Regardless of what we think of the EU’s position, why can’t the British government set out with its reasons the amount it thinks is due for its liabilities on withdrawal? And say that it will pay this once all matters are agreed. But leave an actual amount there on the table?
Easy enough to criticise the EU stance but Britain needs to move matters on or try to. Having the more satisfying or intellectually coherent position is not going to be a help if in March 2019 we can’t import food because we have no agreement in place, is it?
For a very sensible person I'm surprised you've resorted to such nonsense
You think it is nonsense to say that we should put forward our assessment of what our liabilities are?
Well, it’s a view I suppose.
No, the bit about not being able to import food is the sort of nonsense that prompted people to vote leave. The last line ruined what was a perfectly sensible post.
Fair enough. It was a bit of hyperbole to emphasise the point that intellectual principle should come second to practicalities. Perhaps I should have used an emoji!
I have no idea what happens if we have no deal. But we do import food. And if there are customs delays isn’t there the possibility of disruption, at the very least?
The UK imports quite a lot of its food, and if floods in Spain can disrupt supply, the delays at Dover will certainly do so.
However, the position we are now in is that both sides would quite like a deal, but not on the terms being dictated by the other. The key is, I think, Barnier's aside that the UK must choose between CETA and Norway, and the EU will fine tune the choice.
The difference is being in or out of the Single Market. The UK wold like a cross, which will give all the freedoms of Ceta, but with continuing access to the single market on current terms. That the EU have rejected the second option and will not accept it in any circumstances is interpreted as punishment?
No Deal seems the likely outcome.
No deal won't harm Junker and Barnier much. But the Spanish tomato grower and the French wine seller will soon feel the pain. The EU are playing with fire.
The EU believe their own propaganda and, never forget, have people whispering into their ears daily who agree with them, egging them on.
On sexual misbehaviour, my wife told me a story about her managing partner in her law firm last night which I found shocking.
Now, obviously I'm not going to be going into any more detail than that. But, from what I understand, he's been getting away with extremely "laddish" behaviour for over 10 years now. People just snigger or act with disbelief behind his back, but otherwise they get on with their jobs, and he stays in his.
I said the dam would eventually break, and he'll be outed. It might be this year, next year, or he might even get away with for the next 10 years, but, eventually, someone will spill the beans.
Mrs C, does work both ways. The Commons groping report from a few years ago found that most MP assistants who were the subject of unwanted advances by politicians were male.
Of course, that does not mean that the politicians performing the unwanted advances were all female ...
Also, wasn't the report about not just abuse by MPs, but other staffers? (If I recall correctly...)
It does not matter who does the assaulting, it should not happen. Nor should anyone have it disregarded because they are male.
No one should be forced to drink tea..... (video by Thames Valley Police)
Mr. Topping, it's a self-contradictory nonsense of an approach.
Take the Irish border. That depends upon the trade agreement (or lack thereof) we have, but the EU insists it'll only discuss the prerequisite for an agreement on the Irish border after the border is settled. It's crazy.
The government does not know what trade deal it wants. Until it does it is not in a position to make any concrete proposals concerning the Irish border. And it is not in any position to discuss a future trading relationship with the EU.
What does it not know about the trade deal it wants?
The extent to which we will seek to diverge from EU standards post-Brexit, for a start. If we want maximum freedom to do that it has very different customs implications to a situation in which we essentially shadow EU standards.
If they had decided that, how would you know about it?
Mrs C, does work both ways. The Commons groping report from a few years ago found that most MP assistants who were the subject of unwanted advances by politicians were male.
I was never groped, but I certainly had unwanted homosexual attention when I was young.
I'm at an IGD conference today, listening to the presentation from their chief economist. As the grocery industry insights organisation the IGD know what they are talking about when it comes to this industry.
And their message: massive threat to the sector on a number of fronts: 1. Brexit threat. Industry now prepping worst case scenario of no deal and the inevitable cost / delay factor of customs checks when 1/3rd of food is imported. Just how supply of fresh and chilled sectors will cope with customs checks is unclear, but it's expected to be bad. 2. Inflation surging in food prices now ahead of wages. Had been driven by FX changes but now driving volume sales contraction which is accelerating. 3. Inflation raises Qs about interest rates. And with 1/3rd of households having no cash in the bank and massive debts, even a small increase in rates will contract spending even more which puts even more pressure on the industry.
Gloomy stuff, and every one of these conferences I go to the data has hot worse and the outlook more despondent. This is my problem with the happy clappy WTO will be fine sod the EU attitude. We physically cannot exit the single market in March 2019 if we want to eat. The industry knows this. The farmers know this. The supermarkets know this. The manufacturing sector knows this. The logistics industry knows this. Why does "we don't need experts it will be fine" trump actual facts from the people who actually do the job?
Quite a positive story for the PM this morning with this racial audit. Makes a nice change but I think, like many people in fairness, she is better at identifying a problem than finding solutions. It will be interesting to see what she thinks she can do about what she has highlighted.
Differential outcomes aren't caused by government policies, so it's hard to see what changes government's can make.
Find out what Chinese families do with their kids, and aim to replicate.
Mr. Topping, it's a self-contradictory nonsense of an approach.
Take the Irish border. That depends upon the trade agreement (or lack thereof) we have, but the EU insists it'll only discuss the prerequisite for an agreement on the Irish border after the border is settled. It's crazy.
The government does not know what trade deal it wants. Until it does it is not in a position to make any concrete proposals concerning the Irish border. And it is not in any position to discuss a future trading relationship with the EU.
What does it not know about the trade deal it wants?
The extent to which we will seek to diverge from EU standards post-Brexit, for a start. If we want maximum freedom to do that it has very different customs implications to a situation in which we essentially shadow EU standards.
If they had decided that, how would you know about it?
Their rhetoric would give us a few clues about the nature of the arguments.
BTW, as a veteran EU observer, I predicted at the start of the talks that there would be periodic crises, breakdowns, midnight emergency sessions, clock-stopping and more, but that there would be a deal in the end. I still think so.
If there isn't, I expect an "emergency" de-minimus deal in the final 96 hours because it's in absolutely nobody's interests whatsoever for their not to be.
And we'll get no deal with Australia until it is, of course.
The whole point of leaving is to negotiate our own
Yes, but the UK's attractiveness as a country with which to do an FTA will depend upon our relationship with the EU - and on the relationships other countries have with the EU.
The EU believe their own propaganda and, never forget, have people whispering into their ears daily who agree with them, egging them on.
The same applies the other way, of course.
I don't think it's correct to ascribe a single set of opinions to either the EU or our government.
On our side, there is a clear dichotomy between what (for instance) Hammond and Johnson want, and no clear means of settling how that will turn out, given May's relative impotence to impose any given solution. On the EU side it's probably nowhere near as simple, and the mechanisms for changing their negotiating position considerably more sclerotic.
Mr. Topping, it's a self-contradictory nonsense of an approach.
Take the Irish border. That depends upon the trade agreement (or lack thereof) we have, but the EU insists it'll only discuss the prerequisite for an agreement on the Irish border after the border is settled. It's crazy.
The government does not know what trade deal it wants. Until it does it is not in a position to make any concrete proposals concerning the Irish border. And it is not in any position to discuss a future trading relationship with the EU.
What does it not know about the trade deal it wants?
The extent to which we will seek to diverge from EU standards post-Brexit, for a start. If we want maximum freedom to do that it has very different customs implications to a situation in which we essentially shadow EU standards.
If they had decided that, how would you know about it?
There's an odd tendency to airbrush out male victims of such things, (a third of the Rotherham victims were male but this is rarely mentioned).
No one deserves to be assaulted or to have their bodily privacy invaded. Our bodies are the only things that we truly possess, the only thing in the entire universe that is truly ours. Unique and personal for each of us, male or female.
I'm at an IGD conference today, listening to the presentation from their chief economist. As the grocery industry insights organisation the IGD know what they are talking about when it comes to this industry.
And their message: massive threat to the sector on a number of fronts: 1. Brexit threat. Industry now prepping worst case scenario of no deal and the inevitable cost / delay factor of customs checks when 1/3rd of food is imported. Just how supply of fresh and chilled sectors will cope with customs checks is unclear, but it's expected to be bad. 2. Inflation surging in food prices now ahead of wages. Had been driven by FX changes but now driving volume sales contraction which is accelerating. 3. Inflation raises Qs about interest rates. And with 1/3rd of households having no cash in the bank and massive debts, even a small increase in rates will contract spending even more which puts even more pressure on the industry.
Gloomy stuff, and every one of these conferences I go to the data has hot worse and the outlook more despondent. This is my problem with the happy clappy WTO will be fine sod the EU attitude. We physically cannot exit the single market in March 2019 if we want to eat. The industry knows this. The farmers know this. The supermarkets know this. The manufacturing sector knows this. The logistics industry knows this. Why does "we don't need experts it will be fine" trump actual facts from the people who actually do the job?
Because in many instances the people actually doing the job voted to leave, especially farming and fishing.communities.
And we'll get no deal with Australia until it is, of course.
The whole point of leaving is to negotiate our own
Yes, but the UK's attractiveness as a country with which to do an FTA will depend upon our relationship with the EU - and on the relationships other countries have with the EU.
I'm sorry but that is simply not true, if Australia want to trade with us they won't take Malta into account, nor will they want Malta to stall the process of selling us koala skin or whatever it is they're flogging.
But how do they choose which mobiles to ring? The point is, could they be walking into the same sort of biased selection they get from final digit randomisation of landline numbers? Are they oversampling T-mobile iphone users, for instance, and are ScotsNats known to favour these phones?
Don't most people screen their mobile calls? If a number is not in my contacts I ignore it, because 99 times out of 100 it is a scam etc. So I will never be sampled in a phone poll.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
The EU doesn't really have to explain its position. That is the irritating, but entirely predictable thing.
If .
Absolutely, I agree with that completely, but they are the opposing side in the negotiations as we have said to them: we want out. I think as several people have noted, @NickPalmer springs to mind yesterday: while they haven't quite already forgotten about us, they aren't holding emergency meetings to guage progress so far.
They have set out their stall, perhaps cryptically, and it's up to us to respond or do something. We are the ones long theta.
To use a sporting analogy, you might say the ball is in our court.
It's simply really. To deter future secessions, make Brexit a nightmare. That is within their power, and the only rational course from a strategic perspective. There's no chance of the UK aligning itself with Russia, so the only risks are difficulties in Northern France and part of Ireland. That is a small price to pay.
We should have planned for no deal from the beginning.
Hmm. A few things the EU could have done:
(1) Kept Dave's deal on the table, in case we changed our mind (why on earth not?) (2) Launched a full internal dispassionate enquiry into why the UK voted to Leave, and what the EU might be getting wrong in how it came across (Jossias Jessop first suggested this) (3) Demanded Juncker's resignation since he was "elected" on a platform that included solving the British problem inside the EU (4) With suitable exit payments, offered an alternative "associate" membership of the EU (less benefits, but more independence) (5) Launched a strategic review into the future of Europe, including all EU, EFTA and EEA states - it's not just us who are disillusioned - that might include free movement, for example
There are, of course, a number of missteps the UK made as well. But, the vast majority of what I've seen and heard from the EU since the vote has been very defensive and that they see Brexit as entirely our problem, and nothing to do with them.
