Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s Brexit related news

124»

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    TGOHF said:

    But but Bloomberg

    twitter.com/hendopolis/status/932734996099592192

    Really!? Which naive numpties are behind this sage advice?
    Perhaps they should be exploiting the crisis to increase the Brexit bill instead? :p
  • RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    But but Bloomberg

    twitter.com/hendopolis/status/932734996099592192

    Really!? Which naive numpties are behind this sage advice?
    Perhaps they should be exploiting the crisis to increase the Brexit bill instead? :p
    Kim Jong May will find a way....
  • TGOHF said:
    Really!? Which naive numpties are behind this sage advice?
    Jacob Rees-Mogg
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    And yet, Labour will be still be seen among many as the ‘anti-Brexit’ party, while keeping a hold of Labour Leavers because of things like this. Hilarious.

    It is probably true that Corbyn doesn’t greatly care about Brexit, and can benefit from an ambiguous position at the moment. And maybe he can do that in 2022.

    However, the most likely the reason for the Government to fall before 2022 is Brexit.

    Either Corbyn (plus allies) take over, in which case he will have to implement a Brexit policy.

    Or there will be an election. A Brexit election, in which the top priority will be to figure out what to do about Brexit. Corbyn will have to say what he plans to do,

    Schrodinger’s cat is only dead and alive if the box is not opened. Once the box is opened, the wave function collapses, and the cat is alive.

    Or dead.
    If an election happens after Brexit, the box is never opened.

    Everything that is bad would have been different.
    Yep, there is a delicious irony: the Tories caused this; they will need to fix it or, more likely, take the blame.

    Which would be fine and dandy, were it not for the fact that they are screwing the country in the meantime :disappointed:
    Ben - how did the Tories cause this - 52% voted to leave, so they are carrying out a democratic mandate
    Simple my friend:
    1. By commiting to an ill-thought out referendum with no clear definition of what Leave might mean (from staying in the single market /customs union through to hard brexit);
    2. By not having any sensible majority criteria (I agree 52%-48% is a majority but if it had been the other way round would Leave have shut up?. What if it had been 50.1 to 49.9? And what about the fact that only 38% of the electorate actually felt strongly enough to vote Leave?
    3. By having absolutely no plan for a Leave vote. And...
    4. By squabbling like schoolchildren over how to manage Brexit.

    Meanwhile there is no active government of the things that this country really needs to address (public services, productivity, infrastructure, social care, housing, etc. etc). All totally avoidable.
    We are well beyond the FUBAR stage.........
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,274

    TGOHF said:
    Really!? Which naive numpties are behind this sage advice?
    Jacob Rees-Mogg
    Should've guessed!
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    HYUFD said:



    Scott_P said:

    @Jamin2g: John McDonnell just voted with the Tories. https://twitter.com/Peston/status/932723471427219456

    Paging Surbiton, seems Jezza is not as 'born again Europhile' as you were suggesting at the weekend!
    Poor lad,Merkel and now this.
  • TGOHF said:
    Really!? Which naive numpties are behind this sage advice?
    Jacob Rees-Mogg
    Should've guessed!
    More nonsense from the Papist.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,274
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    And yet, Labour will be still be seen among many as the ‘anti-Brexit’ party, while keeping a hold of Labour Leavers because of things like this. Hilarious.

    Perhaps, though some hardcore Remainers may drift to the LDs.

    In government though it confirms Corbyn will not be pursuing a so-called 'soft Brexit' in the long term if he does ultimately become PM which is good news for Brexiteers.
    And bad news for the country.

    Cyclefree said:

    Kirsty Young, presenting the programme on Elizabeth and Philip’s 70th wedding anniversary, has a fat arse which is done no favours by the over-tight red dress she’s chosen.

    And she’s wearing opaque tights with patent shoes. I ask you!

    I blame Brexit.........

    Strange world isn't it... If I as a bloke said that (not that I'd be so rude) I'd rightly be accused of objectifying women.

    I didn't see the programme (no interest in the royals) but give Kirsty a break - what she looks like should be irrelevant.
    No objectifying going on. Merely commenting on what someone is wearing. She’s quite attractive and has a lovely voice. But like many of us she is broad beamed round her hips and does not have slender legs. A tight fitting dress does not suit her. And if you’re appearing on television you ought to choose something that makes you look elegant not something that draws attention to your worst features.

    I would be - and often am - equally blunt about badly dressed men. Put it down to the Italian in me. My Italian family would never have dreamt of going out, even if only to the grocery to buy some spinach, without being properly dressed. One should try not to be an eyesore in public.

    It is not hard to be well dressed and elegant. A full length mirror often helps.
    Haha fair enough! If ever we meet I'll look out for the stylish, elegantly dressed woman and you should look out for... well just look the other way probably :lol:
  • ...
    Many Tory MPs want May to call an early general election to put Labour out of business for a generation, but she disagrees: “I think it’s right that the next general election is in 2020. This isn’t about political games, it’s about what is right for the country. I think an early general election would introduce a note of instability for people.”

    Well she was spot-on with that comment.


  • 'Ben - how did the Tories cause this - 52% voted to leave, so they are carrying out a democratic mandate

    'Simple my friend:
    1. By commiting to an ill-thought out referendum with no clear definition of what Leave might mean (from staying in the single market /customs union through to hard brexit);
    2. By not having any sensible majority criteria (I agree 52%-48% is a majority but if it had been the other way round would Leave have shut up?. What if it had been 50.1 to 49.9? And what about the fact that only 38% of the electorate actually felt strongly enough to vote Leave?
    3. By having absolutely no plan for a Leave vote. And...
    4. By squabbling like schoolchildren over how to manage Brexit.

    Meanwhile there is no active government of the things that this country really needs to address (public services, productivity, infrastructure, social care, housing, etc. etc). All totally avoidable'.




    So was Parliament not consulted on or voted for he referendum legislation including the HoL

    David Cameron and many others on both sides clearly expressed we would leave the single market

    38% voted leave but add in those of us who voted remain and now want to leave

    Tonight Corbyn and McDonnell walked into the lobby with David Davis to leave the single market and customs union infuriating a large part of their party

    Re your last paragraph maybe you should wait until after Wednesday's budget to see the programme for government for the next 12 months

    And TM is above Corbyn on running the Country, is likely to outlast Merkel, and if she gets trade talks starting in December will see the Country sigh a sigh of relief
  • GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    What will TM do when the EU says 40bln isn't enough and they want 60bln?

