear evidence that we were right to vote leave - whereas the Cameron agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on...
Boris must be weighing up his options frantically. If he doesn't make a move, the fear must be that Labour defeats tired, hapless Theresa and he'll have to be LOTO against PM Jezza for half a decade or more. But surely Boris will feel that he's the one Tory who could defeat Jezza. What to do?
Unless May gets a clear lead over Labour she will be gone by the end of the Brexit negotiations in 2019, if not by resignation by a vote of no confidence and I expect she would take the hint and do the former. Boris would then be the likely successor
Why are you so confident of that? As far as I know, no sitting PM has been voted out of office by their own MPs - ever. Why would it be different this time?
If May doesn't go voluntarily, then I don't see the Tories replacing her.
Indeed. Many labour mPS thought Corbyn was leading them to disaster buT going into the election almost all were unwilling to try and do something about it for fear of making it worse. Tories will be the same.
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.
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.
I think the EU's current position is that the whole of the island of Ireland must remain within the customs union, with only the mainland of GB outside of it.
Obviously, this poses problems for the DUP (and for NI) - how does the UK strike trade deals that don't apply to some of its territory, where they are made by another state?
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.
But that ends in 2020, not the silly EU numbers which is what big G was referring to
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.
Richard, I think you must realise that it is an article of faith that any disobliging comment by (say) Juncker is clear evidence that we were right to vote leave - whereas the Cameron agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on...
Sorry, yes, you are right!
Incidentally, I must be the only person in the UK who rather likes Juncker. He seems to have a very sly sense of humour.
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 don't think it's useful to complain of the EU wanting to punish us. It may or not be the case, but we're the ones making the choice to leave. They are bound to take account of that.
The really key statement from Mrs May's Florence speech, in a negative way, was the strapline "Shared challenges". EU members don't agree on too much, but they are as one that Brexit absolutely is the UK's challenge and not one they have any intention of sharing.
People are arguing about what Cameron's negotiating strategy should have been. That's irrelevant. Our alternatives are maintaining the status quo in some form or the wilderness. I don't feel the starkness of the choice facing us is sinking in.
No. The UK is still in almost complete denial about its position. Until recently I thought the choice was either stay in, cliff edge exit or an EEA position either permanently or for a transitional period. But as the time ticks by without any real progress I now think even EEA is probably not achievable.
Richard, I think you must realise that it is an article of faith that any disobliging comment by (say) Juncker is clear evidence that we were right to vote leave - whereas the Cameron agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on...
Sorry, yes, you are right!
Incidentally, I must be the only person in the UK who rather likes Juncker. He seems to have a very sly sense of humour.
Farage quite likes him too, you can tell if you watch his speeches closely.
Richard, I think you must realise that it is an article of faith that any disobliging comment by (say) Juncker is clear evidence that we were right to vote leave - whereas the Cameron agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on...
Sorry, yes, you are right!
Incidentally, I must be the only person in the UK who rather likes Juncker. He seems to have a very sly sense of humour.
Or alternatively, he's a skilled troll just like Trump, but with slightly better manners.
I am too, but the recognition that the words "ever closer union" didn't apply to the UK was cosmetic. .
It wasn't cosmetic, it was a written agreement with 27 other heads of state. An important step for them to take, as your report on last night's comments implies. The widespread failure in the UK to appreciate the significance of it was simply an example of the UK not understanding the EU.
Trust had gone though for some of us. Blair was getting CAP reform supposedly for halving the rebate. We got nothing. On the other hand our politicians in the shape of Blair/Brown promised us a referendum on the Constitution (that Clegg risibly thought wasn't enough because he wanted a real in/out referendum - you couldn't make it up really). We got nothing.
So these, amongst others I'm sure, all went into the mental mix of "do we really believe this?". For me, and it seems many others, it was all the last chance saloon and we wanted something pretty concrete to emerge. It didn't, and Cameron's tactics of going guns blazing insisting it was really just added petrol to the flames of mistrust.
Shame, I was persuadable to that point, but the Rubicon was crossed.
You never know if Macron actually makes progress with some form of a la carte offering, he seemed to be hinting at the other day, my mind might change again. But that is for the far future.
... 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.
Lots of other people understood that as well. It just wasn't good enough
Jeremy Warner: "The shadow chancellor says Labour has already war-gamed for a run on the pound in preparation for election victory. The admission at least has the merit of realism, because a sterling crisis is pretty much guaranteed if even so much as a watered down version of McDonnell’s policy agenda comes to pass."
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.
I think the EU's current position is that the whole of the island of Ireland must remain within the customs union, with only the mainland of GB outside of it.
Obviously, this poses problems for the DUP (and for NI) - how does the UK strike trade deals that don't apply to some of its territory, where they are made by another state?
It can't. Attempting to force the division of a sovereign country is unacceptable. It would undoubtedly be a red line for the DUP but I suspect it probably would be for the Tories as well. Requiring a hard border between Belfast and Stranraer, with customs and passport checks, would, for practical purposes, turn N Ireland into a foreign country to Britain.
