The Prime Minister doesn't have the courage to tell the British people how much of OUR money she has had to pay to the EU in order to even begin talking about a trade deal.
Political cowardice of the first order but then presumably she doesn't want a war within the Conservative Party.
The figure will come out - eventually.
Perhaps but if FTA talks begin in December now the payment has been promised they may be near completion by 2022, the last date for the next general election to be called, after we have both left the EU in 2019 and the transition period has ended in 2021.
What few seem to have realised is that the agreed divorce payment will be set in stone at the end of the A50 period, yet any deal on trade will require extensive ratification, and all the EU will be able to deliver within the A50 period is a framework 'in principle' agreement, the details to be progressed during the transition period. The oft-heard 'nothing is agreed until all is agreed' mantra won't actually fly in practice.
"What few seem to have realised is that the agreed divorce payment will be set in stone at the end of the A50 period"
No deal, no divorce payment.
You will I fear be proved utterly wrong, if by 'deal' you mean the actual chapter and verse on trade.
You are suggesting that the Tories would agree to pay the full 'divorce' bill, purely in exchange for the transition period and no further guarantees.
Well that's one way to get themselves kicked out of power I guess.
The Prime Minister doesn't have the courage to tell the British people how much of OUR money she has had to pay to the EU in order to even begin talking about a trade deal.
Political cowardice of the first order but then presumably she doesn't want a war within the Conservative Party.
The figure will come out - eventually.
Perhaps but if FTA talks begin in December now the payment has been promised they may be near completion by 2022, the last date for the next general election to be called, after we have both left the EU in 2019 and the transition period has ended in 2021.
What few seem to have realised is that the agreed divorce payment will be set in stone at the end of the A50 period, yet any deal on trade will require extensive ratification, and all the EU will be able to deliver within the A50 period is a framework 'in principle' agreement, the details to be progressed during the transition period. The oft-heard 'nothing is agreed until all is agreed' mantra won't actually fly in practice.
Yes but the next general election does not have to be until 2022 ie after both Brexit has been completed and a transition period ended and when a FTA may well be near completion.
You have not understood this yet. There can be a "transition" only if the FTA or WTO is known on 29th March 2019.
It can be a transition only if we know what we are transiting to.
What you are saying is not transition but an extension of the Art.50 2 year period which is explicitly mentioned in Art.50.
No, provided we agree to ECJ jurisdiction and continued free movement during that 2 year period as May has agreed to do and Barnier has said is required for the transition to work that transition will indeed take us to 2021 by which time the FTA talks may be near completion.
That is only possible in a Art. 50 extension which is explicitly allowed for in Art.50.
No, we will leave the EU in April 2019 as May has made quite clear and then stay in the single market for 2 years during the transition period as May has made quite clear.
Hunt has played a good long game. He has converted to Brexit late in the day, but has not been tainted by touching Brexit directly like others have.
If Brexit turns into a shambles Hunt can still say he voted remain but changed his mind to commit to the will of the people, absolving himself of any blame.
Hunt has put himself in a position where he can have his cake and eat it. Had Boris chosen this strategy he would now be unassailable. Hunt has played a blinder and 100/1 could be value bet of the millennium!
Hunt will have to commit to leaving the single market as well as the EU and ending free movement as most Tories want, though I think a third successive Remainer leading a majority Leaver party may well be a step too far for the majority of Tories.
Yes he can commit to all those red line issues because 'it was the will of the people'. If it goes wrong he can still say he was only supporting what the voters wanted because he is a democrat, and by the way he has it on record that he supported remain. Genius.
I am sure blue-rinse Tories respect damascene conversions to their point of view too!
He is easy on the ear and eye and doesn't come across as an absolute charlatan -although he may well be exactly that!
Fine in theory for Hunt, problem is as the old saying goes 'try and please everyone, end up pleasing no one!'
For someone not generally of the Tory persuasion I would prefer Prime Minister Hunt to PM Corbyn. If the choice were Corbyn versus, Johnson, Gove or Davis, I wouldn't be comfortable with any of them, but then in June 2016 Corbyn didn't wilfully choose to send my country in a downward spiral to economic oblivion, although he did f. all to prevent it!
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Lol
Those poor leave labour area's are already missing your donations.
Cabinet minister says there can be no final decisions on the Irish border until a UK-EU trade agreement.
Surely he's just stating a fact: the UK-EU (Ireland) deal cannot be agreed until the full UK-EU is agreed. The former is just a portion of the latter and dependent on it.
Ireland (or perhaps their puppet masters in Brussels) seems to think they can get the UK government to U-turn over the Single Market and/or Customs Union. Brave, on Ireland's part. For a country that desperately wants to avoid a hard border, their threat of forcing a hard border doesn’t seem to be fully thought through.
Why not say now that the objective of trade negotiations is tariff free trade, and we can all forget about hard borders between north and south and also between Dover and Calais.
Oh, no, that would require Brussels to be sensible and aim for a win-win rather than a lose-lose just to frighten anyone else who might be thinking about leaving.
The longer this all goes on, the stronger my Leaverness. The City of Culture spite makes me (almost) want to start burning EU flags in the street.
Ireland (or perhaps their puppet masters in Brussels) seems to think they can get the UK government to U-turn over the Single Market and/or Customs Union. Brave, on Ireland's part. For a country that desperately wants to avoid a hard border, their threat of forcing a hard border doesn’t seem to be fully thought through.
Why not say now that the objective of trade negotiations is tariff free trade, and we can all forget about hard borders between north and south and also between Dover and Calais.
Oh, no, that would require Brussels to be sensible and aim for a win-win rather than a lose-lose just to frighten anyone else who might be thinking about leaving.
The longer this all goes on, the stronger my Leaverness. The City of Culture spite makes me (almost) want to start burning EU flags in the street.
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Lol
Those poor leave labour area's are already missing your donations.
The Labour voters voted to Remain. It is the Tories and UKiPers who voted to leave. And a few Labour voters.
Dawn Butler, who says Theresa May “might be female but she is no friend of women”, and that the Tories have done nothing for women.
If you want to look at what is wrong with our political system, dawn butler is a great example. Thick as shit, expense fiddler, and proven liar. Hits the trifecta, yet she is in a prominent position.
A shithead is calling someone else thick. How many Tory expenses fiddler have you criticised?
I criticised a lot. You will struggle to find many positive posts I have made about the tories.
Are you happy for labour to have the likes of dawn butler on the front bench, rather than intelligent individuals like cooper balls? She is so thick she campaigned in the wrong constituency without realising.
As for shithead / thick. I am extremely comfortable with my intelliectual abilities.
Ireland (or perhaps their puppet masters in Brussels)
One of the problems with the UK is that it fails to understand Ireland. It copes by adopting workarounds in its head such as "Ireland is part of the UK", "Northern Ireland is not part of the UK", or "Ireland is not a foreign country". None of these things are factually accurate, but they are widely believed. Normally they are not a problem (that's what a workround *is*) but in critical situations they are not good enough and can lead to problems. This is an example of that.
Your comment that "Ireland (or perhaps their puppet masters in Brussels)" is one of these problems. Instead of thinking of Ireland as a client state of the UK or Brussels, try thinking of it as an independent state with its own ambitions, armed forces and foreign policy. Varadkar may be right, he may be wrong, but allow for the possibility that he is doing the best for Ireland as he sees it, without recourse to the UK, Germany, Brussels or anybody else.
At the moment it looks like Turnbull could be toppled as Australian PM before we even start FTA talks after the LNP's poor performance in Queensland yesterday, the more pro Brexit former Liberal leader and arch Turnbull rival Tony Abbott is clearly waiting to strike in the background.
Hunt has played a good long game. He has converted to Brexit late in the day, but has not been tainted by touching Brexit directly like others have.
If Brexit turns into a shambles Hunt can still say he voted remain but changed his mind to commit to the will of the people, absolving himself of any blame.
Hunt has put himself in a position where he can have his cake and eat it. Had Boris chosen this strategy he would now be unassailable. Hunt has played a blinder and 100/1 could be value bet of the millennium!
Hunt will have to commit to leaving the single market as well as the EU and ending free movement as most Tories want, though I think a third successive Remainer leading a majority Leaver party may well be a step too far for the majority of Tories.