The EU believe their own propaganda and, never forget, have people whispering into their ears daily who agree with them, egging them on.
The same applies the other way, of course.
I don't think it's correct to ascribe a single set of opinions to either the EU or our government.
On our side, there is a clear dichotomy between what (for instance) Hammond and Johnson want, and no clear means of settling how that will turn out, given May's relative impotence to impose any given solution. On the EU side it's probably nowhere near as simple, and the mechanisms for changing their negotiating position considerably more sclerotic.
Whilst that's true, I think there is a general bias one way or the other, depending upon which side of the table you sit.
Mrs C, does work both ways. The Commons groping report from a few years ago found that most MP assistants who were the subject of unwanted advances by politicians were male.
Of course, that does not mean that the politicians performing the unwanted advances were all female ...
Also, wasn't the report about not just abuse by MPs, but other staffers? (If I recall correctly...)
It does not matter who does the assaulting, it should not happen. Nor should anyone have it disregarded because they are male.
No one should be forced to drink tea..... (video by Thames Valley Police)
http s://youtu.be/pZwvrxVavnQ
Of course. And that video is excellent.
My eyes were somewhat opened about this in my early twenties when, within a short period, three young female friends told me about abuse they had suffered (two were by family members). As far as I'm aware, no-one has ever been to court about it, and in one of those cases the family disbelieved her, preferring to believe the accused - and even let her younger sister stay with the accused after they were told. I have also known male friends who have suffered sexual bullying or worse, and one had his life ruined by it.
If you talk to people and listen, it is frightening how common it is.
By voting Labour en mass students have saved themselves over £10,000.
No they haven't, they've transferred some future tax from one heading to another, but they'll pay it all the same. The only material difference is that those who end up earning a lot may gain a bit at the expense of those who do less well.
"The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.
That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?
I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
They're waiting to c&p something from twitter
Nah, you Leavers are like holocaust deniers, whatever we say, you just ignore the facts and evidence.
No it is far simpler than that. You have no facts or figures to give us as far as the EU position goes. The funniest one I have seen today is that the UK should tell the EU how much the UK owes it (Yes I am looking at you Mr Dubliner at 9:02).
I suspect the problem is that the EU are unable to balance the two competing issues of making the numbers large enough to be punitive but still based on some sort of legal position. The last thing they really want is to have their numbers picked apart and exposed as being unfounded as that would weaken their position dramatically.
The EU position is simple. We have money, they want it.
I never said the UK should tell the EU how much is owed, merely that the UK should indicate how it intends to calculate the amount. I've no doubt there would be disputes as to the items to be included, but at the moment the UK seems to be throwing figures in the air, without any details of how they are calculated
It is not for the UK to come up with the figures or how they are calculated. If the EU wants our money they need to tell us how much and justify it. It is then our turn to look at their figures and decide whether or not they are reasonable. You have the cart before the horse.
No they haven't, they've transferred some future tax from one heading to another, but they'll pay it all the same. The only material difference is that those who end up earning a lot may gain a bit at the expense of those who do less well.
Honestly I hope that whatever is cooked up taxes them more in the long term.
I'm at an IGD conference today, listening to the presentation from their chief economist. As the grocery industry insights organisation the IGD know what they are talking about when it comes to this industry.
And their message: massive threat to the sector on a number of fronts: 1. Brexit threat. Industry now prepping worst case scenario of no deal and the inevitable cost / delay factor of customs checks when 1/3rd of food is imported. Just how supply of fresh and chilled sectors will cope with customs checks is unclear, but it's expected to be bad. 2. Inflation surging in food prices now ahead of wages. Had been driven by FX changes but now driving volume sales contraction which is accelerating. 3. Inflation raises Qs about interest rates. And with 1/3rd of households having no cash in the bank and massive debts, even a small increase in rates will contract spending even more which puts even more pressure on the industry.
Gloomy stuff, and every one of these conferences I go to the data has hot worse and the outlook more despondent. This is my problem with the happy clappy WTO will be fine sod the EU attitude. We physically cannot exit the single market in March 2019 if we want to eat. The industry knows this. The farmers know this. The supermarkets know this. The manufacturing sector knows this. The logistics industry knows this. Why does "we don't need experts it will be fine" trump actual facts from the people who actually do the job?
Because in many instances the people actually doing the job voted to leave, especially farming and fishing.communities.
I understand the farming communities are now backtracking. I think there’s a difference between big famer interests and small farmer/farmworker interests though.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
The EU doesn't really have to explain its position. That is the irritating, but entirely predictable thing.
If .
Absolutely, I agree with that completely, but they are the opposing side in the negotiations as we have said to them: we want out. I think as several people have noted, @NickPalmer springs to mind yesterday: while they haven't quite already forgotten about us, they aren't holding emergency meetings to guage progress so far.
They have set out their stall, perhaps cryptically, and it's up to us to respond or do something. We are the ones long theta.
To use a sporting analogy, you might say the ball is in our court.
It's simply really. To deter future secessions, make Brexit a nightmare. That is within their power, and the only rational course from a strategic perspective. There's no chance of the UK aligning itself with Russia, so the only risks are difficulties in Northern France and part of Ireland. That is a small price to pay.
We should have planned for no deal from the beginning.
Hmm. A few things the EU could have done:
(1) Kept Dave's deal on the table, in case we changed our mind (why on earth not?) (2) Launched a full internal dispassionate enquiry into why the UK voted to Leave, and what the EU might be getting wrong in how it came across (Jossias Jessop first suggested this) (3) Demanded Juncker's resignation since he was "elected" on a platform that included solving the British problem inside the EU (4) With suitable exit payments, offered an alternative "associate" membership of the EU (less benefits, but more independence) (5) Launched a strategic review into the future of Europe, including all EU, EFTA and EEA states - it's not just us who are disillusioned - that might include free movement, for example
There are, of course, a number of missteps the UK made as well. But, the vast majority of what I've seen and heard from the EU since the vote has been very defensive and that they see Brexit as entirely our problem, and nothing to do with them.
In the long-term, that alone won't save them.
Brexit is essentially the UK's problem. There will be a short-term financial impact on the EU, but it remains structurally sound and will be able to progress more easily to its objective of ever closer union once its most recalcitrant member leaves on 29/3/2019.
And we'll get no deal with Australia until it is, of course.
The whole point of leaving is to negotiate our own
Yes, but the UK's attractiveness as a country with which to do an FTA will depend upon our relationship with the EU - and on the relationships other countries have with the EU.
I'm sorry but that is simply not true, if Australia want to trade with us they won't take Malta into account, nor will they want Malta to stall the process of selling us koala skin or whatever it is they're flogging.
You are myopic.
Australia already trades with us. What we want from them is better trading arrangements than we have already. That means them opening up their market even further. They will not do that until they know exactly what we can offer them. And they will not know that until both we and they have a deal with the EU.
By voting Labour en mass students have saved themselves over £10,000.
No they haven't, they've transferred some future tax from one heading to another, but they'll pay it all the same. The only material difference is that those who end up earning a lot may gain a bit at the expense of those who do less well.
Yes but by voting Labour and the Conservatives losing their majority the policy and the emphasis has changed.Many have learnt voting can change the perceived orthodoxy and mindset of those who govern.
By voting Labour en mass students have saved themselves over £10,000.
No they haven't, they've transferred some future tax from one heading to another, but they'll pay it all the same. The only material difference is that those who end up earning a lot may gain a bit at the expense of those who do less well.
Long term thats true, but the pre 2012 university intake aren't all dead yet
Looking on the bright side, for the hedge fund managers that have backed Brexit a No Deal scenario offers tremendous opportunities to make a shed-load of money.
There's an odd tendency to airbrush out male victims of such things, (a third of the Rotherham victims were male but this is rarely mentioned).
No one deserves to be assaulted or to have their bodily privacy invaded. Our bodies are the only things that we truly possess, the only thing in the entire universe that is truly ours. Unique and personal for each of us, male or female.
It's never quite simple and black or white: from personal experience males and females can have very different attitudes as follows....
Recently I had an overnight encounter with a girl who I used to see casually 20 years ago. The next morning I found out she was married with children and it made me very uncomfortable. A couple of weeks later in a bar with many friends around she started groping me in front of people. I had to physically pin her arms back to stop her then walked away. Now I could have reported her to the police but I figured that it would ruin her life, her children's life and her husband's life. It was annoying when it happened but I didn't feel "violated" or sexually abused.
Another time I was at a drunken dinner in a restaurant and a girl kept trying to grope me under the table and I eventually had to just get up and leave and ask her friends to tell her she was out of order. I was again annoyed and possibly more annoyed by the thought that if a man kept repeatedly doing it to a woman after being asked to stop yet alone after the first time they would probably be arrested but I didn't complain to the police - to me it wasn't a massive issue worth damaging someone's life over as I know that people get drunk and do stupid things.
This however is balanced in a weird way by an argument I had with an ex where she told me she had been groped in a nightclub once and did nothing about it (before our relationship). I was so angry and didn't know why she did nothing and we fell out badly. She was a very feisty and strong personality so not as if she was too scared.
So there are many levels where some men don't see it as worth a complaint or feeling they have been abused, some women choose not to react for multiple reasons, and some men find it outrageous that it happens to women but don't worry about it happening to themselves. So I find it simplistic when Hollywood and Twitter warriors are expecting everyone who knew Weinstein or re the Parliament "gropings" expects everyone to act in the same way....
BTW, as a veteran EU observer, I predicted at the start of the talks that there would be periodic crises, breakdowns, midnight emergency sessions, clock-stopping and more, but that there would be a deal in the end. I still think so.
If there isn't, I expect an "emergency" de-minimus deal in the final 96 hours because it's in absolutely nobody's interests whatsoever for their not to be.
I broadly agree.. but when is the final 96 hours? Doesn't any deal have to be ratified across 27 nations?
Isn't it a bit ironic for the House of Lords to be discussing opinion polling?
Or being paid £300 a day to hear about it. What a waste of time and money
Yeah, I agree with that. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see why this is official business at all.
The business of measuring and predicting voting behaviour should be considered completely separate from the election itself. There shouldn't be "a House of Lords Committee that’s carrying out a review of what went wrong with GE2017 polls."
It's not some kind of scandal that they didn't know what was going to happen in the election, before the election happened.
BTW, as a veteran EU observer, I predicted at the start of the talks that there would be periodic crises, breakdowns, midnight emergency sessions, clock-stopping and more, but that there would be a deal in the end. I still think so.
The problem though, is that a deal 'in the end' is a deal too late. Many businesses, such as airlines, banks and car manufacturers, need at least 18 months to plan. Governments need to know what customs and administrative systems they will need. Therefore, if there is not substantive progress very soon indeed, we could slide into severe disruption almost accidentally.