I think the Bloomberg speech worked at the time because it made sense, it rang true. Had the EU taken him up on that then that would have been a worthy reform.
What we got was meaningless and would have been meaningless with or without Bloomberg. Maybe he should have said "not good enough" to the proposed reforms and stuck to his guns over Boomberg but its history now.
There's a lot of rewriting of history going on. What's the one thing people immediately criticised about Dave's deal? No meaningful change to free movement. You will not find this anywhere in the Bloomberg speech as a proposed reform.
Yes, indeed so. What's more the Bloomberg speech wasn't primarily about demands for a special deal for the UK, it was a very well argued speech about his view of how the EU as a whole should move forward in the long term. Obviously if we had stayed, and the deal had been implemented, we'd now be continuing for the approach he outlined, and from a position of strength as one of the EU's largest and most successful economies.
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.
And this is how an election within the next couple of years comes about - the only way to square that circle is to have a "special status" for Northern Ireland staying within the Single Market, possibly even with some kind of Customs checks between NI and the UK mainland - but the DUP will cry bloody murder at that, and possibly withdraw support for the Tories.
There is another way, as I've suggested here before. I'll try to write a full piece on it at some point, given the time.
... 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.
I disagree quite strongly with this Richard.
Cameron never put our whole EU membership on the line during negotiations, and played hardball, as Tim Shipman has so excellently described in his book "all out war". He was led too much by Heywood and Rogers (particularly Rogers) and folded on several cards before they were even put to the EU.
He could have played a longer game, or waited for the next EU treaty (building up an EU consensus for reform) or had a more diverse negotiation playbook, and advisory playbook.
It is very far from clear the deal was "as good as could be obtained" and I think he could have got a much better one. Even May might have managed to do so.
Agreed. Cameron clearly didn't want to jeopardise future goodwill by playing hardball over the negotiations, so either conceded points before he needed to or didn't even ask in the first place.
But the fundamental error was in the conceptual change between the Bloomberg Speech and his actual negotiating position. Originally, he wanted to reform the EU to make it work better for everyone; by contrast, he ended asking for some special favours for Britain.
That had two consequences. Firstly, it changed the dynamic from one where the other members were potential allies to one where they were opponents; and secondly, it reinforced an impression within Britain that the EU was an alien and malign entity.
Those effects might not have been particularly strong among many (indeed, I doubt many ever rationalised it in such terms at the time), but that's not to say the effect wasn't real all the same.
Yes, I agree with this. He mismanaged his messaging, expectation-setting, and negotiation approach because he viewed the EU as a party political itch on the centre-right that he had to scratch to stay in office, and be seen to be doing "something" on, which was whatever was most expedient at the time.
If I'd believed Cameron was in real earnest, consistent, and fighting for it, I think many more Tories would have been right behind him.
I am too, but the recognition that the words "ever closer union" didn't apply to the UK was cosmetic. .
It wasn't cosmetic, it was a written agreement with 27 other heads of state. An important step for them to take, as your report on last night's comments implies. The widespread failure in the UK to appreciate the significance of it was simply an example of the UK not understanding the EU.
No, my point was the huge chasm between expectations between the UK and the EU, and vice-versa. The EU really doesn't understand the UK. That's why we're Leaving.
Not that Dave's deal was automatically significant just because Brussels felt it was.
Boris must be weighing up his options frantically. If he doesn't make a move, the fear must be that Labour defeats tired, hapless Theresa and he'll have to be LOTO against PM Jezza for half a decade or more. But surely Boris will feel that he's the one Tory who could defeat Jezza. What to do?
Unless May gets a clear lead over Labour she will be gone by the end of the Brexit negotiations in 2019, if not by resignation by a vote of no confidence and I expect she would take the hint and do the former. Boris would then be the likely successor
Why are you so confident of that? As far as I know, no sitting PM has been voted out of office by their own MPs - ever. Why would it be different this time?
If May doesn't go voluntarily, then I don't see the Tories replacing her.
IDS was dumped by no confidence vote 14 years ago, Thatcher would have been beaten by Heseltine in 1990 had she stood in a second round. Blair was effectively forced out by Brownite MPs in 2007.
If the Tories trail under May and polls continue to show Boris would do a bit better against Corbyn than if she does not step down a vote of no confidence would be held which she would lose. There are already the numbers amongst MPs to force such a vote. Though I expect she would stand down anyway if the Tories still trailed Labour in 2019
I am too, but the recognition that the words "ever closer union" didn't apply to the UK was cosmetic. .
It wasn't cosmetic, it was a written agreement with 27 other heads of state. An important step for them to take, as your report on last night's comments implies. The widespread failure in the UK to appreciate the significance of it was simply an example of the UK not understanding the EU.
Trust had gone though for some of us. Blair was getting CAP reform supposedly for halving the rebate. We got nothing. On the other hand our politicians in the shape of Blair/Brown promised us a referendum on the Constitution (that Clegg risibly thought wasn't enough because he wanted a real in/out referendum - you couldn't make it up really). We got nothing.