Yes he can commit to all those red line issues because 'it was the will of the people'. If it goes wrong he can still say he was only supporting what the voters wanted because he is a democrat, and by the way he has it on record that he supported remain. Genius.
I am sure blue-rinse Tories respect damascene conversions to their point of view too!
He is easy on the ear and eye and doesn't come across as an absolute charlatan -although he may well be exactly that!
Fine in theory for Hunt, problem is as the old saying goes 'try and please everyone, end up pleasing no one!'
For someone not generally of the Tory persuasion I would prefer Prime Minister Hunt to PM Corbyn. If the choice were Corbyn versus, Johnson, Gove or Davis, I wouldn't be comfortable with any of them, but then in June 2016 Corbyn didn't wilfully choose to send my country in a downward spiral to economic oblivion, although he did f. all to prevent it!
Yes but you are in the minority of likely potential Tory voters.
Ireland (or perhaps their puppet masters in Brussels)
One of the problems with the UK is that it fails to understand Ireland. It copes by adopting workarounds in its head such as "Ireland is part of the UK", "Northern Ireland is not part of the UK", or "Ireland is not a foreign country". None of these things are factually accurate, but they are widely believed. Normally they are not a problem (that's what a workround *is*) but in critical situations they are not good enough and can lead to problems. This is an example of that.
Your comment that "Ireland (or perhaps their puppet masters in Brussels)" is one of these problems. Instead of thinking of Ireland as a client state of the UK or Brussels, try thinking of it as an independent state with its own ambitions, armed forces and foreign policy. Varadkar may be right, he may be wrong, but allow for the possibility that he is doing the best for Ireland as he sees it, without recourse to the UK, Germany, Brussels or anybody else.
If Varadkar wants the best for Ireland he should be campaigning for a post-Brexit free trade deal rather than making threats that would shaft Ireland's economy.
Dawn Butler, who says Theresa May “might be female but she is no friend of women”, and that the Tories have done nothing for women.
If you want to look at what is wrong with our political system, dawn butler is a great example. Thick as shit, expense fiddler, and proven liar. Hits the trifecta, yet she is in a prominent position.
A shithead is calling someone else thick. How many Tory expenses fiddler have you criticised?
I criticised a lot. You will struggle to find many positive posts I have made about the tories.
Are you happy for labour to have the likes of dawn butler on the front bench, rather than intelligent individuals like cooper balls? She is so thick she campaigned in the wrong constituency without realising.
As for shithead / thick. I am extremely comfortable with my intelliectual abilities.
Balls is not in Parliament. Her name is Cooper. She would have been the Labour leader today had she not been so wishy washy on policy details in the 2015 leadership elections. She wanted to be a Blairite in a non-Blairite party. I actually voted for her as my first choice.
Dawn Butler is in the front bench because 175 Labour MPs voted to remove Corbyn. You cannot really expect Corbyn to reward them.
Come along, chaps. I know the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix was tedious, but that's no excuse for being uncouth.
You didn’t like it? Was a great race, cars running very close all the way down the field. Unfortunate for Mr Ricciardo though, what was his problem, suspension when he hit the wall?
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Lol
Those poor leave labour area's are already missing your donations.
The Labour voters voted to Remain. It is the Tories and UKiPers who voted to leave. And a few Labour voters.
Bradford voted leave and we must have had a good number of our Asian brits voting the same way.
Ireland (or perhaps their puppet masters in Brussels)
One of the problems with the UK is that it fails to understand Ireland. It copes by adopting workarounds in its head such as "Ireland is part of the UK", "Northern Ireland is not part of the UK", or "Ireland is not a foreign country". None of these things are factually accurate, but they are widely believed. Normally they are not a problem (that's what a workround *is*) but in critical situations they are not good enough and can lead to problems. This is an example of that.
Your comment that "Ireland (or perhaps their puppet masters in Brussels)" is one of these problems. Instead of thinking of Ireland as a client state of the UK or Brussels, try thinking of it as an independent state with its own ambitions, armed forces and foreign policy. Varadkar may be right, he may be wrong, but allow for the possibility that he is doing the best for Ireland as he sees it, without recourse to the UK, Germany, Brussels or anybody else.
If Varadkar wants the best for Ireland he should be campaigning for a post-Brexit free trade deal rather than making threats that would shaft Ireland's economy.
Varadakar has a internal rival in Coveney whose position and politics are significantly more provincial than Leo. It’s a governing party existing on the nod from FF and supported by independents who are beyond flaky (look up their planned North Korea peace mission).
The longer this all goes on, the stronger my Leaverness. The City of Culture spite makes me (almost) want to start burning EU flags in the street.
I'm sure you would be in the company of many people and it would be a very popular stance. And I'm sure you would be wrong.
Despite. SeanT's insistance that Brexit is a baby, he is wrong: it is a divorce, not a birth. A divorce involves one of two people deciding that a relationship is no longer in their interest and should cease. The adult way to proceed is to accept that the ending incurs disadvantages instead of advantages, and start to cope with the former. The child way to proceed is to blame the ex-spouse for all problems past and future, and wallow in hatred and self pity - the "all women are bastards" scream of the drunken middle-aged divorced man in the pub.
That the UK would no longer be eligible for the European City of Culture program was inevitable given May's decision to leave the EEA as well as the EU. It will not be the first of such events, nor will it be the last. Your reaction, by no means unusual, makes me fear that we will not take the adult route and that @Cyclefree's conclusions in the previous article were correct.
We are truly f*cked if the likes of Fox are negotiating on our behalf. I am struggling to think of a more odious individual in the HoC. A person as sleazy as him, a friend of war criminals is in this key role. How did it get to this? FFS!
Ireland (or perhaps their puppet masters in Brussels)
One of the problems with the UK is that it fails to understand Ireland. It copes by adopting workarounds in its head such as "Ireland is part of the UK", "Northern Ireland is not part of the UK", or "Ireland is not a foreign country". None of these things are factually accurate, but they are widely believed. Normally they are not a problem (that's what a workround *is*) but in critical situations they are not good enough and can lead to problems. This is an example of that.
Your comment that "Ireland (or perhaps their puppet masters in Brussels)" is one of these problems. Instead of thinking of Ireland as a client state of the UK or Brussels, try thinking of it as an independent state with its own ambitions, armed forces and foreign policy. Varadkar may be right, he may be wrong, but allow for the possibility that he is doing the best for Ireland as he sees it, without recourse to the UK, Germany, Brussels or anybody else.
If Varadkar wants the best for Ireland he should be campaigning for a post-Brexit free trade deal rather than making threats that would shaft Ireland's economy.
Possibly (and plausibly), but that's your assessment of what his priorities should be. We have little knowledge of his thought processes nor ambitions. We have more knowledge of the philosophy of Barnier than of Varadkar, to our shame.
Hunt has played a good long game. He has converted to Brexit late in the day, but has not been tainted by touching Brexit directly like others have.
If Brexit turns into a shambles Hunt can still say he voted remain but changed his mind to commit to the will of the people, absolving himself of any blame.
Hunt has put himself in a position where he can have his cake and eat it. Had Boris chosen this strategy he would now be unassailable. Hunt has played a blinder and 100/1 could be value bet of the millennium!
Hunt will have to commit to leaving the single market as well as the EU and ending free movement as most Tories want, though I think a third successive Remainer leading a majority Leaver party may well be a step too far for the majority of Tories.
Yes he can commit to all those red line issues because 'it was the will of the people'. If it goes wrong he can still say he was only supporting what the voters wanted because he is a democrat, and by the way he has it on record that he supported remain. Genius.
I am sure blue-rinse Tories respect damascene conversions to their point of view too!
He is easy on the ear and eye and doesn't come across as an absolute charlatan -although he may well be exactly that!
Fine in theory for Hunt, problem is as the old saying goes 'try and please everyone, end up pleasing no one!'
For someone not generally of the Tory persuasion I would prefer Prime Minister Hunt to PM Corbyn. If the choice were Corbyn versus, Johnson, Gove or Davis, I wouldn't be comfortable with any of them, but then in June 2016 Corbyn didn't wilfully choose to send my country in a downward spiral to economic oblivion, although he did f. all to prevent it!
Yes but you are in the minority of likely potential Tory voters.
You make the most incredible sweeping statements. If you don't want or need my vote, so be it! Comrade Corbyn it is then!
