What I find difficult to understand is the issue over the bill (analogous to that of the length of the transition period).
We are about to be out of the EU for generations to come.
Just hand over £100bn and have the two year transition period.
In 30 years time who will have remembered? As HK tailors say - the quality of the cloth will be remembered for far longer than the price you paid.
The other thing is a prudent government who wants to get the biggest bang for their billion eurobucks would demand a longer transition period. How about five years? These things always take longer than you think, right? But no, not a second more than two years! We want less!
Morning, Mr.D. Have you read the BBC article on Hamilton's qualifying prowess ? It's a tough hagiographic for my taste, but there's some interesting stuff - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41576209
That’s a good article. The only other man who could qualify like Lewis was Ayrton Senna, back in the days when they really could turn the engines up on a Saturday afternoon.
We need to come together as a country to sort this out, not bicker amongst ourselves.
Yes, Brexiteer politicians need to admit their colossal error of judgement and deliver an apology to the nation.
Or alternatively those still alive who took us out of EFTA to join the EEC in 1973 should apologise given we were always more suited to the former than the latter
Mr. B, good and lucky. Alonso's got horrendous timing when it comes to changing teams. Raikkonen had terrible reliability at McLaren. Schumacher would've been leading the 2013 season after seven or eight races had he not suffered about six reliability failures (he also would've had Monaco pole had he not accidentally had Senna in the preceding race).
Given the EU's irrationality, I think we should very soon assume that there won't be a trade deal. I was at a Mansion House dinner last night, where the Lord Mayor gave a speech; he repeated the point that the City needs to know what is happening by the end of this year. I'm sure you'd get the same view from a wide range of different industries, from car manufacturing to aviation to farming.
Therefore, the time will come very soon indeed - we are talking days or single-figure weeks - when really there is no alternative but to give up on the trade deal, and instead accept that the EU doesn't want one. We can then get on with discussing what the EU apparently is prepared to talk about - negotiations on an 'orderly withdrawal' to WTO terms. Clearly we will need a transition deal as part of that, but that should be attainable given that it would cover the black hole in the EU's finances for the remainder of their budget period, and also because they are as unprepared as we are.
The alternative, of shilly-shallying around until it's too late for anyone to plan anything, is just too risky and would be certain to lead to disruption. The absolute deadline for agreeing a trade deal has to be the end of this year. Since that's impossible, Plan B it will have to be.
And yet we have Hammond undermining the government's strategy, supported by MPs and journalists who either haven't a clue about negotiating, or would rather see Britain fail than be proved wrong that Brexit cannot be anything other than a disaster.
Do you think a strategy based on spending billions on infrastructure that you don't intend to use just to impress the other side sounds sensible?
The authorising of such sums is different to actually spending those sums right now. It shows intent that we could go that route, if we have to. And if we have to, we will.
Hammond's position indicates to Brussels he would never go that route. Epic negotiating fail.
Didn't he simply say we wouldn't spend those sums "until the last moment". That's not never, that's not now.
You can budget for those sums NOW. You can have detailed contingency planning for spending that budget NOW. You can have a timetable for when that budget needs to be triggered NOW. You can tell the EU you are doing all tht NOW.
Hammond appears to be doing none of that. Epic fail.
The EU needs to believe we will go WTO walk-away if needs be - even if that is far less than optimal. Cameron's monumental blunder in dealing with the EU was to say, up front, he would never support Leave. It cost him his job. Hammond's monumental blunder in dealing with the EU is refusing to say, up front, that he could go WTO. Hammond has learnt nothing. It should also cost him his job.
The EU needs to believe we will go WTO walk-away if needs be - even if that is far less than optimal. Cameron's monumental blunder in dealing with the EU was to say, up front, he would never support Leave. It cost him his job. Hammond's monumental blunder in dealing with the EU is refusing to say, up front, that he could go WTO. Hammond has learnt nothing. It should also cost him his job.
Do you not think that signalling to the rest of the world that we are preparing for a WTO walk away would have immediate consequences for our economy that would undermine our position further?
The thing that nobody seems to be pointing out is that as much as we're not building customs facilities in Dover etc in preparation for No Deal, neither are the EU building them in Calais etc
The EU don't appear to be preparing for No Deal either. Does that mean they have no choice but to give a deal by the same logic as we apparently have no choice?
The more pertinent point is that it doesn't matter how much we spend on No Deal - we can't be prepared for it unilaterally. If the French and others don't spend the same, then we'd still be left with utter chaos.
In simple terms, they have us over a barrel.
In simple terms, they're bluffing.
They want us to give in and give many tens of billions because they're broke and nobody wants to fill in the incredibly generous sums they were getting from us for years now. They think we will give in so they're demanding outrageous amounts.