    #GetTheresaOut

    Shit negotiating. You make the EU decide - £40m (but that gets us XYZ) - or no pounds no pence and WTO terms. Which do you want, guys? Let us know by the weekend......
    She's just a complete and total waste of space...
    If May goes your Brexit hope will perish with her
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,274

    TGOHF said:
    Really!? Which naive numpties are behind this sage advice?
    Jacob Rees-Mogg
    Should've guessed!
    More nonsense from the Papist elitist, entitled, next Tory leader.
    Corrected for you.


  • Much as I am pleased about it, I must admit I am also very surprised. I genuinely thought Corbyn had seen the way things were going in his party and would have voted for the amendment.

    We're going to get Brexit essentially because:
    1. The governing party has a membership overwhelmingly hostile to the EU compined with a weak leader so insecure that she has to toe the Brexit line, as will any of her possible successors.
    2. The opposition party has a membership overwhelmingly supportive of membership of the EU but a leader so strong in his position that he can direct his parliamentary party to vote in such a way that helps to deliver the sort of Brexit that he clearly wants.

    Corbyn was quite happy to bite his tongue to disguise his hostility to the EU when his aspiration to become leader and then to hold on to his position as leader depended on it. He doesn't need to be so circumspect now. Just reference any of his views prior to the 2015 leadership contest if you want to discover what he thinks on Britain's relations with the EU.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited November 2017

    We're going to get Brexit essentially because:
    1. The governing party has a membership overwhelmingly hostile to the EU compined with a weak leader so insecure that she has to toe the Brexit line, as will any of her possible successors.
    2. The opposition party has a membership overwhelmingly supportive of membership of the EU but a leader so strong in his position that he can direct his parliamentary party to vote in such a way that helps to deliver the sort of Brexit that he clearly wants.

    Thanks for the explanation. I'd made the mistake of thinking that we're going to get Brexit because that's what the British people decided in a referendum. Silly me.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911

    HYUFD said:



    Scott_P said:

    @Jamin2g: John McDonnell just voted with the Tories. https://twitter.com/Peston/status/932723471427219456

    Paging Surbiton, seems Jezza is not as 'born again Europhile' as you were suggesting at the weekend!
    Poor lad,Merkel and now this.
    Never a bad time to repost this.

    https://youtu.be/3xePVGuF_mw?t=26s

    Certainly not the words of a dyed in the wool Europhile...

    ...and when has Jeremy Corbyn ever changed his views on anything, at any point, ever? Regardless of whether or not you think it's a positive quality, the man has a stubbornness that would make a mule blush.

    Corbyn is a Brexiteer. He was then, and he is now.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770

    What's the latest on the German government btw - are they definitely going for an election re-run?

    Latest Ben - they are in chaos
    Opportunity for a bit of schadenfreude amongst the anti-European PBers?
    On the same day the cabinet have agreed to meet the EU requests but conditionally on a trade deal
    Just backing you up here, there are a couple of things that really annoy me on this site.

    There are a class of posters who think that we will agree a bill in December, and irrespective of what follows, will pay that bill. Perhaps they think Mrs May will take her cheque book to Brussels, and write it there and then. Right from the start, the UK government's position is "nothing is decided until everything is decided". That remains the case. Whatever the government agrees now is contingent upon a deal being reached.

    Now: this doesn't mean that the EU's sequencing was not contrary to the terms of the treaty, and (imho) something that should have been pushed back on from the first minute, but it does mean that the idea that we will leave with a bill and absolutely no agreement on trade or a transition is ridiculous.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,274



    'Ben - how did the Tories cause this - 52% voted to leave, so they are carrying out a democratic mandate

    'Simple my friend:
    1. By commiting to an ill-thought out referendum with no clear definition of what Leave might mean (from staying in the single market /customs union through to hard brexit);
    2. By not having any sensible majority criteria (I agree 52%-48% is a majority but if it had been the other way round would Leave have shut up?. What if it had been 50.1 to 49.9? And what about the fact that only 38% of the electorate actually felt strongly enough to vote Leave?
    3. By having absolutely no plan for a Leave vote. And...
    4. By squabbling like schoolchildren over how to manage Brexit.

    Meanwhile there is no active government of the things that this country really needs to address (public services, productivity, infrastructure, social care, housing, etc. etc). All totally avoidable'.




    So was Parliament not consulted on or voted for he referendum legislation including the HoL

    David Cameron and many others on both sides clearly expressed we would leave the single market

    38% voted leave but add in those of us who voted remain and now want to leave

    Tonight Corbyn and McDonnell walked into the lobby with David Davis to leave the single market and customs union infuriating a large part of their party

    Re your last paragraph maybe you should wait until after Wednesday's budget to see the programme for government for the next 12 months

    And TM is above Corbyn on running the Country, is likely to outlast Merkel, and if she gets trade talks starting in December will see the Country sigh a sigh of relief

    As ever Big_G your positivity in the face of all the evidence to the contrary is marvellous. If you turn out to be half right I will be very happy!

    Good night all!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231
    TGOHF said:
    Um, isn't Neil overreacting here? I immediately thought of Guillaume Affair, the Red Army Faction, filling the Luftwaffe with lawn darts, or - obviously - the ongoing refugee crisis. At the risk of sounding silly...does Neil know anything about German politics? Genuine question.


  • Much as I am pleased about it, I must admit I am also very surprised. I genuinely thought Corbyn had seen the way things were going in his party and would have voted for the amendment.

    We're going to get Brexit essentially because:
    1. The governing party has a membership overwhelmingly hostile to the EU compined with a weak leader so insecure that she has to toe the Brexit line, as will any of her possible successors.
    2. The opposition party has a membership overwhelmingly supportive of membership of the EU but a leader so strong in his position that he can direct his parliamentary party to vote in such a way that helps to deliver the sort of Brexit that he clearly wants.