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Lol
Those poor leave labour area's are already missing your donations.
The Labour voters voted to Remain. It is the Tories and UKiPers who voted to leave. And a few Labour voters.
Bradford voted leave and we must have had a good number of our Asian brits voting the same way.
It goes against everything you posted doesn't it.
Lol
No. It doesn't. Start by putting 95% of non-Labour voters voting for Brexit. How many others do you need to get the Brexit vote.
If some Bradford Asians voted for Brexit, they should also swim in a pool of shit! That is what they deserve.
The Prime Minister doesn't have the courage to tell the British people how much of OUR money she has had to pay to the EU in order to even begin talking about a trade deal.
Political cowardice of the first order but then presumably she doesn't want a war within the Conservative Party.
The figure will come out - eventually.
Perhaps but if FTA talks begin in December now the payment has been promised they may be near completion by 2022, the last date for the next general election to be called, after we have both left the EU in 2019 and the transition period has ended in 2021.
What few seem to have realised is that the agreed divorce payment will be set in stone at the end of the A50 period, yet any deal on trade will require extensive ratification, and all the EU will be able to deliver within the A50 period is a framework 'in principle' agreement, the details to be progressed during the transition period. The oft-heard 'nothing is agreed until all is agreed' mantra won't actually fly in practice.
Yes but the next general election does not have to be until 2022 ie after both Brexit has been completed and a transition period ended and when a FTA may well be near completion.
You have not understood this yet. There can be a "transition" only if the FTA or WTO is known on 29th March 2019.
It can be a transition only if we know what we are transiting to.
What you are saying is not transition but an extension of the Art.50 2 year period which is explicitly mentioned in Art.50.
No, provided we agree to ECJ jurisdiction and continued free movement during that 2 year period as May has agreed to do and Barnier has said is required for the transition to work that transition will indeed take us to 2021 by which time the FTA talks may be near completion.
That is only possible in a Art. 50 extension which is explicitly allowed for in Art.50.
No it is not. Trade talks can continue after we have officially left the EU. What cannot continue without a formal extension are discussions on our political, legal and constitutional relationship with the EU.
Ireland (or perhaps their puppet masters in Brussels)
One of the problems with the UK is that it fails to understand Ireland. It copes by adopting workarounds in its head such as "Ireland is part of the UK", "Northern Ireland is not part of the UK", or "Ireland is not a foreign country". None of these things are factually accurate, but they are widely believed. Normally they are not a problem (that's what a workround *is*) but in critical situations they are not good enough and can lead to problems. This is an example of that.
Your comment that "Ireland (or perhaps their puppet masters in Brussels)" is one of these problems. Instead of thinking of Ireland as a client state of the UK or Brussels, try thinking of it as an independent state with its own ambitions, armed forces and foreign policy. Varadkar may be right, he may be wrong, but allow for the possibility that he is doing the best for Ireland as he sees it, without recourse to the UK, Germany, Brussels or anybody else.
If Varadkar wants the best for Ireland he should be campaigning for a post-Brexit free trade deal rather than making threats that would shaft Ireland's economy.
Varadakar has a internal rival in Coveney whose position and politics are significantly more provincial than Leo. It’s a governing party existing on the nod from FF and supported by independents who are beyond flaky (look up their planned North Korea peace mission).
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Lol
Those poor leave labour area's are already missing your donations.
The Labour voters voted to Remain. It is the Tories and UKiPers who voted to leave. And a few Labour voters.
Bradford voted leave and we must have had a good number of our Asian brits voting the same way.
It goes against everything you posted doesn't it.
Lol
No. It doesn't. Start by putting 95% of non-Labour voters voting for Brexit. How many others do you need to get the Brexit vote.
If some Bradford Asians voted for Brexit, they should also swim in a pool of shit! That is what they deserve.
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Lol
Those poor leave labour area's are already missing your donations.
The Labour voters voted to Remain. It is the Tories and UKiPers who voted to leave. And a few Labour voters.
Bradford voted leave and we must have had a good number of our Asian brits voting the same way.
It goes against everything you posted doesn't it.
Lol
No. It doesn't. Start by putting 95% of non-Labour voters voting for Brexit. How many others do you need to get the Brexit vote.
If some Bradford Asians voted for Brexit, they should also swim in a pool of shit! That is what they deserve.
Political cowardice of the first order but then presumably she doesn't want a war within the Conservative Party.
The figure will come out - eventually.
Perhaps but if FTA talks begin in December now the payment has been promised they may be near completion by 2022, the last date for the next general election to be called, after we have both left the EU in 2019 and the transition period has ended in 2021.
What few seem to have realised is that the agreed divorce payment will be set in stone at the end of the A50 period, yet any deal on trade will require extensive ratification, and all the EU will be able to deliver within the A50 period is a framework 'in principle' agreement, the details to be progressed during the transition period. The oft-heard 'nothing is agreed until all is agreed' mantra won't actually fly in practice.
Yes but the next general election does not have to be until 2022 ie after both Brexit has been completed and a transition period ended and when a FTA may well be near completion.
You have not understood this yet. There can be a "transition" only if the FTA or WTO is known on 29th March 2019.
It can be a transition only if we know what we are transiting to.
What you are saying is not transition but an extension of the Art.50 2 year period which is explicitly mentioned in Art.50.
No, provided we agree to ECJ jurisdiction and continued free movement during that 2 year period as May has agreed to do and Barnier has said is required for the transition to work that transition will indeed take us to 2021 by which time the FTA talks may be near completion.
That is only possible in a Art. 50 extension which is explicitly allowed for in Art.50.
No it is not. Trade talks can continue after we have officially left the EU. What cannot continue without a formal extension are discussions on our political, legal and constitutional relationship with the EU.
Bullshit. Transition period means you should know what you are transiting to. Otherwise, it is WTO.
The adult way out of this is to extend the Art.50 period. Then you can indeed do what you are saying.
The longer this all goes on, the stronger my Leaverness. The City of Culture spite makes me (almost) want to start burning EU flags in the street.
I'm sure you would be in the company of many people and it would be a very popular stance. And I'm sure you would be wrong.
Despite. SeanT's insistance that Brexit is a baby, he is wrong: it is a divorce, not a birth. A divorce involves one of two people deciding that a relationship is no longer in their interest and should cease. The adult way to proceed is to accept that the ending incurs disadvantages instead of advantages, and start to cope with the former. The child way to proceed is to blame the ex-spouse for all problems past and future, and wallow in hatred and self pity - the "all women are bastards" scream of the drunken middle-aged divorced man in the pub.
That the UK would no longer be eligible for the European City of Culture program was inevitable given May's decision to leave the EEA as well as the EU. It will not be the first of such events, nor will it be the last. Your reaction, by no means unusual, makes me fear that we will not take the adult route and that @Cyclefree's conclusions in the previous article were correct.
We're awash with metaphors, but I think this has a Brexity feel to it, Scottish accent notwithstanding. Something of an echo of the wounded outrage at the Jocks thinking about bailing out also.
The longer this all goes on, the stronger my Leaverness. The City of Culture spite makes me (almost) want to start burning EU flags in the street.
I'm sure you would be in the company of many people and it would be a very popular stance. And I'm sure you would be wrong.
Despite. SeanT's insistance that Brexit is a baby, he is wrong: it is a divorce, not a birth. A divorce involves one of two people deciding that a relationship is no longer in their interest and should cease. The adult way to proceed is to accept that the ending incurs disadvantages instead of advantages, and start to cope with the former. The child way to proceed is to blame the ex-spouse for all problems past and future, and wallow in hatred and self pity - the "all women are bastards" scream of the drunken middle-aged divorced man in the pub.
That the UK would no longer be eligible for the European City of Culture program was inevitable given May's decision to leave the EEA as well as the EU. It will not be the first of such events, nor will it be the last. Your reaction, by no means unusual, makes me fear that we will not take the adult route and that @Cyclefree's conclusions in the previous article were correct.
We're awash with metaphors, but I think this has a Brexity feel to it, Scottish accent notwithstanding. Something of an echo of the wounded outrage at the Jocks thinking about bailing out also.
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Lol
Those poor leave labour area's are already missing your donations.
The Labour voters voted to Remain. It is the Tories and UKiPers who voted to leave. And a few Labour voters.
Bradford voted leave and we must have had a good number of our Asian brits voting the same way.