So these, amongst others I'm sure, all went into the mental mix of "do we really believe this?". For me, and it seems many others, it was all the last chance saloon and we wanted something pretty concrete to emerge. It didn't, and Cameron's tactics of going guns blazing insisting it was really just added petrol to the flames of mistrust.
Shame, I was persuadable to that point, but the Rubicon was crossed.
You never know if Macron actually makes progress with some form of a la carte offering, he seemed to be hinting at the other day, my mind might change again. But that is for the far future.
the entrails don't make promising reading. The Today Programme this morning going with how Macron now has lower ratings than Hollande at the same point!
EDIT: And I was one of those that Cameron turned form Remain to Leave with his antics. Shame, because I loved his 2015 Conference speech and wanted to see him implement it. Which he would have been doing right now, if only he hadn't been so much in thrall to Brussels.
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.
I think the EU's current position is that the whole of the island of Ireland must remain within the customs union, with only the mainland of GB outside of it.
Obviously, this poses problems for the DUP (and for NI) - how does the UK strike trade deals that don't apply to some of its territory, where they are made by another state?
It can't. Attempting to force the division of a sovereign country is unacceptable. It would undoubtedly be a red line for the DUP but I suspect it probably would be for the Tories as well. Requiring a hard border between Belfast and Stranraer, with customs and passport checks, would, for practical purposes, turn N Ireland into a foreign country to Britain.
Can EIRE agree to enforce UK customs policy at its ports and airports? Can the border stay open but customs checks and controls done totally electronically, with spot-checks and regular check-ups on warehouses and depots in both EIRE and NI? Can immigration be policed via employment rules and housing rules in NI, with extra checks on those transiting to the mainland?
These are the sort of discussions one would (hope) are taking place.
I think there's a level of apathy about Brexit that doesn't reflect its importance to the EU. They have lost 1/6th of their economy, 1/7th of their population, 1/4 of their military capability, their biggest financial centre and their second biggest net fiscal contributor.
This matters.
Not long after the vote I read an article FAZ about our decision. The comments were very interesting. I thought that our German pals would be laying into us for our "stupidity", but it wasn't like that at all, they seemed chiefly concerned that 1) Germany would pick up the tab, and 2) the EU would inevitably shift towards the left. They were not happy with either prospect.
Richard, I think you must realise that it is an article of faith that any disobliging comment by (say) Juncker is clear evidence that we were right to vote leave - whereas the Cameron agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on...
Sorry, yes, you are right!
Incidentally, I must be the only person in the UK who rather likes Juncker. He seems to have a very sly sense of humour.
I think there's a level of apathy about Brexit that doesn't reflect its importance to the EU. They have lost 1/6th of their economy, 1/7th of their population, 1/4 of their military capability, their biggest financial centre and their second biggest net fiscal contributor.
This matters.
Not long after the vote I read an article FAZ about our decision. The comments were very interesting. I thought that our German pals would be laying into us for our "stupidity", but it wasn't like that at all, they seemed chiefly concerned that 1) Germany would pick up the tab, and 2) the EU would inevitably shift towards the left. They were not happy with either prospect.
That's correct. Under QMV the UK had a significant free-trade, open-market bloc vote (that was extant even during the Labour years) that shifted the EU over to the free-trade right, particularly when added to Germany's.
Incidentally, I find the idea that the way to increase rates of housebuilding is to fine housebuilding companies for having the temerity to buy land to build houses on somewhat unconvincing.
It's a complex area but a carefully devised policy would work. I was at one time a director of a Social Registered Landlord so know a little bit about this.
There is a genuine problem that sometimes land is speculatively bought with a view to future development and the opportunity cost of not doing anything now is perceived to be less than the realisable benefits down the line when better opportunities come. That is a problem when it happens on a large enough scale and some sort of regulatory incentive (or disincentive) to prevent it would be useful.
Unfortunately, there can also be very good reasons for landbanking. We had a series of outdated flats that were of low demand and cost more to maintain than they brought in. Due to their design, internal redevelopment wasn't a viable option. Consequently, the best option was to demolish them and redevelop the land. However, not long after that decision was taken, the 2008 recession hit, house prices dropped and the number of properties that we'd have got out of any deal with a developer dropped in line. It simply wasn't possible to develop the land in a way consistent with the RSL's purpose. Likewise, selling the land outright would have realised only a small receipt and would still have prevented replacing the lost stock to any extent. Waiting for better times was the right decision.
Building more generally on that point, a landbank tax would be likely to discourage investment in the poorest areas of the country because such investments are inevitably marginal and require the timing to be right. Increasing the risk associated with such projects will put developers off.
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.
And this is how an election within the next couple of years comes about - the only way to square that circle is to have a "special status" for Northern Ireland staying within the Single Market, possibly even with some kind of Customs checks between NI and the UK mainland - but the DUP will cry bloody murder at that, and possibly withdraw support for the Tories.