    Corbyn was quite happy to bite his tongue to disguise his hostility to the EU when his aspiration to become leader and then to hold on to his position as leader depended on it. He doesn't need to be so circumspect now. Just reference any of his views prior to the 2015 leadership contest if you want to discover what he thinks on Britain's relations with the EU.
    Corbyn's programme would not be compatable with the EU.

    He wants and needs out and his MP's have seen it in all it's glory tonight

    Today we have seen the last days of Mugabe, the humiliation of Merkel, and Corbyn go in the government lobby with David Davis.

    Does politics get any more surreal
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038

    kle4 said:



    If the Tories deserve more blame for offering the vote, and the cackhanded way in handling it since, fine, but they cannot be blamed for the whole of it or way the public voted, as Tories, UKIP, Labour, even LD and others voted for Brexit.

    The way Brexit has been managed has to primarily fall on the Tories, but Brexit itself you have to blame the public for the outcome, and it isn't ridiculous to ascribe some of the reasoning on things that happened before the Tories were in power (even if it would be ridiculous to suggest it all fell on things that happened before the Tories). But people don't like to be seen to blame the public.

    Tories / Cameron big fault wasn't offering the vote, we had got to stage with Lisbon Treaty etc where a vote was going to have to come. It just wasn't possible for politicians to keep ignoring the fact the EU was a very different beast to the thing we joined and people deserved a say on if we should continue being part of the project..

    It was the absolute piss poor deal he got, which was so bad he didn't mention it after about a week and had to result to project fear. Although, I also blame the EU as well.

    A sensible bit of comprise and we could have avoided all of this.
    A lot of nonsense continues to be spoken about "deals". By and large, the only deals the EU can do are a limited few off-the-peg numbers, and the UK had already cleared out most of the shop. Bespoke deals are difficult to engineer - and despite tomorrow's Times front page are *less* likely if Merkel is busy with internal problems and leaves the boring Brexit business to the bureaucrats - and there was never any likelihood that Cameron could get one. I said as much at the time, and he just made himself look foolish and made the case for Remain worse, by promising a positive outcome.

    Leave won for two main reasons. 1. 40 years of negative spin from politicians and newspapers who cast the EU as the bogeyman to mask the shortcomings of our own government. 2. A democratic deficit in the UK that meant that this was one of the few opportunities ever that people had been given to kick the establishment. The fact that Cameron led the Remain team put the final nail in the coffin - to many Labour voters Remain looked like a Tory project, which was ironic considering that May has now transformed the Tories into the Brexit Party.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,274
    Dadge said:

    kle4 said:



    If the Tories deserve more blame for offering the vote, and the cackhanded way in handling it since, fine, but they cannot be blamed for the whole of it or way the public voted, as Tories, UKIP, Labour, even LD and others voted for Brexit.

    The way Brexit has been managed has to primarily fall on the Tories, but Brexit itself you have to blame the public for the outcome, and it isn't ridiculous to ascribe some of the reasoning on things that happened before the Tories were in power (even if it would be ridiculous to suggest it all fell on things that happened before the Tories). But people don't like to be seen to blame the public.

    Tories / Cameron big fault wasn't offering the vote, we had got to stage with Lisbon Treaty etc where a vote was going to have to come. It just wasn't possible for politicians to keep ignoring the fact the EU was a very different beast to the thing we joined and people deserved a say on if we should continue being part of the project..

    It was the absolute piss poor deal he got, which was so bad he didn't mention it after about a week and had to result to project fear. Although, I also blame the EU as well.

    A sensible bit of comprise and we could have avoided all of this.
    A lot of nonsense continues to be spoken about "deals". By and large, the only deals the EU can do are a limited few off-the-peg numbers, and the UK had already cleared out most of the shop. Bespoke deals are difficult to engineer - and despite tomorrow's Times front page are *less* likely if Merkel is busy with internal problems and leaves the boring Brexit business to the bureaucrats - and there was never any likelihood that Cameron could get one. I said as much at the time, and he just made himself look foolish and made the case for Remain worse, by promising a positive outcome.

    Leave won for two main reasons. 1. 40 years of negative spin from politicians and newspapers who cast the EU as the bogeyman to mask the shortcomings of our own government. 2. A democratic deficit in the UK that meant that this was one of the few opportunities ever that people had been given to kick the establishment. The fact that Cameron led the Remain team put the final nail in the coffin - to many Labour voters Remain looked like a Tory project, which was ironic considering that May has now transformed the Tories into the Brexit Party.
    +1 Spot on IMO
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    rcs1000 said:

    What's the latest on the German government btw - are they definitely going for an election re-run?

    Latest Ben - they are in chaos
    Opportunity for a bit of schadenfreude amongst the anti-European PBers?
    On the same day the cabinet have agreed to meet the EU requests but conditionally on a trade deal
    Just backing you up here, there are a couple of things that really annoy me on this site.

    There are a class of posters who think that we will agree a bill in December, and irrespective of what follows, will pay that bill. Perhaps they think Mrs May will take her cheque book to Brussels, and write it there and then.

    God don't give her any ideas... :D
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited November 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    Just backing you up here, there are a couple of things that really annoy me on this site.

    There are a class of posters who think that we will agree a bill in December, and irrespective of what follows, will pay that bill. Perhaps they think Mrs May will take her cheque book to Brussels, and write it there and then. Right from the start, the UK government's position is "nothing is decided until everything is decided". That remains the case. Whatever the government agrees now is contingent upon a deal being reached.

    Now: this doesn't mean that the EU's sequencing was not contrary to the terms of the treaty, and (imho) something that should have been pushed back on from the first minute, but it does mean that the idea that we will leave with a bill and absolutely no agreement on trade or a transition is ridiculous.

    Up to a point. The problem is that if we say we'll pay (say) €50bn at this stage, then when (if) it comes to discussing whether the trade deal is worth the dosh, the EU27 will quite legitimately be able to claim that the two are completely separate and we're reneging on what we've already agreed to.

    That's why I suggested that we make three offers:

    - A high one (say €50bn over five years) for a comprehensive trade deal including passporting;

    - A medium one (say €20bn) for an orderly transition to WTO terms

    - Zero if there's no deal.

    That is, after all, the reality, as your post implicitly acknowledges. Why not make it explicit and public? They can then decide which they want, and stop faffing around.