It goes against everything you posted doesn't it.
Lol
No. It doesn't. Start by putting 95% of non-Labour voters voting for Brexit. How many others do you need to get the Brexit vote.
If some Bradford Asians voted for Brexit, they should also swim in a pool of shit! That is what they deserve.
Please just stop lol
I don't think labour will be telling it's voters,if you voted leave,we don't want your vote.
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Lol
Those poor leave labour area's are already missing your donations.
The Labour voters voted to Remain. It is the Tories and UKiPers who voted to leave. And a few Labour voters.
Bradford voted leave and we must have had a good number of our Asian brits voting the same way.
It goes against everything you posted doesn't it.
Lol
The assumption that second- or third-generation immigrants from region X would sympathise with first-generation immigrants from region Y was widely held and entirely, spectacularly wrong. Many such people voted "Leave" on precisely that basis.
Hunt has played a good long game. He has converted to Brexit late in the day, but has not been tainted by touching Brexit directly like others have.
If Brexit turns into a shambles Hunt can still say he voted remain but changed his mind to commit to the will of the people, absolving himself of any blame.
Hunt has put himself in a position where he can have his cake and eat it. Had Boris chosen this strategy he would now be unassailable. Hunt has played a blinder and 100/1 could be value bet of the millennium!
Hunt will have to commit to leaving the single market as well as the EU and ending free movement as most Tories want, though I think a third successive Remainer leading a majority Leaver party may well be a step too far for the majority of Tories.
Yes he can commit to all those red line issues because 'it was the will of the people'. If it goes wrong he can still say he was only supporting what the voters wanted because he is a democrat, and by the way he has it on record that he supported remain. Genius.
I am sure blue-rinse Tories respect damascene conversions to their point of view too!
He is easy on the ear and eye and doesn't come across as an absolute charlatan -although he may well be exactly that!
Fine in theory for Hunt, problem is as the old saying goes 'try and please everyone, end up pleasing no one!'
For someone not generally of the Tory persuasion I would prefer Prime Minister Hunt to PM Corbyn. If the choice were Corbyn versus, Johnson, Gove or Davis, I wouldn't be comfortable with any of them, but then in June 2016 Corbyn didn't wilfully choose to send my country in a downward spiral to economic oblivion, although he did f. all to prevent it!
Yes but you are in the minority of likely potential Tory voters.
You make the most incredible sweeping statements. If you don't want or need my vote, so be it! Comrade Corbyn it is then!
There is no point winning your vote if it loses more Tory voters to UKIP or Labour. Survation in the summer had both Davis and Boris getting as high a voteshare for the Tories as May did v Labour (Boris even fractionally higher), Hammond and Rudd got a slightly worse Tory voteshare and Hunt is virtually indistinguishable in most voters eyes to the latter two.
German Luddites are no more accurate than British ones...
I have never understood why "Luddite" is regarded as a term of abuse. Machines put people out of work, and that is a feature, not a bug, of mechanisation. It is obvious in theory that this is likely to be so, and obvious that that is what has in fact happened, is happening and will happen.
"Varadakar has a internal rival in Coveney whose position and politics are significantly more provincial than Leo. It’s a governing party existing on the nod from FF and supported by independents who are beyond flaky (look up their planned North Korea peace mission).
Varadakar is not stupid. His aim is to scupper Brexit, either formally or in effect, and the NI card is the "best" way to do that. Brexit causes massive problems for the idea of Ireland as an independent state for two reasons.
1. If the UK goes, Ireland loses its main shield against those in the EU who would dearly love to drive more integration. Ireland's tax regime wouldn't last five minutes in an EU without the UK, and it also raises questions about other parts of the Irish system where it is out of kilter with the rest of the EU (e.g. the use of Common Law)
2. Logically, if the UK adopts a hard Brexit, Ireland should also exit the EU and align itself with the UK in a common free trade area. It does most of its trade with the UK and such a move would eliminate at a stroke all the concerns about wrecking the Good Friday agreement etc. But the next logical step after that is the question of whether Ireland needs to be its own fully independent country or should just join the rest of the UK in a super-Devo Max agreement.
Hard Brexit is an existential threat to the Irish state. Simple as.
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Lol
Those poor leave labour area's are already missing your donations.
The Labour voters voted to Remain. It is the Tories and UKiPers who voted to leave. And a few Labour voters.
Bradford voted leave and we must have had a good number of our Asian brits voting the same way.
It goes against everything you posted doesn't it.
Lol
No. It doesn't. Start by putting 95% of non-Labour voters voting for Brexit. How many others do you need to get the Brexit vote.
If some Bradford Asians voted for Brexit, they should also swim in a pool of shit! That is what they deserve.
Varadakar is not stupid. His aim is to scupper Brexit, either formally or in effect, and the NI card is the "best" way to do that. Brexit causes massive problems for the idea of Ireland as an independent state for two reasons.
1. If the UK goes, Ireland loses its main shield against those in the EU who would dearly love to drive more integration. Ireland's tax regime wouldn't last five minutes in an EU without the UK, and it also raises questions about other parts of the Irish system where it is out of kilter with the rest of the EU (e.g. the use of Common Law)
2. Logically, if the UK adopts a hard Brexit, Ireland should also exit the EU and align itself with the UK in a common free trade area. It does most of its trade with the UK and such a move would eliminate at a stroke all the concerns about wrecking the Good Friday agreement etc. But the next logical step after that is the question of whether Ireland needs to be its own fully independent country or should just join the rest of the UK in a super-Devo Max agreement.
Hard Brexit is an existential threat to the Irish state. Simple as.
These are good points (although phrasing is as "existential" is perhaps overegging it: it's coped with a lot over the past century). One suggestion I have heard is that Varadkar wants a hard border, for various reasons. If Ireland was not in the Euro I would imagine Irexit would be an inevitable consequence of Brexit. But (IIUC) they have wargamed leaving the EU and not the Euro, and they can't do it.
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Lol
Those poor leave labour area's are already missing your donations.
The Labour voters voted to Remain. It is the Tories and UKiPers who voted to leave. And a few Labour voters.
Bradford voted leave and we must have had a good number of our Asian brits voting the same way.
It goes against everything you posted doesn't it.
Lol
The assumption that second- or third-generation immigrants from region X would sympathise with first-generation immigrants from region Y was widely held and entirely, spectacularly wrong. Many such people voted "Leave" on precisely that basis.
Indeed, many of them were the first to notice declining living standards and wages as new immigrants came along and undercut them. Only when remainers start to admit that free movement was a vicious race to the bottom will they understand why so many voted as they did. Instead, a certain type of remainer is happy to cry racist while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.
We're awash with metaphors, but I think this has a Brexity feel to it, Scottish accent notwithstanding. Something of an echo of the wounded outrage at the Jocks thinking about bailing out also.
The longer this all goes on, the stronger my Leaverness. The City of Culture spite makes me (almost) want to start burning EU flags in the street.
I'm sure you would be in the company of many people and it would be a very popular stance. And I'm sure you would be wrong.
Despite. SeanT's insistance that Brexit is a baby, he is wrong: it is a divorce, not a birth. A divorce involves one of two people deciding that a relationship is no longer in their interest and should cease. The adult way to proceed is to accept that the ending incurs disadvantages instead of advantages, and start to cope with the former. The child way to proceed is to blame the ex-spouse for all problems past and future, and wallow in hatred and self pity - the "all women are bastards" scream of the drunken middle-aged divorced man in the pub.
That the UK would no longer be eligible for the European City of Culture program was inevitable given May's decision to leave the EEA as well as the EU. It will not be the first of such events, nor will it be the last. Your reaction, by no means unusual, makes me fear that we will not take the adult route and that @Cyclefree's conclusions in the previous article were correct.
We're awash with metaphors, but I think this has a Brexity feel to it, Scottish accent notwithstanding. Something of an echo of the wounded outrage at the Jocks thinking about bailing out also.
That would be the same Jocks who voted 55% for the Union in 2014 and 63% for Unionist parties this June?
I think someone on this thread has already questioned the value of repeating the same things over and over and over again.
Of course the wounded outrage of people like you wasn't at the Jocks who opted for safety first. You were clapping like performing seals at Project Fear 1 then.