BTW, as a veteran EU observer, I predicted at the start of the talks that there would be periodic crises, breakdowns, midnight emergency sessions, clock-stopping and more, but that there would be a deal in the end. I still think so.
If there isn't, I expect an "emergency" de-minimus deal in the final 96 hours because it's in absolutely nobody's interests whatsoever for their not to be.
If we get to within 96 hours of no-deal, it will be too late. Agreements for goods and produce are often made months in advance. When I worked on supply chain databases, ordering cycles were 6 to 9 months in advance.
If the deal is not sorted by summer 2018 or Sept 2018 then it will be too late
The UK is not Greece and there are downsides for a fair few people in the EU27 if there is no deal. A constructive, friendly UK that was seen to be reaching out might have had a chance to use that to shape public opinion in other countries so as to put some pressure on governments to strike a deal. But we have carried on being what we have been for a number of years when it comes to the EU: surly and largely hostile in tone. making Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad might have made sense to Theresa May politically, but the big problem was that it made Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad.
No, David Davis, not Boris Johnson, is clearly the face of the negotiations, and Johnson seems so far to have been pretty well marginalised.
There are two parties to these negotiations. One side has clearly entered them in a reasonably constructive manner wishing to talk about everything and published lots of detail on its stance in the hope of gaining some response from the other. The other side has though insisted on an absurd sequencing for those talks clearly designed to try and push the opposing where at the 11th hour it has little option to accept the gruel on offer and has published next to nothing of substance of its own. Its motivation for that stance seems to me to be more guided by a desire to punish than to reach a rational settlement for the benefit the citizens on whose behalf its unaccountable elites are supposedly acting.
So, faced with that, I'm quite content that the UK government has now decided to give greater emphasis to planning for a parallel, alternative course that gives it a viable option involving tariffs. That will both by extra leverage that might still avoid that course, and might yet influence elite opinion within EU states facing the prospect of a barriers to their net exports to UK markets.
Incidentally, what are the options as to how the UK government might use the revenues from import tariffs on EU goods?
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
They're waiting to c&p something from twitter
Nah, you Leavers are like holocaust deniers, whatever we say, you just ignore the facts and evidence.
No it is far simpler than that. You have no facts or figures to give us as far as the EU position goes. The funniest one I have seen today is that the UK should tell the EU how much the UK owes it (Yes I am looking at you Mr Dubliner at 9:02).
I suspect the problem is that the EU are unable to balance the two competing issues of making the numbers large enough to be punitive but still based on some sort of legal position. The last thing they really want is to have their numbers picked apart and exposed as being unfounded as that would weaken their position dramatically.
The EU position is simple. We have money, they want it.
I never said the UK should tell the EU how much is owed, merely that the UK should indicate how it intends to calculate the amount. I've no doubt there would be disputes as to the items to be included, but at the moment the UK seems to be throwing figures in the air, without any details of how they are calculated
It is not for the UK to come up with the figures or how they are calculated. If the EU wants our money they need to tell us how much and justify it. It is then our turn to look at their figures and decide whether or not they are reasonable. You have the cart before the horse.
I think this is right - it's their rules and they must have a calculation for us leaving, albeit there is no precedent.
Thing is, as we have been discussing earlier, if they don't name a price, and demand one from us, then there's sod all we can do about it. Come over all petulant "won't they see reason?" (ans: no need to), or take the initiative, appreciate that it might be politically difficult, and name a price ourselves.
They are holding all the cards. And no, the option of crashing out to WTO doesn't mean we hold any cards.
I'm at an IGD conference today, listening to the presentation from their chief economist. As the grocery industry insights organisation the IGD know what they are talking about when it comes to this industry.
And their message: massive threat to the sector on a number of fronts: 1. Brexit threat. Industry now prepping worst case scenario of no deal and the inevitable cost / delay factor of customs checks when 1/3rd of food is imported. Just how supply of fresh and chilled sectors will cope with customs checks is unclear, but it's expected to be bad. 2. Inflation surging in food prices now ahead of wages. Had been driven by FX changes but now driving volume sales contraction which is accelerating. 3. Inflation raises Qs about interest rates. And with 1/3rd of households having no cash in the bank and massive debts, even a small increase in rates will contract spending even more which puts even more pressure on the industry.
Gloomy stuff, and every one of these conferences I go to the data has hot worse and the outlook more despondent. This is my problem with the happy clappy WTO will be fine sod the EU attitude. We physically cannot exit the single market in March 2019 if we want to eat. The industry knows this. The farmers know this. The supermarkets know this. The manufacturing sector knows this. The logistics industry knows this. Why does "we don't need experts it will be fine" trump actual facts from the people who actually do the job?
My hope on all this is that it turns out a little like the Y2K forecast apocalypse... everyone is unprepared for the deadline, but sufficiently prepared to avert massive damage.
This is my problem with the happy clappy WTO will be fine sod the EU attitude. We physically cannot exit the single market in March 2019 if we want to eat. The industry knows this. The farmers know this. The supermarkets know this. The manufacturing sector knows this. The logistics industry knows this. Why does "we don't need experts it will be fine" trump actual facts from the people who actually do the job?
That mood, of course, is precisely what propelled Jeremy Corbyn to where he is today.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
The EU doesn't really have to explain its position. That is the irritating, but entirely predictable thing.
If .
To use a sporting analogy, you might say the ball is in our court.
It's .
Hmm. A few things the EU could have done:
(1) Kept Dave's deal on the table, in case we changed our mind (why on earth not?) (2) Launched a full internal dispassionate enquiry into why the UK voted to Leave, and what the EU might be getting wrong in how it came across (Jossias Jessop first suggested this) (3) Demanded Juncker's resignation since he was "elected" on a platform that included solving the British problem inside the EU (4) With suitable exit payments, offered an alternative "associate" membership of the EU (less benefits, but more independence) (5) Launched a strategic review into the future of Europe, including all EU, EFTA and EEA states - it's not just us who are disillusioned - that might include free movement, for example
There are, of course, a number of missteps the UK made as well. But, the vast majority of what I've seen and heard from the EU since the vote has been very defensive and that they see Brexit as entirely our problem, and nothing to do with them.
In the long-term, that alone won't save them.
Brexit is essentially the UK's problem. There will be a short-term financial impact on the EU, but it remains structurally sound and will be able to progress more easily to its objective of ever closer union once its most recalcitrant member leaves on 29/3/2019.
And it's all the fault of the UK tabloid press.
Seriously, this won't really wash. Such "la la la, I'm not listening and nor do I need to!" attitudes are how Empires fall.
Why did its second largest member by economy/net contribution/military vote to Leave after 43 years?
Future historians will marvel at nothing more sophisticated than "because of the Daily Mail".
The UK is not Greece and there are downsides for a fair few people in the EU27 if there is no deal. A constructive, friendly UK that was seen to be reaching out might have had a chance to use that to shape public opinion in other countries so as to put some pressure on governments to strike a deal. But we have carried on being what we have been for a number of years when it comes to the EU: surly and largely hostile in tone. making Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad might have made sense to Theresa May politically, but the big problem was that it made Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad.
No, David Davis, not Boris Johnson, is clearly the face of the negotiations, and Johnson seems so far to have been pretty well marginalised.
There are two parties to these negotiations. One side has clearly entered them in a reasonably constructive manner wishing to talk about everything and published lots of detail on its stance in the hope of gaining some response from the other. The other side has though insisted on an absurd sequencing for those talks clearly designed to try and push the opposing where at the 11th hour it has little option to accept the gruel on offer and has published next to nothing of substance of its own. Its motivation for that stance seems to me to be more guided by a desire to punish than to reach a rational settlement for the benefit the citizens on whose behalf its unaccountable elites are supposedly acting.
So, faced with that, I'm quite content that the UK government has now decided to give greater emphasis to planning for a parallel, alternative course that gives it a viable option involving tariffs. That will both by extra leverage that might still avoid that course, and might yet influence elite opinion within EU states facing the prospect of a barriers to their net exports to UK markets.
Incidentally, what are the options as to how the UK government might use the revenues from import tariffs on EU goods?
I'm at an IGD conference today, listening to the presentation from their chief economist. As the grocery industry insights organisation the IGD know what they are talking about when it comes to this industry.
And their message: massive threat to the sector on a number of fronts: 1. Brexit threat. Industry now prepping worst case scenario of no deal and the inevitable cost / delay factor of customs checks when 1/3rd of food is imported. Just how supply of fresh and chilled sectors will cope with customs checks is unclear, but it's expected to be bad. 2. Inflation surging in food prices now ahead of wages. Had been driven by FX changes but now driving volume sales contraction which is accelerating. 3. Inflation raises Qs about interest rates. And with 1/3rd of households having no cash in the bank and massive debts, even a small increase in rates will contract spending even more which puts even more pressure on the industry.
Gloomy stuff, and every one of these conferences I go to the data has hot worse and the outlook more despondent. This is my problem with the happy clappy WTO will be fine sod the EU attitude. We physically cannot exit the single market in March 2019 if we want to eat. The industry knows this. The farmers know this. The supermarkets know this. The manufacturing sector knows this. The logistics industry knows this. Why does "we don't need experts it will be fine" trump actual facts from the people who actually do the job?
Because in many instances the people actually doing the job voted to leave, especially farming and fishing.communities.
I understand the farming communities are now backtracking. I think there’s a difference between big famer interests and small farmer/farmworker interests though.
BTW, as a veteran EU observer, I predicted at the start of the talks that there would be periodic crises, breakdowns, midnight emergency sessions, clock-stopping and more, but that there would be a deal in the end. I still think so.
The problem though, is that a deal 'in the end' is a deal too late. Many businesses, such as airlines, banks and car manufacturers, need at least 18 months to plan. Governments need to know what customs and administrative systems they will need. Therefore, if there is not substantive progress very soon indeed, we could slide into severe disruption almost accidentally.
Also, a deal "in the end", if it happens, is likely to be fairly minimal.
I stand by my "Russian train mobilisation" thread:
BTW, as a veteran EU observer, I predicted at the start of the talks that there would be periodic crises, breakdowns, midnight emergency sessions, clock-stopping and more, but that there would be a deal in the end. I still think so.
If there isn't, I expect an "emergency" de-minimus deal in the final 96 hours because it's in absolutely nobody's interests whatsoever for their not to be.
If we get to within 96 hours of no-deal, it will be too late. Agreements for goods and produce are often made months in advance. When I worked on supply chain databases, ordering cycles were 6 to 9 months in advance.
If the deal is not sorted by summer 2018 or Sept 2018 then it will be too late
No doubt that'd be partly the point: the UK would suffer some economic damage due to the uncertainty without there ever being any real break in official trading arrangements.
I don't think the Local Elections on May 4th did entirely confirm the message being conveyed by the polls at the time. John Curtice estimated that they implied a Tory lead of circa 11% - ie only half the margin some polls were then showing.He did specifically say that the results did not imply a Tory landslide - rather a majority of 40 - 60 seats.