The last thing they want is actual utter chaos. That will be bad for them. The last thing they want is having to spend billions on infrastructure rather than taking a smaller sum than originally demanded, that would be bad for them.
This is just a geopolitical game of chicken. But they have no intention of actually ending in chaos.
The thing that nobody seems to be pointing out is that as much as we're not building customs facilities in Dover etc in preparation for No Deal, neither are the EU building them in Calais etc
The EU don't appear to be preparing for No Deal either. Does that mean they have no choice but to give a deal by the same logic as we apparently have no choice?
The more pertinent point is that it doesn't matter how much we spend on No Deal - we can't be prepared for it unilaterally. If the French and others don't spend the same, then we'd still be left with utter chaos.
In simple terms, they have us over a barrel.
In simple terms, they're bluffing.
They want us to give in and give many tens of billions because they're broke and nobody wants to fill in the incredibly generous sums they were getting from us for years now. They think we will give in so they're demanding outrageous amounts.
The last thing they want is actual utter chaos. That will be bad for them. The last thing they want is having to spend billions on infrastructure rather than taking a smaller sum than originally demanded, that would be bad for them.
This is just a geopolitical game of chicken. But they have no intention of actually ending in chaos.
Of course they have no intention of ending in chaos. They intend to win decisively long before then. Brexit will be crushed.
The thing that nobody seems to be pointing out is that as much as we're not building customs facilities in Dover etc in preparation for No Deal, neither are the EU building them in Calais etc
The EU don't appear to be preparing for No Deal either. Does that mean they have no choice but to give a deal by the same logic as we apparently have no choice?
The more pertinent point is that it doesn't matter how much we spend on No Deal - we can't be prepared for it unilaterally. If the French and others don't spend the same, then we'd still be left with utter chaos.
In simple terms, they have us over a barrel.
In simple terms, they're bluffing.
They want us to give in and give many tens of billions because they're broke and nobody wants to fill in the incredibly generous sums they were getting from us for years now. They think we will give in so they're demanding outrageous amounts.
The last thing they want is actual utter chaos. That will be bad for them. The last thing they want is having to spend billions on infrastructure rather than taking a smaller sum than originally demanded, that would be bad for them.
This is just a geopolitical game of chicken. But they have no intention of actually ending in chaos.
Of course they have no intention of ending in chaos. They intend to win decisively long before then. Brexit will be crushed.
Just like Spain will crush Catalan independence I presume
The thing that nobody seems to be pointing out is that as much as we're not building customs facilities in Dover etc in preparation for No Deal, neither are the EU building them in Calais etc
The EU don't appear to be preparing for No Deal either. Does that mean they have no choice but to give a deal by the same logic as we apparently have no choice?
The more pertinent point is that it doesn't matter how much we spend on No Deal - we can't be prepared for it unilaterally. If the French and others don't spend the same, then we'd still be left with utter chaos.
In simple terms, they have us over a barrel.
They want us to give in and give many tens of billions because they're broke and nobody wants to fill in the incredibly generous sums they were getting from us for years now.
The £10bn a year net the UK is contributing to the EU is not some vast sum. Its a few hours of EU27 GDP.
The latest growth figures show the EU booming while the UK is near stagnation. They can easily cover the cost of us leaving themselves. It is not the UKs ace card.
The thing that nobody seems to be pointing out is that as much as we're not building customs facilities in Dover etc in preparation for No Deal, neither are the EU building them in Calais etc
The EU don't appear to be preparing for No Deal either. Does that mean they have no choice but to give a deal by the same logic as we apparently have no choice?
The more pertinent point is that it doesn't matter how much we spend on No Deal - we can't be prepared for it unilaterally. If the French and others don't spend the same, then we'd still be left with utter chaos.
In simple terms, they have us over a barrel.
They want us to give in and give many tens of billions because they're broke and nobody wants to fill in the incredibly generous sums they were getting from us for years now.
The £10bn a year net the UK is contributing to the EU is not some vast sum. Its a few hours of EU27 GDP.
The latest growth figures show the EU booming while the UK is near stagnation. They can easily cover the cost of us leaving themselves. It is not the UKs ace card.
Given the EU's irrationality, I think we should very soon assume that there won't be a trade deal. I was at a Mansion House dinner last night, where the Lord Mayor gave a speech; he repeated the point that the City needs to know what is happening by the end of this year. I'm sure you'd get the same view from a wide range of different industries, from car manufacturing to aviation to farming.
Therefore, the time will come very soon indeed - we are talking days or single-figure weeks - when really there is no alternative but to give up on the trade deal, and instead accept that the EU doesn't want one. We can then get on with discussing what the EU apparently is prepared to talk about - negotiations on an 'orderly withdrawal' to WTO terms. Clearly we will need a transition deal as part of that, but that should be attainable given that it would cover the black hole in the EU's finances for the remainder of their budget period.