Varadakar is not stupid. His aim is to scupper Brexit, either formally or in effect, and the NI card is the "best" way to do that. Brexit causes massive problems for the idea of Ireland as an independent state for two reasons.
1. If the UK goes, Ireland loses its main shield against those in the EU who would dearly love to drive more integration. Ireland's tax regime wouldn't last five minutes in an EU without the UK, and it also raises questions about other parts of the Irish system where it is out of kilter with the rest of the EU (e.g. the use of Common Law)
2. Logically, if the UK adopts a hard Brexit, Ireland should also exit the EU and align itself with the UK in a common free trade area. It does most of its trade with the UK and such a move would eliminate at a stroke all the concerns about wrecking the Good Friday agreement etc. But the next logical step after that is the question of whether Ireland needs to be its own fully independent country or should just join the rest of the UK in a super-Devo Max agreement.
Hard Brexit is an existential threat to the Irish state. Simple as.
1 is simply not true.
Ireland is not the only EU country whose economic model is based around a very low corporation tax rate. So, the following countries all have corporate tax rates of 20% or below:
Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland Hungary Ireland Latvia Lithuania Poland Slovenia
(And for the record, Ireland isn't even the lowest - that goes to Hungary at 9%)
There are other countries who are only just above that level too: such as Sweden (22%), Portugal (21%) and Italy (24%).
Now, it's possible that Ireland on its own could be bullied (although the Germans tried and failed in 2009 when the bailout was made contingent on changes to corporation tax. And the Irish said they'd rather suffer the ignominity of going bust than change their tax system).
But I find it hard to believe they could bully the Finns, the Swedes, the Hungarians, all the Baltic states, the Italians, the Poles and various others.
German Luddites are no more accurate than British ones...
I have never understood why "Luddite" is regarded as a term of abuse. Machines put people out of work, and that is a feature, not a bug, of mechanisation. It is obvious in theory that this is likely to be so, and obvious that that is what has in fact happened, is happening and will happen.
I would suggest that it is because, although machines put people out of certain types of work, they also create new types of work so employment continues to expand. And whilst they are doing this they are generally making life better for everyone. I doubt you would find many people who would claim life was better for the workers prior to the industrial revolution compared to now. Indeed I suspect youv would be hard pushed to claim that, outside of wartime, there is any point in the last 200 years where life was worse for the working classes than it had been 50 years previpusly.
German Luddites are no more accurate than British ones...
I have never understood why "Luddite" is regarded as a term of abuse. Machines put people out of work, and that is a feature, not a bug, of mechanisation. It is obvious in theory that this is likely to be so, and obvious that that is what has in fact happened, is happening and will happen.
I would suggest that it is because, although machines put people out of certain types of work, they also create new types of work so employment continues to expand. And whilst they are doing this they are generally making life better for everyone. I doubt you would find many people who would claim life was better for the workers prior to the industrial revolution compared to now. Indeed I suspect youv would be hard pushed to claim that, outside of wartime, there is any point in the last 200 years where life was worse for the working classes than it had been 50 years previpusly.
The assumption that second- or third-generation immigrants from region X would sympathise with first-generation immigrants from region Y was widely held and entirely, spectacularly wrong. Many such people voted "Leave" on precisely that basis.
Indeed, many of them were the first to notice declining living standards and wages as new immigrants came along and undercut them. Only when remainers start to admit that free movement was a vicious race to the bottom will they understand why so many voted as they did. Instead, a certain type of remainer is happy to cry racist while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.
Indeed. Pakistanis, Indians, Poles, Romanians, Kenyans, Jamaicans, Turks, Spanish, Norwegians, etc living in the UK and their descendants are not a monolithic bloc and may not have the same interests or even like each other. Their poorer representatives were the first to notice competition from new entrants, and to be adversely affected by it.
German Luddites are no more accurate than British ones...
I have never understood why "Luddite" is regarded as a term of abuse. Machines put people out of work, and that is a feature, not a bug, of mechanisation. It is obvious in theory that this is likely to be so, and obvious that that is what has in fact happened, is happening and will happen.
I would suggest that it is because, although machines put people out of certain types of work, they also create new types of work so employment continues to expand. And whilst they are doing this they are generally making life better for everyone. I doubt you would find many people who would claim life was better for the workers prior to the industrial revolution compared to now. Indeed I suspect youv would be hard pushed to claim that, outside of wartime, there is any point in the last 200 years where life was worse for the working classes than it had been 50 years previpusly.
But what about Facebook?
If i wasnt addicted to facebook i would be back on the PCP again.
Political cowardice of the first order but then presumably she doesn't want a war within the Conservative Party.
The figure will come out - eventually.
Perhaps but if FTA talks begin in December now the payment has been promised they may be near completion by 2022, the last date for the next general election to be called, after we have both left the EU in 2019 and the transition period has ended in 2021.
What few seem to have realised is that the agreed divorce payment will be set in stone at the end of the A50 period, yet any deal on trade will require extensive ratification, and all the EU will be able to deliver within the A50 period is a framework 'in principle' agreement, the details to be progressed during the transition period. The oft-heard 'nothing is agreed until all is agreed' mantra won't actually fly in practice.
Yes but the next general election does not have to be until 2022 ie after both Brexit has been completed and a transition period ended and when a FTA may well be near completion.
You have not understood this yet. There can be a "transition" only if the FTA or WTO is known on 29th March 2019.
It can be a transition only if we know what we are transiting to.
What you are saying is not transition but an extension of the Art.50 2 year period which is explicitly mentioned in Art.50.
No, provided we agree to ECJ jurisdiction and continued free movement during that 2 year period as May has agreed to do and Barnier has said is required for the transition to work that transition will indeed take us to 2021 by which time the FTA talks may be near completion.
That is only possible in a Art. 50 extension which is explicitly allowed for in Art.50.
No it is not. Trade talks can continue after we have officially left the EU. What cannot continue without a formal extension are discussions on our political, legal and constitutional relationship with the EU.
Bullshit. Transition period means you should know what you are transiting to. Otherwise, it is WTO.
The adult way out of this is to extend the Art.50 period. Then you can indeed do what you are saying.
Your last statement is on the money, but the first, not so much.
The Prime Minister doesn't have the courage to tell the British people how much of OUR money she has had to pay to the EU in order to even begin talking about a trade deal.
Political cowardice of the first order but then presumably she doesn't want a war within the Conservative Party.
The figure will come out - eventually.
It will come out in minutes, if it looks like Brussels has got on over the UK.
The Prime Minister doesn't have the courage to tell the British people how much of OUR money she has had to pay to the EU in order to even begin talking about a trade deal.
Political cowardice of the first order but then presumably she doesn't want a war within the Conservative Party.
The figure will come out - eventually.
Perhaps but if FTA talks begin in December now the payment has been promised they may be near completion by 2022, the last date for the next general election to be called, after we have both left the EU in 2019 and the transition period has ended in 2021.
What few seem to have realised is that the agreed divorce payment will be set in stone at the end of the A50 period, yet any deal on trade will require extensive ratification, and all the EU will be able to deliver within the A50 period is a framework 'in principle' agreement, the details to be progressed during the transition period. The oft-heard 'nothing is agreed until all is agreed' mantra won't actually fly in practice.
"What few seem to have realised is that the agreed divorce payment will be set in stone at the end of the A50 period"
No deal, no divorce payment.
You will I fear be proved utterly wrong, if by 'deal' you mean the actual chapter and verse on trade.
You are suggesting that the Tories would agree to pay the full 'divorce' bill, purely in exchange for the transition period and no further guarantees.
Well that's one way to get themselves kicked out of power I guess.
I expect the Tories to commit the payment (€40 bn or probably more) for a transition deal that includes a transition period, and some in principle 'heads of terms' that will set out the ground for the trade negotiations that will take place during the transition period.
The actual terms of trade won't be known until the end, if then - a short transition period won't give the EU enough time to take any such agreement through its lengthy ratification process, remembering (from the Canadian saga) that all sorts of bodies have vetos and will need to be got on board.
German Luddites are no more accurate than British ones...
I have never understood why "Luddite" is regarded as a term of abuse. Machines put people out of work, and that is a feature, not a bug, of mechanisation. It is obvious in theory that this is likely to be so, and obvious that that is what has in fact happened, is happening and will happen.