Exactly. Also, the "notional" results from the local elections showed that Labour actually won a lot of constituencies in the North and Midlands that people were already pencilling in as surefire Tory gains.
Obviously there was genuine swing from the time of the locals to the GE, but the polls at the time of the local elections were already painting a too flattering picture for the Tories.
BTW, as a veteran EU observer, I predicted at the start of the talks that there would be periodic crises, breakdowns, midnight emergency sessions, clock-stopping and more, but that there would be a deal in the end. I still think so.
If there isn't, I expect an "emergency" de-minimus deal in the final 96 hours because it's in absolutely nobody's interests whatsoever for their not to be.
I broadly agree.. but when is the final 96 hours? Doesn't any deal have to be ratified across 27 nations?
It does, but I expect an emergency meeting (an extraordinary meeting) of the European Council could deal with that by voting on papers following an emergency agenda.
(1) Kept Dave's deal on the table, in case we changed our mind (why on earth not?) (2) Launched a full internal dispassionate enquiry into why the UK voted to Leave, and what the EU might be getting wrong in how it came across (Jossias Jessop first suggested this) (3) Demanded Juncker's resignation since he was "elected" on a platform that included solving the British problem inside the EU (4) With suitable exit payments, offered an alternative "associate" membership of the EU (less benefits, but more independence) (5) Launched a strategic review into the future of Europe, including all EU, EFTA and EEA states - it's not just us who are disillusioned - that might include free movement, for example
There are, of course, a number of missteps the UK made as well. But, the vast majority of what I've seen and heard from the EU since the vote has been very defensive and that they see Brexit as entirely our problem, and nothing to do with them.
In the long-term, that alone won't save them.
Brexit is essentially the UK's problem. There will be a short-term financial impact on the EU, but it remains structurally sound and will be able to progress more easily to its objective of ever closer union once its most recalcitrant member leaves on 29/3/2019.
That's exactly the sort of thinking that I think CR is referring to in point (2) above. The UK is not unique in having a Eurosceptic strand of public thought, although we are the first where it has reached a level that enabled us to leave. It is perfectly possible that events conspire to make Euroscepticism and Europhobia the majority in another EU country - say Greece, France or Spain. It might only take a couple of years.
So it makes sense for the EU to ask themselves *why* we left, and how they can alter or finesse the way they do things to prevent what I fear is inevitable in the medium term - another country leaving.
But as far as I can tell, they are not asking those difficult questions.
(1) Kept Dave's deal on the table, in case we changed our mind (why on earth not?) (2) Launched a full internal dispassionate enquiry into why the UK voted to Leave, and what the EU might be getting wrong in how it came across (Jossias Jessop first suggested this) (3) Demanded Juncker's resignation since he was "elected" on a platform that included solving the British problem inside the EU (4) With suitable exit payments, offered an alternative "associate" membership of the EU (less benefits, but more independence) (5) Launched a strategic review into the future of Europe, including all EU, EFTA and EEA states - it's not just us who are disillusioned - that might include free movement, for example
There are, of course, a number of missteps the UK made as well. But, the vast majority of what I've seen and heard from the EU since the vote has been very defensive and that they see Brexit as entirely our problem, and nothing to do with them.
In the long-term, that alone won't save them.
Brexit is essentially the UK's problem. There will be a short-term financial impact on the EU, but it remains structurally sound and will be able to progress more easily to its objective of ever closer union once its most recalcitrant member leaves on 29/3/2019.
That's exactly the sort of thinking that I think CR is referring to in point (2) above. The UK is not unique in having a Eurosceptic strand of public thought, although we are the first where it has reached a level that enabled us to leave. It is perfectly possible that events conspire to make Euroscepticism and Europhobia the majority in another EU country - say Greece, France or Spain. It might only take a couple of years.
So it makes sense for the EU to ask themselves *why* we left, and how they can alter or finesse the way they do things to prevent what I fear is inevitable in the medium term - another country leaving.
But as far as I can tell, they are not asking those difficult questions.
So it makes sense for the EU to ask themselves *why* we left, and how they can alter or finesse the way they do things to prevent what I fear is inevitable in the medium term - another country leaving.
But as far as I can tell, they are not asking those difficult questions.
Crudely I think the analysis is that we voted to leave because we didn't understand it, because we had a press and political class that didn't understand it and preferred to lie about it. The negotiation is seen as a process of education, and not helping us paper over the contradictions is essential to aid in understanding the practical benefits we are deriving from EU membership right now.
No, David Davis, not Boris Johnson, is clearly the face of the negotiations, and Johnson seems so far to have been pretty well marginalised.
There are two parties to these negotiations. One side has clearly entered them in a reasonably constructive manner wishing to talk about everything and published lots of detail on its stance in the hope of gaining some response from the other. The other side has though insisted on an absurd sequencing for those talks clearly designed to try and push the opposing where at the 11th hour it has little option to accept the gruel on offer and has published next to nothing of substance of its own. Its motivation for that stance seems to me to be more guided by a desire to punish than to reach a rational settlement for the benefit the citizens on whose behalf its unaccountable elites are supposedly acting.
So, faced with that, I'm quite content that the UK government has now decided to give greater emphasis to planning for a parallel, alternative course that gives it a viable option involving tariffs. That will both by extra leverage that might still avoid that course, and might yet influence elite opinion within EU states facing the prospect of a barriers to their net exports to UK markets.
Incidentally, what are the options as to how the UK government might use the revenues from import tariffs on EU goods?
David Davis may in charge of the negotiations, but read any newspaper in Europe and watch any news programme and you'll see he is not regarded as the face of the UK. That's Boris Johnson. The EU has actually published far more than the UK and published it earlier. If the UK wanted to influence public opinion in the EU27 it would not have followed the course it has. And influencing public opinion in the EU27 is the best way to get leverage in the negotiations.
As for import tariffs, these will be paid by UK consumers and companies. What the government does with the money will be interesting to see.
The UK is not Greece and there are downsides for a fair few people in the EU27 if there is no deal. A constructive, friendly UK that was seen to be reaching out might have had a chance to use that to shape public opinion in other countries so as to put some pressure on governments to strike a deal. But we have carried on being what we have been for a number of years when it comes to the EU: surly and largely hostile in tone. making Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad might have made sense to Theresa May politically, but the big problem was that it made Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad.
No, David Davis, not Boris Johnson, is clearly the face of the negotiations, and Johnson seems so far to have been pretty well marginalised.
There are two parties to these negotiations. One side has clearly entered them in a reasonably constructive manner wishing to talk about everything and published lots of detail on its stance in the hope of gaining some response from the other. The other side has though insisted on an absurd sequencing for those talks clearly designed to try and push the opposing where at the 11th hour it has little option to accept the gruel on offer and has published next to nothing of substance of its own. Its motivation for that stance seems to me to be more guided by a desire to punish than to reach a rational settlement for the benefit the citizens on whose behalf its unaccountable elites are supposedly acting.
So, faced with that, I'm quite content that the UK government has now decided to give greater emphasis to planning for a parallel, alternative course that gives it a viable option involving tariffs. That will both by extra leverage that might still avoid that course, and might yet influence elite opinion within EU states facing the prospect of a barriers to their net exports to UK markets.
Incidentally, what are the options as to how the UK government might use the revenues from import tariffs on EU goods?
Tariffs on imports and exports, plus queues who knows how long for who knows what kind of produce and products at our ports.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
The EU doesn't really have to explain its position. That is the irritating, but entirely predictable thing.
If .
They have set out their stall, perhaps cryptically, and it's up to us to respond or do something. We are the ones long theta.
To use a sporting analogy, you might say the ball is in our court.
We should have planned for no deal from the beginning.
Hmm. A few things the EU could have done:
(1) Kept Dave's deal on the table, in case we changed our mind (why on earth not?) (2) Launched a full internal dispassionate enquiry into why the UK voted to Leave, and what the EU might be getting wrong in how it came across (Jossias Jessop first suggested this) (3) Demanded Juncker's resignation since he was "elected" on a platform that included solving the British problem inside the EU (4) With suitable exit payments, offered an alternative "associate" membership of the EU (less benefits, but more independence) (5) Launched a strategic review into the future of Europe, including all EU, EFTA and EEA states - it's not just us who are disillusioned - that might include free movement, for example
There are, of course, a number of missteps the UK made as well. But, the vast majority of what I've seen and heard from the EU since the vote has been very defensive and that they see Brexit as entirely our problem, and nothing to do with them.
In the long-term, that alone won't save them.
Brexit is essentially the UK's problem. There will be a short-term financial impact on the EU, but it remains structurally sound and will be able to progress more easily to its objective of ever closer union once its most recalcitrant member leaves on 29/3/2019.
I'm not convinced the EU is structurally sound. It still has very high unemployment and is reliant on the ECB as the only ammunition to solve the debt problems in the south. Spain could face a real economic crisis again if UDI happens in Catalonia. Having the richest part of your country face an economic freeze doesn't help your debt issues.
(1) Kept Dave's deal on the table, in case we changed our mind (why on earth not?) (2) Launched a full internal dispassionate enquiry into why the UK voted to Leave, and what the EU might be getting wrong in how it came across (Jossias Jessop first suggested this) (3) Demanded Juncker's resignation since he was "elected" on a platform that included solving the British problem inside the EU (4) With suitable exit payments, offered an alternative "associate" membership of the EU (less benefits, but more independence) (5) Launched a strategic review into the future of Europe, including all EU, EFTA and EEA states - it's not just us who are disillusioned - that might include free movement, for example
There are, of course, a number of missteps the UK made as well. But, the vast majority of what I've seen and heard from the EU since the vote has been very defensive and that they see Brexit as entirely our problem, and nothing to do with them.
In the long-term, that alone won't save them.
Brexit is essentially the UK's problem. There will be a short-term financial impact on the EU, but it remains structurally sound and will be able to progress more easily to its objective of ever closer union once its most recalcitrant member leaves on 29/3/2019.
That's exactly the sort of thinking that I think CR is referring to in point (2) above. The UK is not unique in having a Eurosceptic strand of public thought, although we are the first where it has reached a level that enabled us to leave. It is perfectly possible that events conspire to make Euroscepticism and Europhobia the majority in another EU country - say Greece, France or Spain. It might only take a couple of years.
So it makes sense for the EU to ask themselves *why* we left, and how they can alter or finesse the way they do things to prevent what I fear is inevitable in the medium term - another country leaving.
But as far as I can tell, they are not asking those difficult questions.
Which other country has given any indication of wanting to leave the EU? The UK, unlike the rest of the EU27, has never accepted the principle of ever closer union, but seen the EU as merely a common market.
My hope on all this is that it turns out a little like the Y2K forecast apocalypse... everyone is unprepared for the deadline, but sufficiently prepared to avert massive damage.
At this point, who knows ?