There is another way, as I've suggested here before. I'll try to write a full piece on it at some point, given the time.
Sooner rather than later please - the negotiating parties could do with a roadmap...
Why does Scotland have so many nationalist extremists?
Scottish Dawn, The Orange Order, Fans of Rangers/Sevco, and The SNP for starters.
The answer is in the question.
At risk of opprobrium from certain sectors of political enthusiasts, is it not normal for 'Nationalism' to be associated with extremism and violence more regularly and frequently than centre ground politics.
The ultimate cop-out but the UK/EIRE could accept an official "hard" border in NI, but then effectively ignore it and just do customs and immigration raids as a deterrent in NI, with more thorough ones on the way to the mainland.
That's probably what would happen in the event of a total collapse of the A50 talks.
Incidentally, I find the idea that the way to increase rates of housebuilding is to fine housebuilding companies for having the temerity to buy land to build houses on somewhat unconvincing.
It's a complex area but a carefully devised policy would work. I was at one time a director of a Social Registered Landlord so know a little bit about this.
There is a genuine problem that sometimes land is speculatively bought with a view to future development and the opportunity cost of not doing anything now is perceived to be less than the realisable benefits down the line when better opportunities come. That is a problem when it happens on a large enough scale and some sort of regulatory incentive (or disincentive) to prevent it would be useful.
Unfortunately, there can also be very good reasons for landbanking. We had a series of outdated flats that were of low demand and cost more to maintain than they brought in. Due to their design, internal redevelopment wasn't a viable option. Consequently, the best option was to demolish them and redevelop the land. However, not long after that decision was taken, the 2008 recession hit, house prices dropped and the number of properties that we'd have got out of any deal with a developer dropped in line. It simply wasn't possible to develop the land in a way consistent with the RSL's purpose. Likewise, selling the land outright would have realised only a small receipt and would still have prevented replacing the lost stock to any extent. Waiting for better times was the right decision.
Building more generally on that point, a landbank tax would be likely to discourage investment in the poorest areas of the country because such investments are inevitably marginal and require the timing to be right. Increasing the risk associated with such projects will put developers off.
Do you think a 'carefully devised' policy that addresses the complexities particularly likely ?
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.
I think the EU's current position is that the whole of the island of Ireland must remain within the customs union, with only the mainland of GB outside of it.
Obviously, this poses problems for the DUP (and for NI) - how does the UK strike trade deals that don't apply to some of its territory, where they are made by another state?
It can't. Attempting to force the division of a sovereign country is unacceptable. It would undoubtedly be a red line for the DUP but I suspect it probably would be for the Tories as well. Requiring a hard border between Belfast and Stranraer, with customs and passport checks, would, for practical purposes, turn N Ireland into a foreign country to Britain.
Can EIRE agree to enforce UK customs policy at its ports and airports? Can the border stay open but customs checks and controls done totally electronically, with spot-checks and regular check-ups on warehouses and depots in both EIRE and NI? Can immigration be policed via employment rules and housing rules in NI, with extra checks on those transiting to the mainland?
These are the sort of discussions one would (hope) are taking place.
Indeed so. Given that we will remain in the Common Travel Area with ROI, there’s no need to check passports of people at the border - remembering that “Freedom of Movement” in the EU sense refers to issuance of NI numbers and benefits entitlement rather than passport checks.
The movement of goods can be registered electronically, with police and customs operating in the border regions as they do now, looking for smugglers and contraband with spot checking and intelligence.
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.
I think the EU's current position is that the whole of the island of Ireland must remain within the customs union, with only the mainland of GB outside of it.
Obviously, this poses problems for the DUP (and for NI) - how does the UK strike trade deals that don't apply to some of its territory, where they are made by another state?
It can't. Attempting to force the division of a sovereign country is unacceptable. It would undoubtedly be a red line for the DUP but I suspect it probably would be for the Tories as well. Requiring a hard border between Belfast and Stranraer, with customs and passport checks, would, for practical purposes, turn N Ireland into a foreign country to Britain.
Can EIRE agree to enforce UK customs policy at its ports and airports? Can the border stay open but customs checks and controls done totally electronically, with spot-checks and regular check-ups on warehouses and depots in both EIRE and NI? Can immigration be policed via employment rules and housing rules in NI, with extra checks on those transiting to the mainland?
These are the sort of discussions one would (hope) are taking place.
Indeed so. Given that we will remain in the Common Travel Area with ROI, there’s no need to check passports of people at the border - remembering that “Freedom of Movement” in the EU sense refers to issuance of NI numbers and benefits entitlement rather than passport checks.
The movement of goods can be registered electronically, with police and customs operating in the border regions as they do now, looking for smugglers and contraband with spot checking and intelligence.
In theory, actually in practice, this already happens since the UK and EIRE operate *different* non-EU immigration policies, albeit they are both outside Schengen, and so a non-EU migrant could already get a visa to EIRE and then try and slip into the UK.