I would suggest that it is because, although machines put people out of certain types of work, they also create new types of work so employment continues to expand. And whilst they are doing this they are generally making life better for everyone. I doubt you would find many people who would claim life was better for the workers prior to the industrial revolution compared to now. Indeed I suspect youv would be hard pushed to claim that, outside of wartime, there is any point in the last 200 years where life was worse for the working classes than it had been 50 years previpusly.
Well - mining is a vile job, but the miners seemed to think they would rather have that job than none. And I don't think they have all successfully repurposed themselves as web designers.
The Prime Minister doesn't have the courage to tell the British people how much of OUR money she has had to pay to the EU in order to even begin talking about a trade deal.
Political cowardice of the first order but then presumably she doesn't want a war within the Conservative Party.
The figure will come out - eventually.
The money is merely that which we had already agreed under EU membership terms. We would be paying substantially more if we stayed in. Strangely those on the Remain side of the argument try to pretend otherwise.
German Luddites are no more accurate than British ones...
I have never understood why "Luddite" is regarded as a term of abuse. Machines put people out of work, and that is a feature, not a bug, of mechanisation. It is obvious in theory that this is likely to be so, and obvious that that is what has in fact happened, is happening and will happen.
I would suggest that it is because, although machines put people out of certain types of work, they also create new types of work so employment continues to expand. And whilst they are doing this they are generally making life better for everyone. I doubt you would find many people who would claim life was better for the workers prior to the industrial revolution compared to now. Indeed I suspect youv would be hard pushed to claim that, outside of wartime, there is any point in the last 200 years where life was worse for the working classes than it had been 50 years previpusly.
Well - mining is a vile job, but the miners seemed to think they would rather have that job than none. And I don't think they have all successfully repurposed themselves as web designers.
Yet we now have less than 5% unemployment so something seems to be working itself out.
We are truly f*cked if the likes of Fox are negotiating on our behalf. I am struggling to think of a more odious individual in the HoC. A person as sleazy as him, a friend of war criminals is in this key role. How did it get to this? FFS!
I'm no fan of Fox, but the current leadership of the Labour Party supported the IRA's bombing campaign.
German Luddites are no more accurate than British ones...
I have never understood why "Luddite" is regarded as a term of abuse. Machines put people out of work, and that is a feature, not a bug, of mechanisation. It is obvious in theory that this is likely to be so, and obvious that that is what has in fact happened, is happening and will happen.
I would suggest that it is because, although machines put people out of certain types of work, they also create new types of work so employment continues to expand. And whilst they are doing this they are generally making life better for everyone. I doubt you would find many people who would claim life was better for the workers prior to the industrial revolution compared to now. Indeed I suspect youv would be hard pushed to claim that, outside of wartime, there is any point in the last 200 years where life was worse for the working classes than it had been 50 years previpusly.
Well reasoned article but why did not Hunt stand in 2016?There may have been the junior doctors strike in the background but his business CV always stood out and he had to be more popular among the Cameron/Osborne crowd than May. In fact in retrospect why did Cameron/Gove/Osborne not replace May after the 2015 election?
Well reasoned article but why did not Hunt stand in 2016?There may have been the junior doctors strike in the background but his business CV always stood out and he had to be more popular among the Cameron/Osborne crowd than May. In fact in retrospect why did Cameron/Gove/Osborne not replace May after the 2015 election?
Jeremy Hunt didn't stand in 2016 because he in the midst of the strike involving the Junior Docs.
Dave didn't replace Mrs May because 1) They don't like pointless changes, 2) Mrs May had done very well in a difficult job, plus she had impressed Dave and George in arguing for, inter alia, introducing same sex marriage and changes to stop and search.
EU UK FTA talks are starting next month, the Irish/NI border can be sorted out in those discussions.
There will be no FTA negotiations during the Article 50 process. Phase two is a negotiation about a negotiation.
Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true.
It doesn't make it false either. It depends on how you define "FTA negotiations". The EU allow for "Preliminary and preparatory discussions on a framework for the Union - United Kingdom future relationship" in their guidelines, which sounds vague.
The Prime Minister doesn't have the courage to tell the British people how much of OUR money she has had to pay to the EU in order to even begin talking about a trade deal.
Political cowardice of the first order but then presumably she doesn't want a war within the Conservative Party.
The figure will come out - eventually.
Perhaps but if FTA talks begin in December now the payment has been promised they may be near completion by 2022, the last date for the next general election to be called, after we have both left the EU in 2019 and the transition period has ended in 2021.
What few seem to have realised is that the agreed divorce payment will be set in stone at the end of the A50 period, yet any deal on trade will require extensive ratification, and all the EU will be able to deliver within the A50 period is a framework 'in principle' agreement, the details to be progressed during the transition period. The oft-heard 'nothing is agreed until all is agreed' mantra won't actually fly in practice.
Yes but the next general election does not have to be until 2022 ie after both Brexit has been completed and a transition period ended and when a FTA may well be near completion.
You have not understood this yet. There can be a "transition" only if the FTA or WTO is known on 29th March 2019.
It can be a transition only if we know what we are transiting to.
What you are saying is not transition but an extension of the Art.50 2 year period which is explicitly mentioned in Art.50.
No, provided we agree to ECJ jurisdiction and continued free movement during that 2 year period as May has agreed to do and Barnier has said is required for the transition to work that transition will indeed take us to 2021 by which time the FTA talks may be near completion.
That is only possible in a Art. 50 extension which is explicitly allowed for in Art.50.
No, we will leave the EU in April 2019 as May has made quite clear and then stay in the single market for 2 years during the transition period as May has made quite clear.
The Prime Minister doesn't have the courage to tell the British people how much of OUR money she has had to pay to the EU in order to even begin talking about a trade deal.
Political cowardice of the first order but then presumably she doesn't want a war within the Conservative Party.
The figure will come out - eventually.
Perhaps but if FTA talks begin in December now the payment has been promised they may be near completion by 2022, the last date for the next general election to be called, after we have both left the EU in 2019 and the transition period has ended in 2021.
What few seem to have realised is that .
Yes but the next general election does not have to be until 2022 ie after both Brexit has been completed and a transition period ended and when a FTA may well be near completion.
You have not understood this yet. There can be a "transition" only if the FTA or WTO is known on 29th March 2019.
It can be a transition only if we know what we are transiting to.
What you are saying is not transition but an extension of the Art.50 2 year period which is explicitly mentioned in Art.50.
No, provided we agree to ECJ jurisdiction and continued free movement during that 2 year period as May has agreed to do and Barnier has said is required for the transition to work that transition will indeed take us to 2021 by which time the FTA talks may be near completion.
That is only possible in a Art. 50 extension which is explicitly allowed for in Art.50.
No, we will leave the EU in April 2019 as May has made quite clear and then stay in the single market for 2 years during the transition period as May has made quite clear.
Its as if the EU27 don't get a say in it...
On the transition period it is Barnier who decides and as he has said as long as we accept ECJ jurisdiction and free movement we stay in the single market during the transition period.
The Prime Minister doesn't have the courage to tell the British people how much of OUR money she has had to pay to the EU in order to even begin talking about a trade deal.
Political cowardice of the first order but then presumably she doesn't want a war within the Conservative Party.
The figure will come out - eventually.
Perhaps but if FTA talks begin in December now the payment has been promised they may be near completion by 2022, the last date for the next general election to be called, after we have both left the EU in 2019 and the transition period has ended in 2021.
What few seem to have realised is that .
Yes but the next general election does not have to be until 2022 ie after both Brexit has been completed and a transition period ended and when a FTA may well be near completion.
You have not understood this yet. There can be a "transition" only if the FTA or WTO is known on 29th March 2019.
It can be a transition only if we know what we are transiting to.
What you are saying is not transition but an extension of the Art.50 2 year period which is explicitly mentioned in Art.50.
No, provided we agree to ECJ jurisdiction and continued free movement during that 2 year period as May has agreed to do and Barnier has said is required for the transition to work that transition will indeed take us to 2021 by which time the FTA talks may be near completion.
That is only possible in a Art. 50 extension which is explicitly allowed for in Art.50.
No, we will leave the EU in April 2019 as May has made quite clear and then stay in the single market for 2 years during the transition period as May has made quite clear.
Its as if the EU27 don't get a say in it...
On the transition period it is Barnier who decides and as he has said as long as we accept ECJ jurisdiction and free movement we stay in the single market during the transition period.