  • 'Ben - how did the Tories cause this - 52% voted to leave, so they are carrying out a democratic mandate

    'Simple my friend:
    1. By commiting to an ill-thought out referendum with no clear definition of what Leave might mean (from staying in the single market /customs union through to hard brexit);
    2. By not having any sensible majority criteria (I agree 52%-48% is a majority but if it had been the other way round would Leave have shut up?. What if it had been 50.1 to 49.9? And what about the fact that only 38% of the electorate actually felt strongly enough to vote Leave?
    3. By having absolutely no plan for a Leave vote. And...
    4. By squabbling like schoolchildren over how to manage Brexit.

    Meanwhile there is no active government of the things that this country really needs to address (public services, productivity, infrastructure, social care, housing, etc. etc). All totally avoidable'.



    So was Parliament not consulted on or voted for he referendum legislation including the HoL

    David Cameron and many others on both sides clearly expressed we would leave the single market

    38% voted leave but add in those of us who voted remain and now want to leave

    Tonight Corbyn and McDonnell walked into the lobby with David Davis to leave the single market and customs union infuriating a large part of their party

    Re your last paragraph maybe you should wait until after Wednesday's budget to see the programme for government for the next 12 months

    And TM is above Corbyn on running the Country, is likely to outlast Merkel, and if she gets trade talks starting in December will see the Country sigh a sigh of relief

    As ever Big_G your positivity in the face of all the evidence to the contrary is marvellous. If you turn out to be half right I will be very happy!

    Good night all!


    +1
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    GIN1138 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's the latest on the German government btw - are they definitely going for an election re-run?

    Latest Ben - they are in chaos
    Opportunity for a bit of schadenfreude amongst the anti-European PBers?
    On the same day the cabinet have agreed to meet the EU requests but conditionally on a trade deal
    Just backing you up here, there are a couple of things that really annoy me on this site.

    There are a class of posters who think that we will agree a bill in December, and irrespective of what follows, will pay that bill. Perhaps they think Mrs May will take her cheque book to Brussels, and write it there and then.

    God don't give her any ideas... :D
    lol
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    edited November 2017

    Poor lad,Merkel and now this.

    Look away now.
    https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/932724141710630915
  • Poor lad,Merkel and now this.

    Look away now.
    https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/932724141710630915
    She is damaged goods and has lost her authority.

    And Corbyn going in the voting lobby with David Davis must top out a bad day for you
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    viewcode said:

    TGOHF said:
    Um, isn't Neil overreacting here? I immediately thought of Guillaume Affair, the Red Army Faction, filling the Luftwaffe with lawn darts, or - obviously - the ongoing refugee crisis. At the risk of sounding silly...does Neil know anything about German politics? Genuine question.
    Neil is never rarely as good as he thinks he is.
  • PClipp said:

    HYUFD said:

    And yet, Labour will be still be seen among many as the ‘anti-Brexit’ party, while keeping a hold of Labour Leavers because of things like this. Hilarious.

    Perhaps, though some hardcore Remainers may drift to the LDs.
    In government though it confirms Corbyn will not be pursuing a so-called 'soft Brexit' in the long term if he does ultimately become PM which is good news for Brexiteers.
    We have no idea what Brexit Corbyn will pursue because he indicates both ways. I get the impression though that Corbyn doesn’t care much about Brexit, which is why he can do this.
    Hardcore Remainers are already with the LDs.
    And people who care about the long-term economic stability and success of our country ought to be with the Lib Dems too.

    We need the opinion polls to shift, and very strongly. Then the Labour leadership will shift too (maybe). And then the subjugated Conservatives will see the light too, and change track.
    Keeping stability when stability means stagnant productivity and wages, falling home ownership, a trillion quid borrowed in a decade and the largest current account deficit on record is not a good idea.
    Which is why Corbynism appeals. That much is clear from the Labour documentary.
    Indeed so.

    Too many people have reason to feel 'left behind'.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    I always knew Jezza was still for Brexit really... :D
  • viewcode said:

    TGOHF said:
    Um, isn't Neil overreacting here? I immediately thought of Guillaume Affair, the Red Army Faction, filling the Luftwaffe with lawn darts, or - obviously - the ongoing refugee crisis. At the risk of sounding silly...does Neil know anything about German politics? Genuine question.
    Bosnian and Herzegovinian politics his speciality I believe.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231

    viewcode said:

    TGOHF said:
    Um, isn't Neil overreacting here? I immediately thought of Guillaume Affair, the Red Army Faction, filling the Luftwaffe with lawn darts, or - obviously - the ongoing refugee crisis. At the risk of sounding silly...does Neil know anything about German politics? Genuine question.
    Neil is never rarely as good as he thinks he is.
    Fair point, but he used to be editor of the Sunday Times: he should know stuff like this.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    TGOHF said:
    Um, isn't Neil overreacting here? I immediately thought of Guillaume Affair, the Red Army Faction, filling the Luftwaffe with lawn darts, or - obviously - the ongoing refugee crisis. At the risk of sounding silly...does Neil know anything about German politics? Genuine question.
    Neil is never rarely as good as he thinks he is.
    Fair point, but he used to be editor of the Sunday Times: he should know stuff like this.
    https://twitter.com/AlexWhite1812/status/932751888923193345
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    TGOHF said:
    Um, isn't Neil overreacting here? I immediately thought of Guillaume Affair, the Red Army Faction, filling the Luftwaffe with lawn darts, or - obviously - the ongoing refugee crisis. At the risk of sounding silly...does Neil know anything about German politics? Genuine question.
    Neil is never rarely as good as he thinks he is.
    Fair point, but he used to be editor of the Sunday Times: he should know stuff like this.
    https://twitter.com/AlexWhite1812/status/932751888923193345
    For the avoidance of doubt, I am not he.
  • Poor lad,Merkel and now this.

    Look away now.
    https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/932724141710630915
    She is damaged goods and has lost her authority.

    And Corbyn going in the voting lobby with David Davis must top out a bad day for you
    Still 7/1 on the permanent Chancellor being anyone else
  • rcs1000 said:

    Just backing you up here, there are a couple of things that really annoy me on this site.