The Y2K apocalypse was avoided because a lot of people worked hard at eliminating it.
If we did nothing we would have been lambasted for failure.
If we succeeded we would be lambasted for scare-mongering.
It was an no-win scenario but nonetheless, a lot of remediation work was needed.
All these 'Prepare for no-deal Brexit' headline are potentially rather helpful to the negotiations. Dunno if they'll be sufficient to draw the realities of the situation to the attention of our EU friends, though; I rather think not.
Talk of No Deal Brexit preparations aims to impress Leavers, not the EU. Based on PB comments it looks like the government has succeeded at this level. They are not serious as a negotiating tactic. We know enough about the two sides negotiation positions to know that Barnier et al are unlikely to force a deal that's worse than no deal. They have no reason to fold to save us from making irrational choices.
They want three things from us: citizens rights, which are a good thing and they have already pushed our government in a better direction; special arrangements for Ireland, which are intractable but both parties are on the same page; and about €60 billion as an exit fee to wrap up existing commitments. In exchange they will probably offer a two year partial extension of current arrangements and talks about permanent arrangements to start after October 2018 when the deal, if any, is agreed. There is uncertainty whether an additional fee is chargeable for the extension, but this surely is negotiable. A prudent government would negotiate for the fixed fee to cover a potentially longer extension. These things always take longer than you think, right? Our government however is in hock to stupid Leavers who insist on two years and not a second more.
€60 billion (€2.5 billion a month) may seem like a lot for a short term transition. The EU won't talk about new arrangements without it,. This will apply equally if we crash out with no deal and subsequently look to come to terms with the EU and third countries. We can see this fee as the cost of Brexit. In any case, Brexit will be an expensive exercise. Money is our currency to buy back some of the influence we lose by no longer having a direct say in European affairs.
Edit I expect there to be a deal on these lines by next autumn: €60 billion for the two year no change extension.
So it makes sense for the EU to ask themselves *why* we left, and how they can alter or finesse the way they do things to prevent what I fear is inevitable in the medium term - another country leaving.
But as far as I can tell, they are not asking those difficult questions.
Crudely I think the analysis is that we voted to leave because we didn't understand it, because we had a press and political class that didn't understand it and preferred to lie about it. The negotiation is seen as a process of education, and not helping us paper over the contradictions is essential to aid in understanding the practical benefits we are deriving from EU membership right now.
Should that come over to British ears as de haut en bas condescension (waddyafink eh?), it will butter no parsnips here though.
BTW, as a veteran EU observer, I predicted at the start of the talks that there would be periodic crises, breakdowns, midnight emergency sessions, clock-stopping and more, but that there would be a deal in the end. I still think so.
The problem though, is that a deal 'in the end' is a deal too late. Many businesses, such as airlines, banks and car manufacturers, need at least 18 months to plan. Governments need to know what customs and administrative systems they will need. Therefore, if there is not substantive progress very soon indeed, we could slide into severe disruption almost accidentally.
Also, a deal "in the end", if it happens, is likely to be fairly minimal.
I stand by my "Russian train mobilisation" thread:
The way the EU have structured their approach to Brexit negotiations is a big part of the problem.
Lets not waste more time on pointless negotiations and go straight to WTO plus negotiating trade deals with non EU countries (and the EU if they are interested).
Good job we can export all those expensive houses.
Oh wait.
When foreigners buy UK houses they bring foreign exchange into the country, just like exporting does.
And then we elect Corbyn to turn them all into council housing with below market compulsory purchase orders?
Even better, the pitiful compensation money will be near-worthless anyway, because it will be denominated in sterling. So we take in, say, $1.5m dollars for the purchase, and pay them back $15K and a copy of a Momentum video.
This is looking like a whizzo plan, provided Johnny Foreigner doesn't see through it in time..
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
The EU doesn't really have to explain its position. That is the irritating, but entirely predictable thing.
If .
To use a sporting analogy, you might say the ball is in our court.
It's .
Hmm. A few things the EU could have done:
(1) Kept Dave's deal on the table, in case we changed our mind (why on earth not?) (2) Launched a full internal dispassionate enquiry into why the UK voted to Leave, and what the EU might be getting wrong in how it came across (Jossias Jessop first suggested this) (3) Demanded Juncker's resignation since he was "elected" on a platform that included solving the British problem inside the EU (4) With suitable exit payments, offered an alternative "associate" membership of the EU (less benefits, but more independence) (5) Launched a strategic review into the future of Europe, including all EU, EFTA and EEA states - it's not just us who are disillusioned - that might include free movement, for example
There are, of course, a number of missteps the UK made as well. But, the vast majority of what I've seen and heard from the EU since the vote has been very defensive and that they see Brexit as entirely our problem, and nothing to do with them.
In the long-term, that alone won't save them.
Brexit is essentially the UK's problem. There will be a short-term financial impact on the EU, but it remains structurally sound and will be able to progress more easily to its objective of ever closer union once its most recalcitrant member leaves on 29/3/2019.
And it's all the fault of the UK tabloid press.
Seriously, this won't really wash. Such "la la la, I'm not listening and nor do I need to!" attitudes are how Empires fall.
Why did its second largest member by economy/net contribution/military vote to Leave after 43 years?
Future historians will marvel at nothing more sophisticated than "because of the Daily Mail".
What we are leaving is not the same organisation that we joined 43 years ago. We joined the EEC and we are leaving the EU.
So it makes sense for the EU to ask themselves *why* we left, and how they can alter or finesse the way they do things to prevent what I fear is inevitable in the medium term - another country leaving.
But as far as I can tell, they are not asking those difficult questions.
Crudely I think the analysis is that we voted to leave because we didn't understand it, because we had a press and political class that didn't understand it and preferred to lie about it. The negotiation is seen as a process of education, and not helping us paper over the contradictions is essential to aid in understanding the practical benefits we are deriving from EU membership right now.
I think that's absolutely their analysis. But a political mindset that simply assumes the fault it with everyone else is a toxic one. For all the bitterness in the UK, we are having a debate on what the UK issue doing wrong and arguing reasons back and forth. The EU has not had any debate or reflection on self-criticism at all. It was one of the reasons I reluctantly voted for Leave, but I thought the third most populous member leaving would shake up the groupthink. That it hasn't just confirms we were right to leave, in my opinion.
All these 'Prepare for no-deal Brexit' headline are potentially rather helpful to the negotiations. Dunno if they'll be sufficient to draw the realities of the situation to the attention of our EU friends, though; I rather think not.
Talk of No Deal Brexit preparations aims to impress Leavers, not the EU. Based on PB comments it looks like the government has succeeded at this level. They are not serious as a negotiating tactic. We know enough about the two sides negotiation positions to know that Barnier et al are unlikely to force a deal that's worse than no deal. They have no reason to fold to save us from making irrational choices.
They want three things from us: citizens rights, which are a good thing and they have already pushed our government in a better direction; special arrangements for Ireland, which are intractable but both parties are on the same page; and about €60 billion as an exit fee to wrap up existing commitments. In exchange they will probably offer a two year partial extension of current arrangements and talks about permanent arrangements to start after October 2018 when the deal, if any, is agreed. There is uncertainty whether an additional fee is chargeable for the extension, but this surely is negotiable. A prudent government would negotiate for the fixed fee to cover a potentially longer extension. These things always take longer than you think, right? Our government however is in hock to stupid Leavers who insist on two years and not a second more.
€60 billion (€5 billion a month) may seem like a lot for a short term transition. The EU won't talk about new arrangements without it,. This will apply equally if we crash out with no deal and subsequently look to come to terms with the EU and third countries. We can see this fee as the cost of Brexit. In any case, Brexit will be an expensive exercise. Money is our currency to buy back some of the influence we lose by no longer having a direct say in European affairs.
What money? The UK is a financial disaster zone as bad as the rest of the Piggies, with the possible exception of Greece. Just look at the amount of borrowing and the balance of trade deficit. It is being bankrolled by foreign loans/investment, particularly by middle-eastern despots. The UK's financial state since crashing out of the ERM in 1992 meant that it was never sufficiently financially fit even to contemplate joining the Euro.
Corbyn's brexit might bring home some of the long term structural issues with the UK economy. It might just be the million volt shock the Great British public needs. If we survive I have no doubt we'll emerge stronger than before.
€60 billion (€2.5 billion a month) may seem like a lot for a short term transition. The EU won't talk about new arrangements without it,. This will apply equally if we crash out with no deal and subsequently look to come to terms with the EU and third countries. We can see this fee as the cost of Brexit. In any case, Brexit will be an expensive exercise. Money is our currency to buy back some of the influence we lose by no longer having a direct say in European affairs.
Edit I expect there to be a deal on these lines by next autumn: €60 billion for the two year no change extension.
The problem with your analysis is that they aren't offering anything in exchange. They are saying 'agree to pay us megabucks and if we think it's enough megabucks (but we're not telling you how much that might be) then we might condescend to consider whether we want to do anything else, but we won't say what'. It's barmy beyond belief as a position.
Corbyn's brexit might bring home some of the long term structural issues with the UK economy. It might just be the million volt shock the Great British public needs. If we survive I have no doubt we'll emerge stronger than before.
(1) Kept Dave's deal on the table, in case we changed our mind (why on earth not?) (2) Launched a full internal dispassionate enquiry into why the UK voted to Leave, and what the EU might be getting wrong in how it came across (Jossias Jessop first suggested this) (3) Demanded Juncker's resignation since he was "elected" on a platform that included solving the British problem inside the EU (4) With suitable exit payments, offered an alternative "associate" membership of the EU (less benefits, but more independence) (5) Launched a strategic review into the future of Europe, including all EU, EFTA and EEA states - it's not just us who are disillusioned - that might include free movement, for example
There are, of course, a number of missteps the UK made as well. But, the vast majority of what I've seen and heard from the EU since the vote has been very defensive and that they see Brexit as entirely our problem, and nothing to do with them.
In the long-term, that alone won't save them.
Brexit is essentially the UK's problem. There will be a short-term financial impact on the EU, but it remains structurally sound and will be able to progress more easily to its objective of ever closer union once its most recalcitrant member leaves on 29/3/2019.
That's exactly the sort of thinking that I think CR is referring to in point (2) above. The UK is not unique in having a Eurosceptic strand of public thought, although we are the first where it has reached a level that enabled us to leave. It is perfectly possible that events conspire to make Euroscepticism and Europhobia the majority in another EU country - say Greece, France or Spain. It might only take a couple of years.
So it makes sense for the EU to ask themselves *why* we left, and how they can alter or finesse the way they do things to prevent what I fear is inevitable in the medium term - another country leaving.
But as far as I can tell, they are not asking those difficult questions.
I think they are asking these questions. Most Europeans think the EU needs reform. The thing is, they disagree about what those reforms should be, so it is likely to stay largely as it is. I don't think British people understand that the EU is the way it is because it needs consensus.
My hope on all this is that it turns out a little like the Y2K forecast apocalypse... everyone is unprepared for the deadline, but sufficiently prepared to avert massive damage.