The alternative, of shilly-shallying around until it's too late for anyone to plan anything, is just too risky and would be certain to lead to disruption. The absolute deadline for agreeing a trade deal has to be the end of this year. Since that's impossible, Plan B it will have to be.
Yes, I knew the game was up in recent days when the vast amount of Leavers started to embrace the masochism strategy: we're going to be massively impoverished (ten year recessions etc.) but it will ultimately be good for the soul. Theresa needs to do some sackings to clear the air. DD out (his role is now redundant). Boris out ('cake and eat it' was a false prospectus). Thereafter we're all relying on Liam.
Mr. B, good and lucky. Alonso's got horrendous timing when it comes to changing teams. Raikkonen had terrible reliability at McLaren. Schumacher would've been leading the 2013 season after seven or eight races had he not suffered about six reliability failures (he also would've had Monaco pole had he not accidentally had Senna in the preceding race).
Hamilton has both the talent and the fortune.
I really can’t imagine how bad Alonso must feel after walking away from Ferrari, to spend three years with barely a points finish at McLaren as the red cars picked up wins. One of the best drivers of his generation yet he has spent a decade chasing another title, always in the wrong car.
The thing that nobody seems to be pointing out is that as much as we're not building customs facilities in Dover etc in preparation for No Deal, neither are the EU building them in Calais etc
The EU don't appear to be preparing for No Deal either. Does that mean they have no choice but to give a deal by the same logic as we apparently have no choice?
The more pertinent point is that it doesn't matter how much we spend on No Deal - we can't be prepared for it unilaterally. If the French and others don't spend the same, then we'd still be left with utter chaos.
In simple terms, they have us over a barrel.
They want us to give in and give many tens of billions because they're broke and nobody wants to fill in the incredibly generous sums they were getting from us for years now.
The £10bn a year net the UK is contributing to the EU is not some vast sum. Its a few hours of EU27 GDP.
The latest growth figures show the EU booming while the UK is near stagnation. They can easily cover the cost of us leaving themselves. It is not the UKs ace card.
So why are the EU27 so hung up on it?
Because some free money is always nice to have.
It also extends uncertainty in the UK, forcing more business to move to the EU27 and away from the UK and makes the final deal we get with them worse for us.
The closest analogy I can come up with is the American war of Independence. How did the world's most powerful empire get beaten by a bunch of back woodsmen with hunting rifles? Well, mainly because there was a very significant minority in this country who did not think we should be fighting at all and that the Americans were in the right. So our efforts were undermined and ultimately failed. Until Donald Trump was given the nuclear codes this was not obviously a disaster.
In this country we had 48% of the vote in favour of remaining. We are hopelessly split as a country about what to do here and it is again undermining our position threatening the worst of all worlds. Alastair Meeks has pointed out that no effort has been made to appease or win over the remain faction. This is undoubtedly true although I suspect in many cases nothing was going to convince them to move on. But putting the negotiations in the hands of prominent Brexiteers was a serious mistake. Getting rid of Hammond would be another. We need to come together as a country to sort this out, not bicker amongst ourselves.
Brexit has to be a success or at least tolerable or you cancel it and move on. No deal is not success. Any arrangement with the EU will necessarily be inferior to what we had before, so necessarily the negotiation is about damage limitation. But if Leavers want to see the union flag disappear at Berlaymont, they have to roll with it.
On a lighter note, Patrick McLoughlin has sent out an email to Conservative Party members, which ends with the amusing juxtaposition:
Please visit our exclusive Virgin Wines page to order and find out more about the great savings and exclusive benefits offered [to party members] by Virgin Wines’ WineBank.
Now is the time to come together and deliver a country that works for everyone.
This is the UK, our mPS collectively have the right to do almost anything. They never had to vote to trigger A50 either, it comes down to what they think is right.
On a lighter note, Patrick McLoughlin has sent out an email to Conservative Party members, which ends with the amusing juxtaposition:
Please visit our exclusive Virgin Wines page to order and find out more about the great savings and exclusive benefits offered [to party members] by Virgin Wines’ WineBank.
Now is the time to come together and deliver a country that works for everyone.
A country that works for everyone except existing Virgin Wines customers.
The thing that nobody seems to be pointing out is that as much as we're not building customs facilities in Dover etc in preparation for No Deal, neither are the EU building them in Calais etc
The EU don't appear to be preparing for No Deal either. Does that mean they have no choice but to give a deal by the same logic as we apparently have no choice?
The more pertinent point is that it doesn't matter how much we spend on No Deal - we can't be prepared for it unilaterally. If the French and others don't spend the same, then we'd still be left with utter chaos.
In simple terms, they have us over a barrel.