I doubt this is a massive problem, but I haven't researched it.
Incidentally, I find the idea that the way to increase rates of housebuilding is to fine housebuilding companies for having the temerity to buy land to build houses on somewhat unconvincing.
It's a complex area but a carefully devised policy would work. I was at one time a director of a Social Registered Landlord so know a little bit about this.
There is a genuine problem that sometimes land is speculatively bought with a view to future development and the opportunity cost of not doing anything now is perceived to be less than the realisable benefits down the line when better opportunities come. That is a problem when it happens on a large enough scale and some sort of regulatory incentive (or disincentive) to prevent it would be useful.
Unfortunately, there can also be very good reasons for landbanking. We had a series of outdated flats that were of low demand and cost more to maintain than they brought in. Due to their design, internal redevelopment wasn't a viable option. Consequently, the best option was to demolish them and redevelop the land. However, not long after that decision was taken, the 2008 recession hit, house prices dropped and the number of properties that we'd have got out of any deal with a developer dropped in line. It simply wasn't possible to develop the land in a way consistent with the RSL's purpose. Likewise, selling the land outright would have realised only a small receipt and would still have prevented replacing the lost stock to any extent. Waiting for better times was the right decision.
Building more generally on that point, a landbank tax would be likely to discourage investment in the poorest areas of the country because such investments are inevitably marginal and require the timing to be right. Increasing the risk associated with such projects will put developers off.
Do you think a 'carefully devised' policy that addresses the complexities particularly likely ?
Would this not be better done on a local basis, so that eg in London and the SE quite considerable taxes could be levied on banked land, with reductions in council tax or increased spending on social care (as the elected councillors consider appropriate) for everyone else as a result?
I think the EU's current position is that the whole of the island of Ireland must remain within the customs union, with only the mainland of GB outside of it.
Obviously, this poses problems for the DUP (and for NI) - how does the UK strike trade deals that don't apply to some of its territory, where they are made by another state?
It can't. Attempting to force the division of a sovereign country is unacceptable. It would undoubtedly be a red line for the DUP but I suspect it probably would be for the Tories as well. Requiring a hard border between Belfast and Stranraer, with customs and passport checks, would, for practical purposes, turn N Ireland into a foreign country to Britain.
Can EIRE agree to enforce UK customs policy at its ports and airports? Can the border stay open but customs checks and controls done totally electronically, with spot-checks and regular check-ups on warehouses and depots in both EIRE and NI? Can immigration be policed via employment rules and housing rules in NI, with extra checks on those transiting to the mainland?
These are the sort of discussions one would (hope) are taking place.
Indeed so. Given that we will remain in the Common Travel Area with ROI, there’s no need to check passports of people at the border - remembering that “Freedom of Movement” in the EU sense refers to issuance of NI numbers and benefits entitlement rather than passport checks.
The movement of goods can be registered electronically, with police and customs operating in the border regions as they do now, looking for smugglers and contraband with spot checking and intelligence.
In theory, actually in practice, this already happens since the UK and EIRE operate *different* non-EU immigration policies, albeit they are both outside Schengen, and so a non-EU migrant could already get a visa to EIRE and then try and slip into the UK.
I doubt this is a massive problem, but I haven't researched it.
I’d assumed that UK visit visas were valid in ROI and vice versa, same as Shengen zone but I may be wrong. Residence or work visas would be different, and require an NI number on the UK side.
Boris must be weighing up his options frantically. If he doesn't make a move, the fear must be that Labour defeats tired, hapless Theresa and he'll have to be LOTO against PM Jezza for half a decade or more. But surely Boris will feel that he's the one Tory who could defeat Jezza. What to do?
Unless May gets a clear lead over Labour she will be gone by the end of the Brexit negotiations in 2019, if not by resignation by a vote of no confidence and I expect she would take the hint and do the former. Boris would then be the likely successor
Why are you so confident of that? As far as I know, no sitting PM has been voted out of office by their own MPs - ever. Why would it be different this time?
If May doesn't go voluntarily, then I don't see the Tories replacing her.
There've been a few instances.
- LG was required to go by 'his' MPs (actually Tories but they were propping up his administration) - The vote by Tory MPs against Chamberlain finished him. - Thatcher would have been brought down by her MPs had she not jumped first, and was already fatally wounded from the first round vote.
On top of which:
- Major came within a few votes of considering his position untenable in 1995 after that leadership election. - Blair was in effect forced out by Brownite opposition.
Besides, just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't or won't.
The only reason that there's not been an instance of an actual vote resulting in a PMs departure is down to mechanics and luck rather than opportunity.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)'s chief executive Andrew Haines said he was "furious" that the airline was not complying with the law The CAA's Mr Haines told the BBC that he very much doubted the dispute would get as far as the courts, but added it was "unacceptable" that Ryanair was disregarding the law and customers' rights. "These are simple things to fix and they're choosing not to fix them," he said. "People shouldn't have to choose between low fares and legal rights." Mr Haines singled out Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary for particular criticism, telling Radio 5live: "Michael himself said he wasn't going to pay for passengers to fly on other airlines. That's against the law. "My concern with Ryanair, and the reason we are speaking so openly, is they say one thing and yet they don't follow it through." The regulator said that on both occasions Ryanair had failed to provide customers with "necessary and accurate" information about their rights.