At this point, who knows ?
The Y2K apocalypse was avoided because a lot of people worked hard at eliminating it.
If we did nothing we would have been lambasted for failure.
If we succeeded we would be lambasted for scare-mongering.
It was an no-win scenario but nonetheless, a lot of remediation work was needed.
I'm aware of that - and quietly hoping that our government is going to be more prepared than I fear.
Corbyn's brexit might bring home some of the long term structural issues with the UK economy. It might just be the million volt shock the Great British public needs. If we survive I have no doubt we'll emerge stronger than before.
So it makes sense for the EU to ask themselves *why* we left, and how they can alter or finesse the way they do things to prevent what I fear is inevitable in the medium term - another country leaving.
But as far as I can tell, they are not asking those difficult questions.
Crudely I think the analysis is that we voted to leave because we didn't understand it, because we had a press and political class that didn't understand it and preferred to lie about it. The negotiation is seen as a process of education, and not helping us paper over the contradictions is essential to aid in understanding the practical benefits we are deriving from EU membership right now.
I think that's absolutely their analysis. But a political mindset that simply assumes the fault it with everyone else is a toxic one. For all the bitterness in the UK, we are having a debate on what the UK issue doing wrong and arguing reasons back and forth. The EU has not had any debate or reflection on self-criticism at all. It was one of the reasons I reluctantly voted for Leave, but I thought the third most populous member leaving would shake up the groupthink. That it hasn't just confirms we were right to leave, in my opinion.
The biggest mistake the Brexit government has made, and continues to make, is to assume that the EU27 are naturally on our side and the Commission is naturally against us. They completely misread the politics, as well as the geopolitics, of the situation.
BTW, as a veteran EU observer, I predicted at the start of the talks that there would be periodic crises, breakdowns, midnight emergency sessions, clock-stopping and more, but that there would be a deal in the end. I still think so.
The problem though, is that a deal 'in the end' is a deal too late. Many businesses, such as airlines, banks and car manufacturers, need at least 18 months to plan. Governments need to know what customs and administrative systems they will need. Therefore, if there is not substantive progress very soon indeed, we could slide into severe disruption almost accidentally.
Also, a deal "in the end", if it happens, is likely to be fairly minimal.
I stand by my "Russian train mobilisation" thread:
The way the EU have structured their approach to Brexit negotiations is a big part of the problem.
Lets not waste more time on pointless negotiations and go straight to WTO plus negotiating trade deals with non EU countries (and the EU if they are interested).
And how does WTO work? Assuming that we can get the physical and IT infrastructure in place - oh that's right. We can't even do that. At least that's what the people who run the ports and logistics and even HMRC say. 18 months is utterly impossible.
But "what do these doomsaying Remoaner experts know" I keep reading. As if our physical inability to "go straight to WTO" doesn't matter. Where we might get to 5 or 10 years after Brexit, or the principle of our courts having primacy are irrelevant if "straight to WTO" means empty shelves
BTW, as a veteran EU observer, I predicted at the start of the talks that there would be periodic crises, breakdowns, midnight emergency sessions, clock-stopping and more, but that there would be a deal in the end. I still think so.
The problem though, is that a deal 'in the end' is a deal too late. Many businesses, such as airlines, banks and car manufacturers, need at least 18 months to plan. Governments need to know what customs and administrative systems they will need. Therefore, if there is not substantive progress very soon indeed, we could slide into severe disruption almost accidentally.
Also, a deal "in the end", if it happens, is likely to be fairly minimal.
I stand by my "Russian train mobilisation" thread:
The way the EU have structured their approach to Brexit negotiations is a big part of the problem.
Lets not waste more time on pointless negotiations and go straight to WTO plus negotiating trade deals with non EU countries (and the EU if they are interested).
And how does WTO work? Assuming that we can get the physical and IT infrastructure in place - oh that's right. We can't even do that. At least that's what the people who run the ports and logistics and even HMRC say. 18 months is utterly impossible.
But "what do these doomsaying Remoaner experts know" I keep reading. As if our physical inability to "go straight to WTO" doesn't matter. Where we might get to 5 or 10 years after Brexit, or the principle of our courts having primacy are irrelevant if "straight to WTO" means empty shelves
You and your IGD conference experts. What do you know?
@freetochoose is absolutely convinced it's all absurd scaremongering.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
The EU doesn't really have to explain its position. That is the irritating, but entirely predictable thing.
If .
To use a sporting analogy, you might say the ball is in our court.
It's .
Hmm. A few things the EU could have done:
(1) Kept Dave's deal on the table, in case we changed our mind (why on earth not?) (2) Launched a full internal dispassionate enquiry into why the UK voted to Leave, and what the EU might be getting wrong in how it came across (Jossias Jessop first suggested this) (3) Demanded Juncker's resignation since he was "elected" on a platform that included solving the British problem inside the EU (4) With suitable exit payments, offered an alternative "associate" membership of the EU (less benefits, but more independence) (5) Launched a strategic review into the future of Europe, including all EU, EFTA and EEA states - it's not just us who are disillusioned - that might include free movement, for example
There are, of course, a number of missteps the UK made as well. But, the vast majority of what I've seen and heard from the EU since the vote has been very defensive and that they see Brexit as entirely our problem, and nothing to do with them.
In the long-term, that alone won't save them.
Brexit is essentially the UK's problem. There will be a short-term financial impact on the EU, but it remains structurally sound and will be able to progress more easily to its objective of ever closer union once its most recalcitrant member leaves on 29/3/2019.
And it's all the fault of the UK tabloid press.
Seriously, this won't really wash. Such "la la la, I'm not listening and nor do I need to!" attitudes are how Empires fall.
Why did its second largest member by economy/net contribution/military vote to Leave after 43 years?
Future historians will marvel at nothing more sophisticated than "because of the Daily Mail".
All of which might, or might not be the case... sometime down the line. In the meantime, Brexit really is the UK's problem far more than it is the EU's.
The UK is not Greece and there are downsides for a fair few people in the EU27 if there is no deal. A constructive, friendly UK that was seen to be reaching out might have had a chance to use that to shape public opinion in other countries so as to put some pressure on governments to strike a deal. But we have carried on being what we have been for a number of years when it comes to the EU: surly and largely hostile in tone. making Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad might have made sense to Theresa May politically, but the big problem was that it made Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad.
No, David Davis, not Boris Johnson, is clearly the face of the negotiations, and Johnson seems so far to have been pretty well marginalised.
There are two parties to these negotiations. One side has clearly entered them in a reasonably constructive manner wishing to talk about everything and published lots of detail on its stance in the hope of gaining some response from the other. The other side has though insisted on an absurd sequencing for those talks clearly designed to try and push the opposing where at the 11th hour it has little option to accept the gruel on offer and has published next to nothing of substance of its own. Its motivation for that stance seems to me to be more guided by a desire to punish than to reach a rational settlement for the benefit the citizens on whose behalf its unaccountable elites are supposedly acting.
So, faced with that, I'm quite content that the UK government has now decided to give greater emphasis to planning for a parallel, alternative course that gives it a viable option involving tariffs. That will both by extra leverage that might still avoid that course, and might yet influence elite opinion within EU states facing the prospect of a barriers to their net exports to UK markets.
Incidentally, what are the options as to how the UK government might use the revenues from import tariffs on EU goods?
Tariffs on imports and exports, plus queues who knows how long for who knows what kind of produce and products at our ports.
That'll show the EU.
Spanish fresh food exports will rot at the ports as they queue to enter. Should the Spanish Government sit back and watch Barnier negotiate this position?
The UK is not Greece and there are downsides for a fair few people in the EU27 if there is no deal. A constructive, friendly UK that was seen to be reaching out might have had a chance to use that to shape public opinion in other countries so as to put some pressure on governments to strike a deal. But we have carried on being what we have been for a number of years when it comes to the EU: surly and largely hostile in tone. making Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad might have made sense to Theresa May politically, but the big problem was that it made Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad.
No, David Davis, not Boris Johnson, is clearly the face of the negotiations, and Johnson seems so far to have been pretty well marginalised.
There are two parties to these negotiations. One side has clearly entered them in a reasonably constructive manner wishing to talk about everything and published lots of detail on its stance in the hope of gaining some response from the other. The other side has though insisted on an absurd sequencing for those talks clearly designed to try and push the opposing where at the 11th hour it has little option to accept the gruel on offer and has published next to nothing of substance of its own. Its motivation for that stance seems to me to be more guided by a desire to punish than to reach a rational settlement for the benefit the citizens on whose behalf its unaccountable elites are supposedly acting.
So, faced with that, I'm quite content that the UK government has now decided to give greater emphasis to planning for a parallel, alternative course that gives it a viable option involving tariffs. That will both by extra leverage that might still avoid that course, and might yet influence elite opinion within EU states facing the prospect of a barriers to their net exports to UK markets.
Incidentally, what are the options as to how the UK government might use the revenues from import tariffs on EU goods?
Tariffs on imports and exports, plus queues who knows how long for who knows what kind of produce and products at our ports.
That'll show the EU.
Spanish fresh food exports will rot at the UK ports as they queue to enter. Should the Spanish Government sit back and watch Barnier negotiate this position?
€60 billion (€2.5 billion a month) may seem like a lot for a short term transition. The EU won't talk about new arrangements without it,. This will apply equally if we crash out with no deal and subsequently look to come to terms with the EU and third countries. We can see this fee as the cost of Brexit. In any case, Brexit will be an expensive exercise. Money is our currency to buy back some of the influence we lose by no longer having a direct say in European affairs.
Edit I expect there to be a deal on these lines by next autumn: €60 billion for the two year no change extension.
The problem with your analysis is that they aren't offering anything in exchange. They are saying 'agree to pay us megabucks and if we think it's enough megabucks (but we're not telling you how much that might be) then we might condescend to consider whether we want to do anything else, but we won't say what'. It's barmy beyond belief as a position.
We both missed the key point in our posts. On 29 March 2019 all treaties lapse under the Article 50 clause - there are about 800 of them apparently. The default isn't the status quo; it's nothing at all. If we want to retain any of the status quo it's a new negotiation and there is potentially a fee attached. Maybe it's a barmy situation, but I voted Remain to avoid it and also pointed out the stupidity of triggering Article 50 through Leaver pressure to close down those arrangements before working out our path forwards.
All these 'Prepare for no-deal Brexit' headline are potentially rather helpful to the negotiations. Dunno if they'll be sufficient to draw the realities of the situation to the attention of our EU friends, though; I rather think not.
Talk of No Deal Brexit preparations aims to impress Leavers, not the EU. Based on PB comments it looks like the government has succeeded at this level. They are not serious as a negotiating tactic. We know enough about the two sides negotiation positions to know that Barnier et al are unlikely to force a deal that's worse than no deal. They have no reason to fold to save us from making irrational choices.