They want us to give in and give many tens of billions because they're broke and nobody wants to fill in the incredibly generous sums they were getting from us for years now.
The £10bn a year net the UK is contributing to the EU is not some vast sum. Its a few hours of EU27 GDP.
All of this is clear to see. Its what the EU already does. Yet the dipshit brigade keep insisting it can't happen here and that no preparation is needed. Its a level of stupidity that is malfeasance in public office...
We are becoming Michael Moorcock's "Granbretan". We have plenty of deranged policies, now all we need are the animal masks....
There is little point in worrying about Corbyn bringing a revolution that will destroy the UK. The revolutionaries are already in charge and they are busy destroying the UK.
Delighted to see that 74% of people understand that it’s preferable to go into negotiations with their cards close to their chest, rather than face up on the table in front of them.
There is of course no such thing as no deal. No deal is a bad deal, a very very bad deal but I don't suppose that clarification appeared on the questionnaire.
Leaving with no deal is of course a bad deal, but if those on the other side of the table don’t seriously think we’ll walk, then we are always going to get a bad deal. That means they need to see us seriously planning for the eventuality of no deal.
This is what’s annoying me so much about some of the media coverage, they don’t appear to understand the first chapter of the 101 textbook on negotiation.
That falls down because we are hamstrung by the default "no action" option being hugely deleterious for us. It doesn't matter what it means for them (BMWs, etc), a do nothing option means we suffer more than almost any other scenario.
I think it was @FF43 who mentioned BATNA yesterday; this is something the British side needs to investigate as a matter of urgency.
Indeed we need to look very carefully at BATNA and no-deal options.
At a base level it means that we need to start with things like replication of regulatory structures - as an example our Civil Aviation Authority needs to apply for membership to ICAO who are the global aviation regulator and part of the UN. Not talk about it, but actually get the application in. Things that would mitigate what no-deal looks like. The EU will probably object to our application until the day we actually leave, but we can and should appeal to global authorities over the heads of the EU for such petty brinkmanship as suggesting our planes will be grounded if there’s no deal.
There will be several other industries where similar action could be taken, most of which have a higher authority such as UN or WTO body.
States are members of the ICAO, not their aviation authorities. The UK is already a member of the ICAO in its own right and is a member of the ICAO council. The EU has a Representative at the ICAO but is not a member. So it doesn't look to me like there is anything to be done on that front. The issue with keeping planes in the air is the open skies agreements, not the ICAO.
Comments
a) The EU would have said lovely smashing super - let's talk trade.
b) The EU would have sucked air through their teeth, tut-tutted and said it wasn't remotely near the amount that was needed....?
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/918403714041503752
Hamilton has both the talent and the fortune.
Therefore, the time will come very soon indeed - we are talking days or single-figure weeks - when really there is no alternative but to give up on the trade deal, and instead accept that the EU doesn't want one. We can then get on with discussing what the EU apparently is prepared to talk about - negotiations on an 'orderly withdrawal' to WTO terms. Clearly we will need a transition deal as part of that, but that should be attainable given that it would cover the black hole in the EU's finances for the remainder of their budget period, and also because they are as unprepared as we are.
The alternative, of shilly-shallying around until it's too late for anyone to plan anything, is just too risky and would be certain to lead to disruption. The absolute deadline for agreeing a trade deal has to be the end of this year. Since that's impossible, Plan B it will have to be.
A (divorced) friend of mine once said that for any divorce to work, both sides had to be generous.
Hammond appears to be doing none of that. Epic fail.
The EU needs to believe we will go WTO walk-away if needs be - even if that is far less than optimal. Cameron's monumental blunder in dealing with the EU was to say, up front, he would never support Leave. It cost him his job. Hammond's monumental blunder in dealing with the EU is refusing to say, up front, that he could go WTO. Hammond has learnt nothing. It should also cost him his job.
They want us to give in and give many tens of billions because they're broke and nobody wants to fill in the incredibly generous sums they were getting from us for years now. They think we will give in so they're demanding outrageous amounts.
The last thing they want is actual utter chaos. That will be bad for them. The last thing they want is having to spend billions on infrastructure rather than taking a smaller sum than originally demanded, that would be bad for them.
This is just a geopolitical game of chicken. But they have no intention of actually ending in chaos.
The latest growth figures show the EU booming while the UK is near stagnation. They can easily cover the cost of us leaving themselves. It is not the UKs ace card.
It also extends uncertainty in the UK, forcing more business to move to the EU27 and away from the UK and makes the final deal we get with them worse for us.
(all aboard)
Please visit our exclusive Virgin Wines page to order and find out more about the great savings and exclusive benefits offered [to party members] by Virgin Wines’ WineBank.
Now is the time to come together and deliver a country that works for everyone.