Well what are they then? Are you saying that they are part of the natural order of things? Supply and demand can act in a natural way, are they the ONLY factor to consider when constructing government policy? In which case you need to explain why they have not delivered rising living standards in the UK for the last decade.
Is that because we have not had enough of the free market? It is certainly an arguable point.
Or maybe we need more action to correct "market failings?"
This is all part of the way the Conservatives will shape out a positive agenda for the country. The Tory Party have not really given these arguments much thought for many years.
Theresa May today sounded far more Marxist than John McDonnell: '40 years ago Marx pronounced, in principle, in favor of Free Trade as the more progressive plan'. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/free-trade/). Very different reasoning of course. It's a shame Lawrence & Wishart have had Marx's speech on Free Trade taken off the internet.
'Free market' is a total innuendo though, as if in our recent relatively 'free market' decades the political conversation hasn't been almost entirely dominated by economic issues. A system created by centuries of intensive state intervention, maintained by intensive state intervention, pretending to be natural law.
'The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organised force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power ...
Tantae molis erat, to establish the “eternal laws of Nature” of the capitalist mode of production, to complete the process of separation between labourers and conditions of labour, to transform, at one pole, the social means of production and subsistence into capital, at the opposite pole, the mass of the population into wage labourers, into “free labouring poor,” that artificial product of modern society.'
Labour's current plan seems to be a return to its post-1917 social programme, when their manifesto had a pledge to 'Avert Revolution'. Reform now or wait until disaster forces a more drastic change was the idea then.
Incidentally, I find the idea that the way to increase rates of housebuilding is to fine housebuilding companies for having the temerity to buy land to build houses on somewhat unconvincing.
It's a complex area but a carefully devised policy would work. I was at one time a director of a Social Registered Landlord so know a little bit about this.
There is a genuine problem that sometimes land is speculatively bought with a view to future development and the opportunity cost of not doing anything now is perceived to be less than the realisable benefits down the line when better opportunities come. That is a problem when it happens on a large enough scale and some sort of regulatory incentive (or disincentive) to prevent it would be useful.
Unfortunately, there can also be very good reasons for landbanking. We had a series of outdated flats that were of low demand and cost more to maintain than they brought in. Due to their design, internal redevelopment wasn't a viable option. Consequently, the best option was to demolish them and redevelop the land. However, not long after that decision was taken, the 2008 recession hit, house prices dropped and the number of properties that we'd have got out of any deal with a developer dropped in line. It simply wasn't possible to develop the land in a way consistent with the RSL's purpose. Likewise, selling the land outright would have realised only a small receipt and would still have prevented replacing the lost stock to any extent. Waiting for better times was the right decision.
Building more generally on that point, a landbank tax would be likely to discourage investment in the poorest areas of the country because such investments are inevitably marginal and require the timing to be right. Increasing the risk associated with such projects will put developers off.
Do you think a 'carefully devised' policy that addresses the complexities particularly likely ?
No. I think it would be extremely difficult to get right in practice. In reality, what I expect is either no change or something close to a blanket tax. I can also see the potential for almighty rows with local planning departments, where the rejection of a scheme could have significant financial implications. I wouldn't be surprised if one unintended side effect would be a greater willingness for planning committees to pass any scheme for fear of the developer suing the council.
Comments
From an EU technocrats point of view, giving a second chamber for review of single market rules to non-Eurozone members, stripping out "ever closer union" and tweaking benefit rules for the holy grail of free movement (temporarily) were no doubt big moves.
For the UK voter, looking for national parliamentary red cards, more flexibility on fisheries and agriculture, proper, tangible immigration controls, and a mechanism for repatriation of powers to flow back from, as well as toward, the EU it fell very short.
Worth remembering that many UK voters expectations were set by Cameron's 2013 Bloomberg speech, and his 2014 pitch to Tory Conference.
What we got was meaningless and would have been meaningless with or without Bloomberg. Maybe he should have said "not good enough" to the proposed reforms and stuck to his guns over Boomberg but its history now.
Mr Meeks. I for one am not going to engage in debate on threads like this if you insist on using them to insult those who disagree with you.
As for a transition period that will only occur if the UK agrees to pay the EU and maintain free movement which May has said she will for 2 years post Brexit. However even then 26% of UK voters and 42% of Leave voters will not accept any transition period at all according to the latest yougov and 52% of UK voters want any transition period to last a maximum of 2 years before full Brexit
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/09/27/voting-intention-conservatives-39-labour-43-22-24-/
Words are all very nice but laws are set by procedures. What formal procedures like changes to voting mechanisms or vetos etc were agreed? Prior agreements like Lisbon included changes to voting mechanisms - what changes happened here formally?