They want three things from us: citizens rights, which are a good thing and they have already pushed our government in a better direction; special arrangements for Ireland, which are intractable but both parties are on the same page; and about €60 billion as an exit fee to wrap up existing commitments. In exchange they will probably offer a two year partial extension of current arrangements and talks about permanent arrangements to start after October 2018 when the deal, if any, is agreed. There is uncertainty whether an additional fee is chargeable for the extension, but this surely is negotiable. A prudent government would negotiate for the fixed fee to cover a potentially longer extension. These things always take longer than you think, right? Our government however is in hock to stupid Leavers who insist on two years and not a second more.
€60 billion (€2.5 billion a month) may seem like a lot for a short term transition. The EU won't talk about new arrangements without it,. This will apply equally if we crash out with no deal and subsequently look to come to terms with the EU and third countries. We can see this fee as the cost of Brexit. In any case, Brexit will be an expensive exercise. Money is our currency to buy back some of the influence we lose by no longer having a direct say in European affairs.
Edit I expect there to be a deal on these lines by next autumn: €60 billion for the two year no change extension.
Where did the figure of 60 billion come from? I don't think figures have ever been mentioned in the negotiations.
Quite a positive story for the PM this morning with this racial audit. Makes a nice change but I think, like many people in fairness, she is better at identifying a problem than finding solutions. It will be interesting to see what she thinks she can do about what she has highlighted.
Differential outcomes aren't caused by government policies, so it's hard to see what changes government's can make.
That's not true. Government has enormous power to lead campaigns to change cultural mindsets. Look at changing views on sexual assault or drink driving.
I'm not sure that the government has been very successful in changing attitudes towards sexual assaults. They are (rightly) punished as crimes, but they are still widespread.
But, in any case, the government is going to struggle to get parents to make sure their children work hard at school, to ensure that Pakistani women learn English, and don't face prejudice from their own communities about going to work, that fathers don't abandon their children, that young people don't join gangs, or get persuaded by their peers to get involved in crime, etc., however well-intentioned and efficient the government is.
The UK is not Greece and there are downsides for a fair few people in the EU27 if there is no deal. A constructive, friendly UK that was seen to be reaching out might have had a chance to use that to shape public opinion in other countries so as to put some pressure on governments to strike a deal. But we have carried on being what we have been for a number of years when it comes to the EU: surly and largely hostile in tone. making Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad might have made sense to Theresa May politically, but the big problem was that it made Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad.
No, David Davis, not Boris Johnson, is clearly the face of the negotiations, and Johnson seems so far to have been pretty well marginalised.
There are two parties to these negotiations. One side has clearly entered them in a reasonably constructive manner wishing to talk about everything and published lots of detail on its stance in the hope of gaining some response from the other. The other side has though insisted on an absurd sequencing for those talks clearly designed to try and push the opposing where at the 11th hour it has little option to accept the gruel on offer and has published next to nothing of substance of its own. Its motivation for that stance seems to me to be more guided by a desire to punish than to reach a rational settlement for the benefit the citizens on whose behalf its unaccountable elites are supposedly acting.
So, faced with that, I'm quite content that the UK government has now decided to give greater emphasis to planning for a parallel, alternative course that gives it a viable option involving tariffs. That will both by extra leverage that might still avoid that course, and might yet influence elite opinion within EU states facing the prospect of a barriers to their net exports to UK markets.
Incidentally, what are the options as to how the UK government might use the revenues from import tariffs on EU goods?
Tariffs on imports and exports, plus queues who knows how long for who knows what kind of produce and products at our ports.
That'll show the EU.
Spanish fresh food exports will rot at the ports as they queue to enter. Should the Spanish Government sit back and watch Barnier negotiate this position?
Aren't we the ones who want to crash out nobly to WTO terms? Barnier is happy to do a deal.
Which other country has given any indication of wanting to leave the EU? The UK, unlike the rest of the EU27, has never accepted the principle of ever closer union, but seen the EU as merely a common market.
All it would take is for a nationalistic party to take power, or even, as happened in the UK, for one to threaten power. After all, the EU is the status quo, and it is easy to blame it - rightly or wrongly - for many ills. It's an easy target for politicians. "It's not my fault - it's those awful unaccountable Eurocrats!", and newspapers also love to bash the status quo.
If it happens, it may happen in just a few years.
Where I differ from some is that I don't think the EU had much power in our lives: most of the country's problems emerge from our our own parliament, not the EU. But it's easy to blame them for problems, rather than ourselves.
I had hoped that the vote to leave would mean we take more responsibility for our failings. Sadly, it appears that people will still want to blame the EU. I see that as distinctly unhealthy and worrying for our long-term future.
All these 'Prepare for no-deal Brexit' headline are potentially rather helpful to the negotiations. Dunno if they'll be sufficient to draw the realities of the situation to the attention of our EU friends, though; I rather think not.
Talk of No Deal Brexit preparations aims to impress Leavers, not the EU. Based on PB comments it looks like the government has succeeded at this level. They are not serious as a negotiating tactic. We know enough about the two sides negotiation positions to know that Barnier et al are unlikely to force a deal that's worse than no deal. They have no reason to fold to save us from making irrational choices.
They want three things from us: citizens rights, which are a good thing and they have already pushed our government in a better direction; special arrangements for Ireland, which are intractable but both parties are on the same page; and about €60 billion as an exit fee to wrap up existing commitments. In exchange they will probably offer a two year partial extension of current arrangements and talks about permanent arrangements to start after October 2018 when the deal, if any, is agreed. There is uncertainty whether an additional fee is chargeable for the extension, but this surely is negotiable. A prudent government would negotiate for the fixed fee to cover a potentially longer extension. These things always take longer than you think, right? Our government however is in hock to stupid Leavers who insist on two years and not a second more.
€60 billion (€5 billion a month) may seem like a lot for a short term transition. The EU won't talk about new arrangements without it,. This will apply equally if we crash out with no deal and subsequently look to come to terms with the EU and third countries. We can see this fee as the cost of Brexit. In any case, Brexit will be an expensive exercise. Money is our currency to buy back some of the influence we lose by no longer having a direct say in European affairs.
What money? The UK is a financial disaster zone as bad as the rest of the Piggies, with the possible exception of Greece. Just look at the amount of borrowing and the balance of trade deficit. It is being bankrolled by foreign loans/investment, particularly by middle-eastern despots. The UK's financial state since crashing out of the ERM in 1992 meant that it was never sufficiently financially fit even to contemplate joining the Euro.
Just to cheer you up, when we rejoin the EU, then we will be forced to use the Euro....
The biggest mistake the Brexit government has made, and continues to make, is to assume that the EU27 are naturally on our side and the Commission is naturally against us. They completely misread the politics, as well as the geopolitics, of the situation.
That is an astute point. If anything, the intransigence of the EU27 position seems to come from the Council of Ministers. Their position reads very much as though they went round the table asking each country what they wanted, and then stuck the demands into a list:
Ireland: No physical border
Germany, Denmark, Austria, etc: Money, so that we don't have to cough up to cover the shortfall
Greece, Poland, Romania etc: Money, so that we don't lose out on any dosh we had pencilled in as coming our way
Poland, Romania, Portugal etc: Continued rights for our citizens to earn money in the UK
One gets the impression that they didn't think it through any further than that.
(1) Kept Dave's deal on the table, in case we changed our mind (why on earth not?) (2) Launched a full internal dispassionate enquiry into why the UK voted to Leave, and what the EU might be getting wrong in how it came across (Jossias Jessop first suggested this) (3) Demanded Juncker's resignation since he was "elected" on a platform that included solving the British problem inside the EU (4) With suitable exit payments, offered an alternative "associate" membership of the EU (less benefits, but more independence) (5) Launched a strategic review into the future of Europe, including all EU, EFTA and EEA states - it's not just us who are disillusioned - that might include free movement, for example
There are, of course, a number of missteps the UK made as well. But, the vast majority of what I've seen and heard from the EU since the vote has been very defensive and that they see Brexit as entirely our problem, and nothing to do with them.
In the long-term, that alone won't save them.
Brexit is essentially the UK's problem. There will be a short-term financial impact on the EU, but it remains structurally sound and will be able to progress more easily to its objective of ever closer union once its most recalcitrant member leaves on 29/3/2019.
That's exactly the sort of thinking that I think CR is referring to in point (2) above. The UK is not unique in having a Eurosceptic strand of public thought, although we are the first where it has reached a level that enabled us to leave. It is perfectly possible that events conspire to make Euroscepticism and Europhobia the majority in another EU country - say Greece, France or Spain. It might only take a couple of years.
So it makes sense for the EU to ask themselves *why* we left, and how they can alter or finesse the way they do things to prevent what I fear is inevitable in the medium term - another country leaving.
But as far as I can tell, they are not asking those difficult questions.
I think they are asking these questions. Most Europeans think the EU needs reform. The thing is, they disagree about what those reforms should be, so it is likely to stay largely as it is. I don't think British people understand that the EU is the way it is because it needs consensus.
I'm far from convinced that they're asking these questions. And as for your last sentence: I;m unsure the consensus they're heading towards is a consensus of the peoples of the EU; rather it is a consensus of the political elite.
All these 'Prepare for no-deal Brexit' headline are potentially rather helpful to the negotiations. Dunno if they'll be sufficient to draw the realities of the situation to the attention of our EU friends, though; I rather think not.
Talk of No Deal Brexit preparations aims to impress Leavers, not the EU. Based on PB comments it looks like the government has succeeded at this level. They are not serious as a negotiating tactic. We know enough about the two sides negotiation positions to know that Barnier et al are unlikely to force a deal that's worse than no deal. They have no reason to fold to save us from making irrational choices.
They want three things from us: citizens rights, which are a good thing and they have already pushed our government in a better direction; special arrangements for Ireland, which are intractable but both parties are on the same page; and about €60 billion as an exit fee to wrap up existing commitments. In exchange they will probably offer a two year partial extension of current arrangements and talks about permanent arrangements to start after October 2018 when the deal, if any, is agreed. There is uncertainty whether an additional fee is chargeable for the extension, but this surely is negotiable. A prudent government would negotiate for the fixed fee to cover a potentially longer extension. These things always take longer than you think, right? Our government however is in hock to stupid Leavers who insist on two years and not a second more.
€60 billion (€2.5 billion a month) may seem like a lot for a short term transition. The EU won't talk about new arrangements without it,. This will apply equally if we crash out with no deal and subsequently look to come to terms with the EU and third countries. We can see this fee as the cost of Brexit. In any case, Brexit will be an expensive exercise. Money is our currency to buy back some of the influence we lose by no longer having a direct say in European affairs.
Edit I expect there to be a deal on these lines by next autumn: €60 billion for the two year no change extension.
Where did the figure of 60 billion come from? I don't think figures have ever been mentioned in the negotiations.
There is no formal figure at this stage. It is an estimate by other parties of EU demands, after netting off. It's almost purely a haggle over money. It comes down to what it is worth to us to avoid a car crash Brexit when we will probably end up paying this sort of money sooner rather than later anyway. It's why I think the EU are not very impressed by balls in courts and no deal preparations.