The EU 27 only decide on the final FTA terms.
Transition only exists if a Deal exists (and is passed by Parliament on both sides).
The Prime Minister doesn't have the courage to tell the British people how much of OUR money she has had to pay to the EU in order to even begin talking about a trade deal.
Political cowardice of the first order but then presumably she doesn't want a war within the Conservative Party.
The figure will come out - eventually.
Perhaps but if FTA talks begin in December now the payment has been promised they may be near completion by 2022, the last date for the next general election to be called, after we have both left the EU in 2019 and the transition period has ended in 2021.
What few seem to have realised is that .
Yes but the next general election does not have to be until 2022 ie after both Brexit has been completed and a transition period ended and when a FTA may well be near completion.
You have not understood this yet. There can be a "transition" only if the FTA or WTO is known on 29th March 2019.
It can be a transition only if we know what we are transiting to.
What you are saying is not transition but an extension of the Art.50 2 year period which is explicitly mentioned in Art.50.
No, provided we agree to ECJ jurisdiction and continued free movement during that 2 year period as May has agreed to do and Barnier has said is required for the transition to work that transition will indeed take us to 2021 by which time the FTA talks may be near completion.
That is only possible in a Art. 50 extension which is explicitly allowed for in Art.50.
No, we will leave the EU in April 2019 as May has made quite clear and then stay in the single market for 2 years during the transition period as May has made quite clear.
Its as if the EU27 don't get a say in it...
On the transition period the final FTA terms.
Transition only exists if a Deal exists (and is passed by Parliament on both sides).
No Deal means no Transition.
Wrong. If a FTA was agreed by April 2019 there would be no need for a Transition.
The Transition is simply a means of covering the time from Brexit until the terms of a FTA deal are completed.
May has done a deal with the EU to ensure the final divorce bill may never be known, even if she has promised enough to start FTA talks and a figure of more than £40 billion.
Political cowardice of the first order but then presumably she doesn't want a war within the Conservative Party.
The figure will come out - eventually.
Perhaps but if FTA talks begin in December now the payment has been promised they may be near completion by 2022, the last date for the next general election to be called, after we have both left the EU in 2019 and the transition period has ended in 2021.
What few seem to have realised is that .
Yes but the next general election does not have to be until 2022 ie after both Brexit has been completed and a transition period ended and when a FTA may well be near completion.
You have not understood this yet. There can be a "transition" only if the FTA or WTO is known on 29th March 2019.
It can be a transition only if we know what we are transiting to.
What you are saying is not transition but an extension of the Art.50 2 year period which is explicitly mentioned in Art.50.
No, provided we agree to ECJ jurisdiction and continued free movement during that 2 year period as May has agreed to do and Barnier has said is required for the transition to work that transition will indeed take us to 2021 by which time the FTA talks may be near completion.
That is only possible in a Art. 50 extension which is explicitly allowed for in Art.50.
No, we will leave the EU in April 2019 as May has made quite clear and then stay in the single market for 2 years during the transition period as May has made quite clear.
Its as if the EU27 don't get a say in it...
On the transition period the final FTA terms.
Transition only exists if a Deal exists (and is passed by Parliament on both sides).
No Deal means no Transition.
Wrong. If a FTA was agreed by April 2019 there would be no need for a Transition.
The Transition is simply a means of covering the time from Brexit until the terms of a FTA deal are completed.
There is no way a TA can be agreed with the EU in that timescale. If you think otherwise you need to go read up on what is involved.
May has done a deal with the EU to ensure the final divorce bill may never be known, even if she has promised enough to start FTA talks and a figure of more than £40 billion.
Political cowardice of the first order but then presumably she doesn't want a war within the Conservative Party.
The figure will come out - eventually.
Perhaps but if FTA talks begin in December now the payment has been promised they may be near completion by 2022, the last date for the next general election to be called, after we have both left the EU in 2019 and the transition period has ended in 2021.
What few seem to have realised is that .
Yes but the next general election does not have to be until 2022 ie after both Brexit has been completed and a transition period ended and when a FTA may well be near completion.
You have not understood this yet. There can be a "transition" only if the FTA or WTO is known on 29th March 2019.
It can be a transition only if we know what we are transiting to.
What you are saying is not transition but an extension of the Art.50 2 year period which is explicitly mentioned in Art.50.
No, provid.
That is only possible in a Art. 50 extension which is explicitly allowed for in Art.50.
No, we will leave the EU in April 2019 as May has made quite clear and then stay in the single market for 2 years during the transition period as May has made quite clear.
Its as if the EU27 don't get a say in it...
On the transition period the final FTA terms.
Transition only exists if a Deal exists (and is passed by Parliament on both sides).
No Deal means no Transition.
Wrong. If a FTA was agreed by April 2019 there would be no need for a Transition.
The Transition is simply a means of covering the time from Brexit until the terms of a FTA deal are completed.
There is no way a TA can be agreed with the EU in that timescale. If you think otherwise you need to go read up on what is involved.
FTA negotiations are likely to start by the end of next month. That gives 4 years at least to negotiate a FTA which may well be enough to ensure the negotiation of the terms of a FTA is completed.
FTA negotiations are likely to start by the end of next month. That gives 4 years at least to negotiate a FTA which may well be enough to ensure the terms of a FTA are completed.
5. While an agreement on a future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom as such can only be finalised and concluded once the United Kingdom has become a third country, Article 50 TEU requires to take account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union in the arrangements for withdrawal. To this end, an overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship should be identified during a second phase of the negotiations under Article 50 TEU.
Perhaps but if FTA talks begin in December now the payment has been promised they may be near completion by 2022, the last date for the next general election to be called, after we have both left the EU in 2019 and the transition period has ended in 2021.
What few seem to have realised is that .
Yes but the next
You have not understood this yet. There can be a "transition" only if the FTA or WTO is known on 29th March 2019.
It can be a transition only if we know what we are transiting to.
What you are saying is not transition but an extension of the Art.50 2 year period which is explicitly mentioned in Art.50.
No, provided we agree to ECJ jurisdiction and continued free movement during that 2 year period as May has agreed to do and Barnier has said is required for the transition to work that transition will indeed take us to 2021 by which time the FTA talks may be near completion.
That is only possible in a Art. 50 extension which is explicitly allowed for in Art.50.
No, we will leave the EU in April 2019 as May has made quite clear and then stay in the single market for 2 years during the transition period as May has made quite clear.
Its as if the EU27 don't get a say in it...
On the transition period the final FTA terms.
Transition only exists if a Deal exists (and is passed by Parliament on both sides).
No Deal means no Transition.
Wrong. If a FTA was agreed by April 2019 there would be no need for a Transition.
The Transition is simply a means of covering the time from Brexit until the terms of a FTA deal are completed.
There are still unresolved issues from the first round, and an FTA is far from being negotiated.
FTA negotiations are likely to start by the end of next month. That gives 4 years at least to negotiate a FTA which may well be enough to ensure the terms of a FTA are completed.
5. While an agreement on a future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom as such can only be finalised and concluded once the United Kingdom has become a third country, Article 50 TEU requires to take account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union in the arrangements for withdrawal. To this end, an overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship should be identified during a second phase of the negotiations under Article 50 TEU.
None of that of course in any way at all contradicts the point I have just made.
A FTA will only be concluded after we have left the EU.
Perhaps but if FTA talks begin in December now the payment has been promised they may be near completion by 2022, the last date for the next general election to be called, after we have both left the EU in 2019 and the transition period has ended in 2021.
What few seem to have realised is that .
Yes but the next
You have not understood this yet. There can be a "transition" only if the FTA or WTO is known on 29th March 2019.
It can be a transition only if we know what we are transiting to.
What you are saying is not transition but an extension of the Art.50 2 year period which is explicitly mentioned in Art.50.
No, provided we agree to ECJ jurisdiction and continued free movement during that 2 year period as May has agreed to do and Barnier has said is required for the transition to work that transition will indeed take us to 2021 by which time the FTA talks may be near completion.
That is only possible in a Art. 50 extension which is explicitly allowed for in Art.50.
No, we will leave the EU in April 2019 as May has made quite clear and then stay in the single market for 2 years during the transition period as May has made quite clear.
Its as if the EU27 don't get a say in it...