Cameron never put our whole EU membership on the line during negotiations, and played hardball, as Tim Shipman has so excellently described in his book "all out war". He was led too much by Heywood and Rogers (particularly Rogers) and folded on several cards before they were even put to the EU.
He could have played a longer game, or waited for the next EU treaty (building up an EU consensus for reform) or had a more diverse negotiation playbook, and advisory playbook.
It is very far from clear the deal was "as good as could be obtained" and I think he could have got a much better one. Even May might have managed to do so.
It still beggars belief how badly he played it.
It just goes to show how massively politically apart EU federalists and the average UK voter are, which is, incidentally, the root cause of why we're Leaving.
Sad.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/24/david-camerons-used-car-purchase-was-an-excruciating-attempt-to-look-normal
"An inexplicable failure to haggle."
The issue of payments is purely a political one, as are the issues around citizens' rights - both can and probably will be sorted out. The Irish border is a much more complicated, as was noted frequently before the referendum took place. I cannot see a way forward on that. Even if we decide to leave our border open and the EU reciprocate that would put us in breach of WTO rules as it would be potentially discriminatory - unless it is formalised in an agreement. But how do you formalise it in an agreement without significantly, or even completely, eliminating the UK's ability to do FTAs with anyone else?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/28/theresa-may-will-fight-and-win-next-election-says-damian-green
Boris must be weighing up his options frantically. If he doesn't make a move, the fear must be that Labour defeats tired, hapless Theresa and he'll have to be LOTO against PM Jezza for half a decade or more. But surely Boris will feel that he's the one Tory who could defeat Jezza. What to do?
Good afternoon, everyone.
But the fundamental error was in the conceptual change between the Bloomberg Speech and his actual negotiating position. Originally, he wanted to reform the EU to make it work better for everyone; by contrast, he ended asking for some special favours for Britain.
That had two consequences. Firstly, it changed the dynamic from one where the other members were potential allies to one where they were opponents; and secondly, it reinforced an impression within Britain that the EU was an alien and malign entity.
Those effects might not have been particularly strong among many (indeed, I doubt many ever rationalised it in such terms at the time), but that's not to say the effect wasn't real all the same.
There is no insult intended.
* Cameron at the time tried to sell that is one of the thing he had achieved, but it was some found to be false.
That's what they say, you're only one country of 28, and that might even be what they think, but it doesn't mean we were a big player in Europe, and no longer be.
I think there's a level of apathy about Brexit that doesn't reflect its importance to the EU. They have lost 1/6th of their economy, 1/7th of their population, 1/4 of their military capability, their biggest financial centre and their second biggest net fiscal contributor.
This matters.
The UK cannot be equated with Malta, Cyprus, Belgium and Luxembourg. I think there's a level of seriousness about Brexit for the EU that hasn't been recognised yet, and that's going to end up biting them on the bum as well as us.
Is that because we have not had enough of the free market? It is certainly an arguable point.
Or maybe we need more action to correct "market failings?"
This is all part of the way the Conservatives will shape out a positive agenda for the country. The Tory Party have not really given these arguments much thought for many years.
This is a strange world.
It had no bearing on the existing treaties, or creeping competencies of the ECJ, and could be overridden in any future treaty (this was a glorified EU28 aide heads of terms with no legal basis) by any future Government.
We debated it to death from February 2016 onwards and it was, of course, what moved a lot of pb'ers to Leave.
If May doesn't go voluntarily, then I don't see the Tories replacing her.
I think that's more than "I lent him a room and gave a short speech"
https://twitter.com/little_pengelly/status/913105570542100486
Obviously, this poses problems for the DUP (and for NI) - how does the UK strike trade deals that don't apply to some of its territory, where they are made by another state?
And yep it's a leftie thing .
Incidentally, I must be the only person in the UK who rather likes Juncker. He seems to have a very sly sense of humour.
The really key statement from Mrs May's Florence speech, in a negative way, was the strapline "Shared challenges". EU members don't agree on too much, but they are as one that Brexit absolutely is the UK's challenge and not one they have any intention of sharing.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/913367949385363456
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/913369015992676352
So these, amongst others I'm sure, all went into the mental mix of "do we really believe this?". For me, and it seems many others, it was all the last chance saloon and we wanted something pretty concrete to emerge. It didn't, and Cameron's tactics of going guns blazing insisting it was really just added petrol to the flames of mistrust.
Shame, I was persuadable to that point, but the Rubicon was crossed.
You never know if Macron actually makes progress with some form of a la carte offering, he seemed to be hinting at the other day, my mind might change again. But that is for the far future.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/sep/28/former-bbc-chair-rona-fairhead-given-ministerial-post
Former BBC chair Rona Fairhead given ministerial post
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/26/right-has-lost-plot-leaving-fantasy-economics-fill-void/
Scottish Dawn, The Orange Order, Fans of Rangers/Sevco, and The SNP for starters.