    There are a class of posters who think that we will agree a bill in December, and irrespective of what follows, will pay that bill. Perhaps they think Mrs May will take her cheque book to Brussels, and write it there and then. Right from the start, the UK government's position is "nothing is decided until everything is decided". That remains the case. Whatever the government agrees now is contingent upon a deal being reached.

    Now: this doesn't mean that the EU's sequencing was not contrary to the terms of the treaty, and (imho) something that should have been pushed back on from the first minute, but it does mean that the idea that we will leave with a bill and absolutely no agreement on trade or a transition is ridiculous.

    Up to a point. The problem is that if we say we'll pay (say) €50bn at this stage, then when (if) it comes to discussing whether the trade deal is worth the dosh, the EU27 will quite legitimately be able to claim that the two are completely separate and we're reneging on what we've already agreed to.

    That's why I suggested that we make three offers:

    - A high one (say €50bn over five years) for a comprehensive trade deal including passporting;

    - A medium one (say €20bn) for an orderly transition to WTO terms

    - Zero if there's no deal.

    That is, after all, the reality, as your post implicitly acknowledges. Why not make it explicit and public? They can then decide which they want, and stop faffing around.
    You know what baffles me ?

    I've read your comments for a decade and thought "that's what establishment Conservatism done properly is all about".

    So why can't the establishment Conservatives do likewise ?

    Is politics a profession where interested spectators are now more talented than the professionals ?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787

    rcs1000 said:

    Just backing you up here, there are a couple of things that really annoy me on this site.

    There are a class of posters who think that we will agree a bill in December, and irrespective of what follows, will pay that bill. Perhaps they think Mrs May will take her cheque book to Brussels, and write it there and then. Right from the start, the UK government's position is "nothing is decided until everything is decided". That remains the case. Whatever the government agrees now is contingent upon a deal being reached.

    Now: this doesn't mean that the EU's sequencing was not contrary to the terms of the treaty, and (imho) something that should have been pushed back on from the first minute, but it does mean that the idea that we will leave with a bill and absolutely no agreement on trade or a transition is ridiculous.

    Up to a point. The problem is that if we say we'll pay (say) €50bn at this stage, then when (if) it comes to discussing whether the trade deal is worth the dosh, the EU27 will quite legitimately be able to claim that the two are completely separate and we're reneging on what we've already agreed to.

    That's why I suggested that we make three offers:

    - A high one (say €50bn over five years) for a comprehensive trade deal including passporting;

    - A medium one (say €20bn) for an orderly transition to WTO terms

    - Zero if there's no deal.

    That is, after all, the reality, as your post implicitly acknowledges. Why not make it explicit and public? They can then decide which they want, and stop faffing around.
    You know what baffles me ?

    I've read your comments for a decade and thought "that's what establishment Conservatism done properly is all about".

    So why can't the establishment Conservatives do likewise ?

    Is politics a profession where interested spectators are now more talented than the professionals ?
    Politics is a profession where interested spectators don't have to take responsibility for getting it wrong.
  • Poor lad,Merkel and now this.

    Look away now.
    https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/932724141710630915
    Tapped out on Macron, prematurely 'overstimulated' on Merkel, to whom will the caravan of PB reaction go to next? Has Trudeau screwed up anything recently?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Poor lad,Merkel and now this.

    Look away now.
    https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/932724141710630915
    Tapped out on Macron, prematurely 'overstimulated' on Merkel, to whom will the caravan of PB reaction go to next? Has Trudeau screwed up anything recently?
    He can do no wrong! Only a few months ago did he bin proposals for PR in favour of keeping FPTP :smiley:
  • Poor lad,Merkel and now this.

    Look away now.
    https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/932724141710630915
    Tapped out on Macron, prematurely 'overstimulated' on Merkel, to whom will the caravan of PB reaction go to next? Has Trudeau screwed up anything recently?
    I remember this story of a female PM with massive approval ratings going for a snap election that wasn't needed....
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,093

    rcs1000 said:

    Just backing you up here, there are a couple of things that really annoy me on this site.

    There are a class of posters who think that we will agree a bill in December, and irrespective of what follows, will pay that bill. Perhaps they think Mrs May will take her cheque book to Brussels, and write it there and then. Right from the start, the UK government's position is "nothing is decided until everything is decided". That remains the case. Whatever the government agrees now is contingent upon a deal being reached.

    Now: this doesn't mean that the EU's sequencing was not contrary to the terms of the treaty, and (imho) something that should have been pushed back on from the first minute, but it does mean that the idea that we will leave with a bill and absolutely no agreement on trade or a transition is ridiculous.

    Up to a point. The problem is that if we say we'll pay (say) €50bn at this stage, then when (if) it comes to discussing whether the trade deal is worth the dosh, the EU27 will quite legitimately be able to claim that the two are completely separate and we're reneging on what we've already agreed to.

    That's why I suggested that we make three offers:

    - A high one (say €50bn over five years) for a comprehensive trade deal including passporting;

    - A medium one (say €20bn) for an orderly transition to WTO terms

    - Zero if there's no deal.

    That is, after all, the reality, as your post implicitly acknowledges. Why not make it explicit and public? They can then decide which they want, and stop faffing around.
    PRO TIP: save yourself £20B by producing this offer early enough, then your zero offer is an orderly transition.

    Also we're not negotiating with the EU27 MSs, we're negotiating with the Commission. Produce the first draft of the whole deal (trade, open skies replacement, reciprocal type approval recognition, fin serv passporting, Euro clearing, Irish border maintenance, horse passports, the damn lot), and tell the Commission that if they sign it they, the Commission, get the big bucks. Amendments cost them money. The whole tenor of the negotiations changes then, from 'why are UK not stumping up?' to 'why are the Commission blocking a deal for an extra jam sandwich?' The structure of the Commission is set up precisely to take lobbying (I didn't say bribes) to get a pro-business fait accompli out notwithstanding the interests of the MS, so use that to our advantage.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281

    rcs1000 said:

    Just backing you up here, there are a couple of things that really annoy me on this site.

    There are a class of posters who think that we will agree a bill in December, and irrespective of what follows, will pay that bill. Perhaps they think Mrs May will take her cheque book to Brussels, and write it there and then. Right from the start, the UK government's position is "nothing is decided until everything is decided". That remains the case. Whatever the government agrees now is contingent upon a deal being reached.