Comments
The same applies the other way, of course.
Now, obviously I'm not going to be going into any more detail than that. But, from what I understand, he's been getting away with extremely "laddish" behaviour for over 10 years now. People just snigger or act with disbelief behind his back, but otherwise they get on with their jobs, and he stays in his.
I said the dam would eventually break, and he'll be outed. It might be this year, next year, or he might even get away with for the next 10 years, but, eventually, someone will spill the beans.
And then, so will everyone else.
No one should be forced to drink tea..... (video by Thames Valley Police)
https://youtu.be/pZwvrxVavnQ
And their message: massive threat to the sector on a number of fronts:
1. Brexit threat. Industry now prepping worst case scenario of no deal and the inevitable cost / delay factor of customs checks when 1/3rd of food is imported. Just how supply of fresh and chilled sectors will cope with customs checks is unclear, but it's expected to be bad.
2. Inflation surging in food prices now ahead of wages. Had been driven by FX changes but now driving volume sales contraction which is accelerating.
3. Inflation raises Qs about interest rates. And with 1/3rd of households having no cash in the bank and massive debts, even a small increase in rates will contract spending even more which puts even more pressure on the industry.
Gloomy stuff, and every one of these conferences I go to the data has hot worse and the outlook more despondent. This is my problem with the happy clappy WTO will be fine sod the EU attitude. We physically cannot exit the single market in March 2019 if we want to eat. The industry knows this. The farmers know this. The supermarkets know this. The manufacturing sector knows this. The logistics industry knows this. Why does "we don't need experts it will be fine" trump actual facts from the people who actually do the job?
To be honest, it's not hard to work out.
https://twitter.com/michaelgove/status/917442249218252800
On our side, there is a clear dichotomy between what (for instance) Hammond and Johnson want, and no clear means of settling how that will turn out, given May's relative impotence to impose any given solution.
On the EU side it's probably nowhere near as simple, and the mechanisms for changing their negotiating position considerably more sclerotic.
You are myopic.
(1) Kept Dave's deal on the table, in case we changed our mind (why on earth not?)
(2) Launched a full internal dispassionate enquiry into why the UK voted to Leave, and what the EU might be getting wrong in how it came across (Jossias Jessop first suggested this)
(3) Demanded Juncker's resignation since he was "elected" on a platform that included solving the British problem inside the EU
(4) With suitable exit payments, offered an alternative "associate" membership of the EU (less benefits, but more independence)
(5) Launched a strategic review into the future of Europe, including all EU, EFTA and EEA states - it's not just us who are disillusioned - that might include free movement, for example
There are, of course, a number of missteps the UK made as well. But, the vast majority of what I've seen and heard from the EU since the vote has been very defensive and that they see Brexit as entirely our problem, and nothing to do with them.
In the long-term, that alone won't save them.
Have we found the ball or even the court yet
My eyes were somewhat opened about this in my early twenties when, within a short period, three young female friends told me about abuse they had suffered (two were by family members). As far as I'm aware, no-one has ever been to court about it, and in one of those cases the family disbelieved her, preferring to believe the accused - and even let her younger sister stay with the accused after they were told. I have also known male friends who have suffered sexual bullying or worse, and one had his life ruined by it.
If you talk to people and listen, it is frightening how common it is.
It's never quite simple and black or white: from personal experience males and females can have very different attitudes as follows....
Recently I had an overnight encounter with a girl who I used to see casually 20 years ago. The next morning I found out she was married with children and it made me very uncomfortable. A couple of weeks later in a bar with many friends around she started groping me in front of people. I had to physically pin her arms back to stop her then walked away. Now I could have reported her to the police but I figured that it would ruin her life, her children's life and her husband's life. It was annoying when it happened but I didn't feel "violated" or sexually abused.
Another time I was at a drunken dinner in a restaurant and a girl kept trying to grope me under the table and I eventually had to just get up and leave and ask her friends to tell her she was out of order. I was again annoyed and possibly more annoyed by the thought that if a man kept repeatedly doing it to a woman after being asked to stop yet alone after the first time they would probably be arrested but I didn't complain to the police - to me it wasn't a massive issue worth damaging someone's life over as I know that people get drunk and do stupid things.
This however is balanced in a weird way by an argument I had with an ex where she told me she had been groped in a nightclub once and did nothing about it (before our relationship). I was so angry and didn't know why she did nothing and we fell out badly. She was a very feisty and strong personality so not as if she was too scared.
So there are many levels where some men don't see it as worth a complaint or feeling they have been abused, some women choose not to react for multiple reasons, and some men find it outrageous that it happens to women but don't worry about it happening to themselves. So I find it simplistic when Hollywood and Twitter warriors are expecting everyone who knew Weinstein or re the Parliament "gropings" expects everyone to act in the same way....
Sorry for the long post!
The business of measuring and predicting voting behaviour should be considered completely separate from the election itself. There shouldn't be "a House of Lords Committee that’s carrying out a review of what went wrong with GE2017 polls."
It's not some kind of scandal that they didn't know what was going to happen in the election, before the election happened.
If the deal is not sorted by summer 2018 or Sept 2018 then it will be too late
There are two parties to these negotiations. One side has clearly entered them in a reasonably constructive manner wishing to talk about everything and published lots of detail on its stance in the hope of gaining some response from the other. The other side has though insisted on an absurd sequencing for those talks clearly designed to try and push the opposing where at the 11th hour it has little option to accept the gruel on offer and has published next to nothing of substance of its own. Its motivation for that stance seems to me to be more guided by a desire to punish than to reach a rational settlement for the benefit the citizens on whose behalf its unaccountable elites are supposedly acting.
So, faced with that, I'm quite content that the UK government has now decided to give greater emphasis to planning for a parallel, alternative course that gives it a viable option involving tariffs. That will both by extra leverage that might still avoid that course, and might yet influence elite opinion within EU states facing the prospect of a barriers to their net exports to UK markets.
Incidentally, what are the options as to how the UK government might use the revenues from import tariffs on EU goods?
Thing is, as we have been discussing earlier, if they don't name a price, and demand one from us, then there's sod all we can do about it. Come over all petulant "won't they see reason?" (ans: no need to), or take the initiative, appreciate that it might be politically difficult, and name a price ourselves.
They are holding all the cards. And no, the option of crashing out to WTO doesn't mean we hold any cards.
everyone is unprepared for the deadline, but sufficiently prepared to avert massive damage.
At this point, who knows ?
Seriously, this won't really wash. Such "la la la, I'm not listening and nor do I need to!" attitudes are how Empires fall.
Why did its second largest member by economy/net contribution/military vote to Leave after 43 years?
Future historians will marvel at nothing more sophisticated than "because of the Daily Mail".
I stand by my "Russian train mobilisation" thread:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/25/brace-yourselves-for-the-impending-train-wreck-of-the-brexit-negotiations/
The way the EU have structured their approach to Brexit negotiations is a big part of the problem.
Obviously there was genuine swing from the time of the locals to the GE, but the polls at the time of the local elections were already painting a too flattering picture for the Tories.
So it makes sense for the EU to ask themselves *why* we left, and how they can alter or finesse the way they do things to prevent what I fear is inevitable in the medium term - another country leaving.
But as far as I can tell, they are not asking those difficult questions.
Oh wait.
As for import tariffs, these will be paid by UK consumers and companies. What the government does with the money will be interesting to see.
That'll show the EU.
If we did nothing we would have been lambasted for failure.
If we succeeded we would be lambasted for scare-mongering.
It was an no-win scenario but nonetheless, a lot of remediation work was needed.
They want three things from us: citizens rights, which are a good thing and they have already pushed our government in a better direction; special arrangements for Ireland, which are intractable but both parties are on the same page; and about €60 billion as an exit fee to wrap up existing commitments. In exchange they will probably offer a two year partial extension of current arrangements and talks about permanent arrangements to start after October 2018 when the deal, if any, is agreed. There is uncertainty whether an additional fee is chargeable for the extension, but this surely is negotiable. A prudent government would negotiate for the fixed fee to cover a potentially longer extension. These things always take longer than you think, right? Our government however is in hock to stupid Leavers who insist on two years and not a second more.
€60 billion (€2.5 billion a month) may seem like a lot for a short term transition. The EU won't talk about new arrangements without it,. This will apply equally if we crash out with no deal and subsequently look to come to terms with the EU and third countries. We can see this fee as the cost of Brexit. In any case, Brexit will be an expensive exercise. Money is our currency to buy back some of the influence we lose by no longer having a direct say in European affairs.
Edit I expect there to be a deal on these lines by next autumn: €60 billion for the two year no change extension.
This is looking like a whizzo plan, provided Johnny Foreigner doesn't see through it in time..
But "what do these doomsaying Remoaner experts know" I keep reading. As if our physical inability to "go straight to WTO" doesn't matter. Where we might get to 5 or 10 years after Brexit, or the principle of our courts having primacy are irrelevant if "straight to WTO" means empty shelves
@freetochoose is absolutely convinced it's all absurd scaremongering.
In the meantime, Brexit really is the UK's problem far more than it is the EU's.
Spanish fresh food exports will rot at the ports as they queue to enter. Should the Spanish Government sit back and watch Barnier negotiate this position?
http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/
The 52% did not buy into this insanity. 100% sovereignty, at any cost, is an impossible fantasy.
Literally impossible for a country like Britain in the 21st century.
The US is able to do it, China will be able to do it.
Not us. We don't have the demographic and economic might.
But, in any case, the government is going to struggle to get parents to make sure their children work hard at school, to ensure that Pakistani women learn English, and don't face prejudice from their own communities about going to work, that fathers don't abandon their children, that young people don't join gangs, or get persuaded by their peers to get involved in crime, etc., however well-intentioned and efficient the government is.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jun/23/is-britain-most-eurosceptic-country
All it would take is for a nationalistic party to take power, or even, as happened in the UK, for one to threaten power. After all, the EU is the status quo, and it is easy to blame it - rightly or wrongly - for many ills. It's an easy target for politicians. "It's not my fault - it's those awful unaccountable Eurocrats!", and newspapers also love to bash the status quo.
If it happens, it may happen in just a few years.
Where I differ from some is that I don't think the EU had much power in our lives: most of the country's problems emerge from our our own parliament, not the EU. But it's easy to blame them for problems, rather than ourselves.
I had hoped that the vote to leave would mean we take more responsibility for our failings. Sadly, it appears that people will still want to blame the EU. I see that as distinctly unhealthy and worrying for our long-term future.
Ireland: No physical border
Germany, Denmark, Austria, etc: Money, so that we don't have to cough up to cover the shortfall
Greece, Poland, Romania etc: Money, so that we don't lose out on any dosh we had pencilled in as coming our way
Poland, Romania, Portugal etc: Continued rights for our citizens to earn money in the UK
One gets the impression that they didn't think it through any further than that.
The two are very different.
(I believe around a quarter of that is in index funds, though)