If I'd believed Cameron was in real earnest, consistent, and fighting for it, I think many more Tories would have been right behind him.
https://scottishdawn.com/2017/05/10/an-introduction-to-scottish-dawn/
Odd bunch.
Not that Dave's deal was automatically significant just because Brussels felt it was.
If the Tories trail under May and polls continue to show Boris would do a bit better against Corbyn than if she does not step down a vote of no confidence would be held which she would lose. There are already the numbers amongst MPs to force such a vote. Though I expect she would stand down anyway if the Tories still trailed Labour in 2019
A fie on the pound shop Gordon Brown.
EDIT: And I was one of those that Cameron turned form Remain to Leave with his antics. Shame, because I loved his 2015 Conference speech and wanted to see him implement it. Which he would have been doing right now, if only he hadn't been so much in thrall to Brussels.
Can the border stay open but customs checks and controls done totally electronically, with spot-checks and regular check-ups on warehouses and depots in both EIRE and NI?
Can immigration be policed via employment rules and housing rules in NI, with extra checks on those transiting to the mainland?
These are the sort of discussions one would (hope) are taking place.
Yup. Great sense of humour.
There is a genuine problem that sometimes land is speculatively bought with a view to future development and the opportunity cost of not doing anything now is perceived to be less than the realisable benefits down the line when better opportunities come. That is a problem when it happens on a large enough scale and some sort of regulatory incentive (or disincentive) to prevent it would be useful.
Unfortunately, there can also be very good reasons for landbanking. We had a series of outdated flats that were of low demand and cost more to maintain than they brought in. Due to their design, internal redevelopment wasn't a viable option. Consequently, the best option was to demolish them and redevelop the land. However, not long after that decision was taken, the 2008 recession hit, house prices dropped and the number of properties that we'd have got out of any deal with a developer dropped in line. It simply wasn't possible to develop the land in a way consistent with the RSL's purpose. Likewise, selling the land outright would have realised only a small receipt and would still have prevented replacing the lost stock to any extent. Waiting for better times was the right decision.
Building more generally on that point, a landbank tax would be likely to discourage investment in the poorest areas of the country because such investments are inevitably marginal and require the timing to be right. Increasing the risk associated with such projects will put developers off.
At risk of opprobrium from certain sectors of political enthusiasts, is it not normal for 'Nationalism' to be associated with extremism and violence more regularly and frequently than centre ground politics.
Religion has a similar capability.
That's probably what would happen in the event of a total collapse of the A50 talks.
The movement of goods can be registered electronically, with police and customs operating in the border regions as they do now, looking for smugglers and contraband with spot checking and intelligence.
I doubt this is a massive problem, but I haven't researched it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/ferrari-race-immortality-trailer-watch-formula-one-history-made/
Bill Gates chooses an android phone.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/bill-gates-android-phone-steve-jobs-iphone-apple-microsoft-windows-a7967931.html
- LG was required to go by 'his' MPs (actually Tories but they were propping up his administration)
- The vote by Tory MPs against Chamberlain finished him.
- Thatcher would have been brought down by her MPs had she not jumped first, and was already fatally wounded from the first round vote.
On top of which:
- Major came within a few votes of considering his position untenable in 1995 after that leadership election.
- Blair was in effect forced out by Brownite opposition.
Besides, just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't or won't.
The only reason that there's not been an instance of an actual vote resulting in a PMs departure is down to mechanics and luck rather than opportunity.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41422571
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)'s chief executive Andrew Haines said he was "furious" that the airline was not complying with the law
The CAA's Mr Haines told the BBC that he very much doubted the dispute would get as far as the courts, but added it was "unacceptable" that Ryanair was disregarding the law and customers' rights.
"These are simple things to fix and they're choosing not to fix them," he said. "People shouldn't have to choose between low fares and legal rights."
Mr Haines singled out Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary for particular criticism, telling Radio 5live: "Michael himself said he wasn't going to pay for passengers to fly on other airlines. That's against the law.
"My concern with Ryanair, and the reason we are speaking so openly, is they say one thing and yet they don't follow it through."
The regulator said that on both occasions Ryanair had failed to provide customers with "necessary and accurate" information about their rights.
'Free market' is a total innuendo though, as if in our recent relatively 'free market' decades the political conversation hasn't been almost entirely dominated by economic issues. A system created by centuries of intensive state intervention, maintained by intensive state intervention, pretending to be natural law.
'The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organised force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power ...
Tantae molis erat, to establish the “eternal laws of Nature” of the capitalist mode of production, to complete the process of separation between labourers and conditions of labour, to transform, at one pole, the social means of production and subsistence into capital, at the opposite pole, the mass of the population into wage labourers, into “free labouring poor,” that artificial product of modern society.'
Labour's current plan seems to be a return to its post-1917 social programme, when their manifesto had a pledge to 'Avert Revolution'. Reform now or wait until disaster forces a more drastic change was the idea then.
It is working fine on all our devices.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2017/09/24/apple-ios-11-problem-battery-problems-iphone-ipad/#73f99054fdf5