    Now: this doesn't mean that the EU's sequencing was not contrary to the terms of the treaty, and (imho) something that should have been pushed back on from the first minute, but it does mean that the idea that we will leave with a bill and absolutely no agreement on trade or a transition is ridiculous.

    Up to a point. The problem is that if we say we'll pay (say) €50bn at this stage, then when (if) it comes to discussing whether the trade deal is worth the dosh, the EU27 will quite legitimately be able to claim that the two are completely separate and we're reneging on what we've already agreed to.

    That's why I suggested that we make three offers:

    - A high one (say €50bn over five years) for a comprehensive trade deal including passporting;

    - A medium one (say €20bn) for an orderly transition to WTO terms

    - Zero if there's no deal.

    That is, after all, the reality, as your post implicitly acknowledges. Why not make it explicit and public? They can then decide which they want, and stop faffing around.
    But surely we aren't actually signing up to anything at this stage.

    So if we now offer £40bn and the EU then says "No, not enough progress for trade talks" then we always have the option of not proceeding with the £40bn offer.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Just backing you up here, there are a couple of things that really annoy me on this site.

    There are a class of posters who think that we will agree a bill in December, and irrespective of what follows, will pay that bill. Perhaps they think Mrs May will take her cheque book to Brussels, and write it there and then. Right from the start, the UK government's position is "nothing is decided until everything is decided". That remains the case. Whatever the government agrees now is contingent upon a deal being reached.

    Now: this doesn't mean that the EU's sequencing was not contrary to the terms of the treaty, and (imho) something that should have been pushed back on from the first minute, but it does mean that the idea that we will leave with a bill and absolutely no agreement on trade or a transition is ridiculous.

    Up to a point. The problem is that if we say we'll pay (say) €50bn at this stage, then when (if) it comes to discussing whether the trade deal is worth the dosh, the EU27 will quite legitimately be able to claim that the two are completely separate and we're reneging on what we've already agreed to.

    That's why I suggested that we make three offers:

    - A high one (say €50bn over five years) for a comprehensive trade deal including passporting;

    - A medium one (say €20bn) for an orderly transition to WTO terms

    - Zero if there's no deal.

    That is, after all, the reality, as your post implicitly acknowledges. Why not make it explicit and public? They can then decide which they want, and stop faffing around.
    You know what baffles me ?

    I've read your comments for a decade and thought "that's what establishment Conservatism done properly is all about".

    So why can't the establishment Conservatives do likewise ?

    Is politics a profession where interested spectators are now more talented than the professionals ?
    Politics is a profession where interested spectators don't have to take responsibility for getting it wrong.
    Neither do government ministers.
  • Labour leader of Slough Borough Council suspended after sending veg porn clip to dozens of councillors

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4958894/councillor-cucumber-porn-video/
  • Ever since Brexit he’s become unbearable. Another decent, interesting political commentator who has been ruined by Brexit. It’s the same situation with Portillo, incidentally.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Labour leader of Slough Borough Council suspended after sending veg porn clip to dozens of councillors

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4958894/councillor-cucumber-porn-video/

    On purpose or accidentally?
  • AndyJS said:

    Labour leader of Slough Borough Council suspended after sending veg porn clip to dozens of councillors

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4958894/councillor-cucumber-porn-video/

    On purpose or accidentally?
    Accidentally on purpose, or on purpose accidentally...
  • Ever since Brexit he’s become unbearable. Another decent, interesting political commentator who has been ruined by Brexit. It’s the same situation with Portillo, incidentally.
    Faisal Islam wins that award....
  • The US Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit to block telecoms giant AT&T's $85.4bn acquisition of Time Warner, the owner of CNN and HBO.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited November 2017
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42052750

    "Chancellor Philip Hammond is set to announce the extension [of the 26-30 railcard] in Wednesday's Budget after a successful trial that convinced the Treasury the move would be revenue neutral."

    Zero cost to the treasury. No discounts for peak commuting.

    It's a non-announcement.

    How about "homes at 3.5x earnings" ?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Pong said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42052750

    "Chancellor Philip Hammond is set to announce the extension [of the 26-30 railcard] in Wednesday's Budget after a successful trial that convinced the Treasury the move would be revenue neutral."

    Zero cost to the treasury. No discounts for peak commuting.

    It's a non-announcement.

    How about "homes at 3.5x earnings" ?

    Agreed, a total gimmick.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2017
    Pong said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42052750

    "Chancellor Philip Hammond is set to announce the extension [of the 26-30 railcard] in Wednesday's Budget after a successful trial that convinced the Treasury the move would be revenue neutral."

    Zero cost to the treasury. No discounts for peak commuting.

    It's a non-announcement.

    How about "homes at 3.5x earnings" ?

    Budget shaping up to be cracker*...take-away tray tax, railcards for graduates, ....whatever next...

    * by cracker, I mean in the same way Sky Sports definition of "Super Sunday" for Watford vs West Ham.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Pong said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42052750

    "Chancellor Philip Hammond is set to announce the extension [of the 26-30 railcard] in Wednesday's Budget after a successful trial that convinced the Treasury the move would be revenue neutral."

    Zero cost to the treasury. No discounts for peak commuting.

    It's a non-announcement.

    How about "homes at 3.5x earnings" ?

    Budget shaping up to be cracker*...take-away tray tax, railcards for graduates, ....whatever next...

    * by cracker, I mean in the same way Sky Sports definition of "Super Sunday" for Watford vs West Ham.
    Wouldn't surprise me if it ended in a shambles. The government is lurching from one defeat to another.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2017
    What was the episode of the Thick of It where they desperately need a new policy to announce and Ollie Reeder has a folder of total pointless gimmicks?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited November 2017

    What was the episode of the Thick of It where they desperately need a new policy to announce and Ollie Reeder has a folder of total pointless gimmicks?

    The first one! :D

    Been a while since I've watched it... maybe it's time?
  • RobD said:

    What was the episode of the Thick of It where they desperately need a new policy to announce and Ollie Reeder has a folder of total pointless gimmicks?

    The first one! :D
    I seemed to remember they go with the Snooper Squad?
  • RobD said:

    What was the episode of the Thick of It where they desperately need a new policy to announce and Ollie Reeder has a folder of total pointless gimmicks?

    The first one! :D

    Been a while since I've watched it... maybe it's time?
    Unfortunately what we once thought was outrageous satire is rather tame in comparison to real life events.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    What was the episode of the Thick of It where they desperately need a new policy to announce and Ollie Reeder has a folder of total pointless gimmicks?

    The first one! :D

    Been a while since I've watched it... maybe it's time?
    Unfortunately what we once thought was outrageous satire is rather tame in comparison to real life events.
    I can only imagine what's going on behind the scenes in Whitehall today.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2017
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    What was the episode of the Thick of It where they desperately need a new policy to announce and Ollie Reeder has a folder of total pointless gimmicks?

    The first one! :D

    Been a while since I've watched it... maybe it's time?
    Unfortunately what we once thought was outrageous satire is rather tame in comparison to real life events.
    I can only imagine what's going on behind the scenes in Whitehall today.
    The glory days...gone rather downhill since then.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqwdSnSPy2E
  • Scanning the front pages there does not appear to be any corroboration of Peston’s ECJ claim - anyone seen any other source?
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    Turns out Herr Worth isn't quite as clued up as he'd like to think he is. Yes, the country isn't under any existential threat, but it's not so ridiculous to characterise the current situation as a crisis. For a short time at least the mighty Bundesrepublik is being reduced to an oversized Belgium.

    Some German MPs think Merkel might throw in the towel, and Schulz might go too. Otherwise there'd hardly be any point calling new elections just to give the country the same result with the same people negotiating the coalition.

    Of course this disturbance to the usual order has been mainly caused by the 12% vote for the AfD. I'd liken them to a mosquito - tiny and will eventually be squashed, but can cause irritation and illness while it's alive. (cf. UKIP)

  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038

    rcs1000 said:

    Just backing you up here, there are a couple of things that really annoy me on this site.

    There are a class of posters who think that we will agree a bill in December, and irrespective of what follows, will pay that bill. Perhaps they think Mrs May will take her cheque book to Brussels, and write it there and then. Right from the start, the UK government's position is "nothing is decided until everything is decided". That remains the case. Whatever the government agrees now is contingent upon a deal being reached.

    Now: this doesn't mean that the EU's sequencing was not contrary to the terms of the treaty, and (imho) something that should have been pushed back on from the first minute, but it does mean that the idea that we will leave with a bill and absolutely no agreement on trade or a transition is ridiculous.

    Up to a point. The problem is that if we say we'll pay (say) €50bn at this stage, then when (if) it comes to discussing whether the trade deal is worth the dosh, the EU27 will quite legitimately be able to claim that the two are completely separate and we're reneging on what we've already agreed to.

    That's why I suggested that we make three offers:

    - A high one (say €50bn over five years) for a comprehensive trade deal including passporting;

    - A medium one (say €20bn) for an orderly transition to WTO terms

    - Zero if there's no deal.

    That is, after all, the reality, as your post implicitly acknowledges. Why not make it explicit and public? They can then decide which they want, and stop faffing around.
    You know what baffles me ?

    I've read your comments for a decade and thought "that's what establishment Conservatism done properly is all about".

    So why can't the establishment Conservatives do likewise ?

    Is politics a profession where interested spectators are now more talented than the professionals ?
    Politics is a profession where interested spectators don't have to take responsibility for getting it wrong.
    Neither do government ministers.
    Well said. One of the most frightening aspects of the Brexit negotiations is the lack of accountability of anybody involved. If it goes tats up, Johnson, Davis, May et al can simply retire to Tuscany and leave the rest of us to deal with the mess.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    Dadge said:

    Turns out Herr Worth isn't quite as clued up as he'd like to think he is. Yes, the country isn't under any existential threat, but it's not so ridiculous to characterise the current situation as a crisis. For a short time at least the mighty Bundesrepublik is being reduced to an oversized Belgium.

    Some German MPs think Merkel might throw in the towel, and Schulz might go too. Otherwise there'd hardly be any point calling new elections just to give the country the same result with the same people negotiating the coalition.

    Of course this disturbance to the usual order has been mainly caused by the 12% vote for the AfD. I'd liken them to a mosquito - tiny and will eventually be squashed, but can cause irritation and illness while it's alive. (cf. UKIP)

    Yes, Germany has a political crisis and no functioning government.

    Lucky bastards. In developed countries there's a clear correlation between lack of a functioning government and economic growth.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770

    Scanning the front pages there does not appear to be any corroboration of Peston’s ECJ claim - anyone seen any other source?

    Robert Peston, make shit up? No!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Why are Labour MPs surprised that Corbyn and McDonnell might be Eurosceptic to some degree? They've been strongly anti-Europe for most of their careers.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    It's unprecedented in Germany in recent years. But it's hardly unprecedented among Western democracies.

    More betting opportunities, yay!
  • rcs1000 said:

    It's unprecedented in Germany in recent years. But it's hardly unprecedented among Western democracies.

    More betting opportunities, yay!
    Neil was responding to the “what do you know, nothing to see here” replies he got to an earlier tweet.

    While it’s far from unprecedented in European democracies it does rather put into perspective the challenges facing Brexit and Euro reform - the latter of which would probably have benefited from Merkel having some political capital to burn.....James Forsyth reckons that it’s a bigger problem for the Euro than Brexit as Merkel was never going to “ride to the rescue” on Brexit in any case (ask Cameron....)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited November 2017
    Yesterday's meeting also saw lengthy discussion of the continuing differences with Brussels over the future of the Northern Ireland border and the status of EU citizens.
    Sources played down reports that ministers had agreed to give the European Court of Justice jurisdiction over the rights of EU citizens in the UK after Brexit.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5101923/Brexit-backlash-s-war-cabinet-agrees-40bn-offer.html#ixzz4z1rafoDv

    “Played down” not quite as robust as “denied” but then they have multiple audiences to finesse this with.....
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Blimey. Hadn't realised that she was down 65 seats, and to think she was on the brink of an absolute majority four years ago.
  • RobD said:
    Pound Shop Theresa May.....
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231
    Dadge said:

    ...the country [Germany] isn't under any existential threat, but it's not so ridiculous to characterise the current situation as a crisis.

    That is correct, but to describe it as Andrew Neil did as "Germany tonight in its biggest political crisis since late 1940s." is simply to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of West German and East German politics in the 60s-80s. They've had far worse than this kerfuffle. Given Neil's background in newsgathering in the 80's it's surprising he would make such a newbie mistake.


  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770

    rcs1000 said:

    It's unprecedented in Germany in recent years. But it's hardly unprecedented among Western democracies.

    More betting opportunities, yay!
    Neil was responding to the “what do you know, nothing to see here” replies he got to an earlier tweet.

    While it’s far from unprecedented in European democracies it does rather put into perspective the challenges facing Brexit and Euro reform - the latter of which would probably have benefited from Merkel having some political capital to burn.....James Forsyth reckons that it’s a bigger problem for the Euro than Brexit as Merkel was never going to “ride to the rescue” on Brexit in any case (ask Cameron....)
    Puts in context? Yes, German has to have another election...

    We, on the other hand, are still all at each others throats. I'd say we're having more of a crisis than Germany.

    Of course, if we see another election with the same result... now that would be interesting.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    What will TM do when the EU says 40bln isn't enough and they want 60bln?

    #GetTheresaOut

    Shit negotiating. You make the EU decide - £40m (but that gets us XYZ) - or no pounds no pence and WTO terms. Which do you want, guys? Let us know by the weekend......
    She's just a complete and total waste of space...
    If May goes your Brexit hope will perish with her
    Had dinner with a friend who turned down a spot on the negotiating team ("you guys are doing such a sh1t job I don't want to be associated with it")

    He was of the view that "take it or leave it" should have been the stance from the outset but that now the EU won't believe us (thanks to all the people in the UK actively undermining the UK's negotiating position the EU believe that if they are tough enough the UK government will resile from Brexit).

    But he doesn't think the EU will stop planes flying or cars trading.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Scott_P said:
    Or none of the above?

    It's down to the increasingly fierce squabble between the Security Council and the General Assembly.

    The SC represents the "old order". Emerging countries in the GA have learnt to appreciate their power and are happy to wield it.

    It's why you get deeply unpleasant and depressing decisions like Libya on the human rights commission and Saudi (?) on women's rights panel. Sadly there are a lot of nasty regimes and cultures out there.

    The world is changing and unless we fight for what we believe in the West will be swept away
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,081
    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    Or none of the above?

    It's down to the increasingly fierce squabble between the Security Council and the General Assembly.

    The SC represents the "old order". Emerging countries in the GA have learnt to appreciate their power and are happy to wield it.

    It's why you get deeply unpleasant and depressing decisions like Libya on the human rights commission and Saudi (?) on women's rights panel. Sadly there are a lot of nasty regimes and cultures out there.

    The world is changing and unless we fight for what we believe in the West will be swept away
    If only there was some way for these western countries to stick together and maximise our influence collectively.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Scanning the front pages there does not appear to be any corroboration of Peston’s ECJ claim - anyone seen any other source?

    Its ICJ not ECJ

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/nov/20/no-british-judge-on-world-court-for-first-time-in-its-71-year-history
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    Charles said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    What will TM do when the EU says 40bln isn't enough and they want 60bln?

    #GetTheresaOut

    Shit negotiating. You make the EU decide - £40m (but that gets us XYZ) - or no pounds no pence and WTO terms. Which do you want, guys? Let us know by the weekend......
    She's just a complete and total waste of space...
    If May goes your Brexit hope will perish with her
    Had dinner with a friend who turned down a spot on the negotiating team ("you guys are doing such a sh1t job I don't want to be associated with it")

    He was of the view that "take it or leave it" should have been the stance from the outset but that now the EU won't believe us (thanks to all the people in the UK actively undermining the UK's negotiating position the EU believe that if they are tough enough the UK government will resile from Brexit).

    But he doesn't think the EU will stop planes flying or cars trading.
    Take it or leave it was only ever plausible if it looked like we were prepared for no deal Brexit. Talking tough, while doing nothing to prepare, is possibly the worst negotiating tactic in existence.

    And let me spread the blame wider. DfID has spent more time circulating White Papers with titles such as "Tariffs for a 21st Century Britain", than replicating the EU's existing trading agreements.

    We should have combined soft language with the (rarely spoken but very real) threat of being in a position to walk away.

    Instead, we've gone for tough talking, political instability, and no preparation at all for a no deal scenario.

    It's embarrassing really.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    What will TM do when the EU says 40bln isn't enough and they want 60bln?

    #GetTheresaOut

    Shit negotiating. You make the EU decide - £40m (but that gets us XYZ) - or no pounds no pence and WTO terms. Which do you want, guys? Let us know by the weekend......
    She's just a complete and total waste of space...
    If May goes your Brexit hope will perish with her
    Had dinner with a friend who turned down a spot on the negotiating team ("you guys are doing such a sh1t job I don't want to be associated with it")

    He was of the view that "take it or leave it" should have been the stance from the outset but that now the EU won't believe us (thanks to all the people in the UK actively undermining the UK's negotiating position the EU believe that if they are tough enough the UK government will resile from Brexit).

    But he doesn't think the EU will stop planes flying or cars trading.
    Take it or leave it was only ever plausible if it looked like we were prepared for no deal Brexit. Talking tough, while doing nothing to prepare, is possibly the worst negotiating tactic in existence.

    And let me spread the blame wider. DfID has spent more time circulating White Papers with titles such as "Tariffs for a 21st Century Britain", than replicating the EU's existing trading agreements.

    We should have combined soft language with the (rarely spoken but very real) threat of being in a position to walk away.

    Instead, we've gone for tough talking, political instability, and no preparation at all for a no deal scenario.

    It's embarrassing really.
    You both voted for Brexit unlike me in the fairly certain knowledge s Leave vote would not just be to regain sovereignty but to end free movement and reduce immigration.

    I actually think the position of May and Davis is now the only fair one they could have taken ie to leave both the EU and single market and to replace free movement with a points system and also to pay a significant sum to the EU for a FTA to meet Remainers concerns about the economy.

    As Thatcher said 'TINA', 'there is no alternative!'
This discussion has been closed.