On the transition period the final FTA terms.
Transition only exists if a Deal exists (and is passed by Parliament on both sides).
No Deal means no Transition.
Wrong. If a FTA was agreed by April 2019 there would be no need for a Transition.
The Transition is simply a means of covering the time from Brexit until the terms of a FTA deal are completed.
There are still unresolved issues from the first round, and an FTA is far from being negotiated.
No Deal crashout Hard Brexit remains the default.
Wrong. A transition period post Brexit then a FTA remains the default.
The fact diehard Remainers like you wish it otherwise does not make it so.
FTA negotiations are likely to start by the end of next month. That gives 4 years at least to negotiate a FTA which may well be enough to ensure the terms of a FTA are completed.
5. While an agreement on a future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom as such can only be finalised and concluded once the United Kingdom has become a third country, Article 50 TEU requires to take account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union in the arrangements for withdrawal. To this end, an overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship should be identified during a second phase of the negotiations under Article 50 TEU.
It's nonsense, though. There is nothing other than EU cussedness which dictates that an agreement on a future relationship can't be finalised before we leave. It's is tiresome of them to portray political decisions they have taken as though they were universal laws of nature.
Having said that, in practical terms it's now too late. The two sides should have started negotiations on the future relationship soon after the referendum.
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Lol
Those poor leave labour area's are already missing your donations.
The Labour voters voted to Remain. It is the Tories and UKiPers who voted to leave. And a few Labour voters.
Bradford voted leave and we must have had a good number of our Asian brits voting the same way.
It goes against everything you posted doesn't it.
Lol
No. It doesn't. Start by putting 95% of non-Labour voters voting for Brexit. How many others do you need to get the Brexit vote.
If some Bradford Asians voted for Brexit, they should also swim in a pool of shit! That is what they deserve.
You realise, I hope, that it is not true that 95% of non-Labour voters voted for Brexit. 95% of UKIP voters voted for Brexit along with 61% of Conservative supporters, 35% of Labour supporters and 32% of LibDems. Yes, the majority of Labour voters voted to remain, but over one in three voted to leave.
He’s using it as a bargaining chip, but the EU aren’t?
Only the UK unfairly uses important issues as bargaining chips. The EU only sensibly maximises its leverage as part of sensible realpolitik.
How foolish of me!
Interesting reading through the thread. Leave voters not worthy of charity? Perhaps they should all wear badges so it is easier to identify and punish them?
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Some strong contenders this afternoon for PB lovely bloke of the year award. I'd say you were definitely in with a shout. Personally, I'm looking for a charity which advocates the unanaesthetised vivisection of fluffy kittens with big googoo eyes, to send a message about what I think of David Davis.
Can I suggest you all stop arguing and donate to The Fore instead?
Progressive, cuddly, donor-friendly, charity-friendly, aiming to be national in scope*, fully diligenced and cause-blind**
www.thefore.org
* although, in truth, too London centric but we are working on that
** although a slight bias towards helping people who are excluded from mainstream society to integrate (i.e. adult literacy, recidivism, gang culture, etc). Perk of being chairman of the parent trust
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Some strong contenders this afternoon for PB lovely bloke of the year award. I'd say you were definitely in with a shout. Personally, I'm looking for a charity which advocates the unanaesthetised vivisection of fluffy kittens with big googoo eyes, to send a message about what I think of David Davis.
Can I suggest you all stop arguing and donate to The Fore instead?
Progressive, cuddly, donor-friendly, charity-friendly, aiming to be national in scope*, fully diligenced and cause-blind**
www.thefore.org
* although, in truth, too London centric but we are working on that
** although a slight bias towards helping people who are excluded from mainstream society to integrate (i.e. adult literacy, recidivism, gang culture, etc). Perk of being chairman of the parent trust
Most importantly, where do you stand on the fluffy kitten issue?
Well reasoned article but why did not Hunt stand in 2016?There may have been the junior doctors strike in the background but his business CV always stood out and he had to be more popular among the Cameron/Osborne crowd than May. In fact in retrospect why did Cameron/Gove/Osborne not replace May after the 2015 election?
Jeremy Hunt didn't stand in 2016 because he in the midst of the strike involving the Junior Docs.
Dave didn't replace Mrs May because 1) They don't like pointless changes, 2) Mrs May had done very well in a difficult job, plus she had impressed Dave and George in arguing for, inter alia, introducing same sex marriage and changes to stop and search.
Plus May had done such a great job on their flagship policy of reducing net migration to the 'tens of thousands'.
Well reasoned article but why did not Hunt stand in 2016?There may have been the junior doctors strike in the background but his business CV always stood out and he had to be more popular among the Cameron/Osborne crowd than May. In fact in retrospect why did Cameron/Gove/Osborne not replace May after the 2015 election?
Jeremy Hunt didn't stand in 2016 because he in the midst of the strike involving the Junior Docs.
Dave didn't replace Mrs May because 1) They don't like pointless changes, 2) Mrs May had done very well in a difficult job, plus she had impressed Dave and George in arguing for, inter alia, introducing same sex marriage and changes to stop and search.
Plus May had done such a great job on their flagship policy of reducing net migration to the 'tens of thousands'.
Are talking about the 2016 leadership election? Hunt did put himself forward, as I recall, on a 'business as usual' platform with article 50 not being triggered for five years. His campaign didn't last very long.
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Lol
Those poor leave labour area's are already missing your donations.
The Labour voters voted to Remain. It is the Tories and UKiPers who voted to leave. And a few Labour voters.
Bradford voted leave and we must have had a good number of our Asian brits voting the same way.
It goes against everything you posted doesn't it.
Lol
The assumption that second- or third-generation immigrants from region X would sympathise with first-generation immigrants from region Y was widely held and entirely, spectacularly wrong. Many such people voted "Leave" on precisely that basis.
Indeed, many of them were the first to notice declining living standards and wages as new immigrants came along and undercut them. Only when remainers start to admit that free movement was a vicious race to the bottom will they understand why so many voted as they did. Instead, a certain type of remainer is happy to cry racist while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.
There aren't that many remainers who fall in to the category of being uncritically supportive of free movement. Those who do tend to be a small subset of wealthy/priveleged/ lucky people who benefit from cheap and reliable labour. Not all people who voted remain, by any means.
@Mortimer I've made a modest change to my Will as well. I've switched a donation that was going to a poverty charity in the north of England to my old University. All charity is a value judgement as noone can give to everything. I'm afraid that's the effect Brexit has had on me. It's a new social reality and I'm adjusting accordingly. In case of Food Bank donations I stick my odd tin into the box for our independent Animal Shelter instead.
I would not donate anything to racist Brexiters. I would rather donate to the third world where poor people are really poor!
Lol
Those poor leave labour area's are already missing your donations.
The Labour voters voted to Remain. It is the Tories and UKiPers who voted to leave. And a few Labour voters.
Bradford voted leave and we must have had a good number of our Asian brits voting the same way.
It goes against everything you posted doesn't it.
Lol
The assumption that second- or third-generation immigrants from region X would sympathise with first-generation immigrants from region Y was widely held and entirely, spectacularly wrong. Many such people voted "Leave" on precisely that basis.
Indeed, many of them were the first to notice declining living standards and wages as new immigrants came along and undercut them. Only when remainers start to admit that free movement was a vicious race to the bottom will they understand why so many voted as they did. Instead, a certain type of remainer is happy to cry racist while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.
There aren't that many remainers who fall in to the category of being uncritically supportive of free movement. Those who do tend to be a small subset of wealthy/priveleged/ lucky people who benefit from cheap and reliable labour. Not all people who voted remain, by any means.
True enough. I was responding, as politely as possible, to the really quite extraordinary declarations of some remainers on here that they would not support people in need due to them being "racist brexiteers".
Comments
You are suggesting that the Tories would agree to pay the full 'divorce' bill, purely in exchange for the transition period and no further guarantees.
Well that's one way to get themselves kicked out of power I guess.
Those poor leave labour area's are already missing your donations.
Surely he's just stating a fact: the UK-EU (Ireland) deal cannot be agreed until the full UK-EU is agreed. The former is just a portion of the latter and dependent on it.
Not a good start to the FTA with Australia.
Germans reckon they will lose 8 million jobs to technology by 2025
just as well they imported all those people
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article170973190/Das-grosse-Jobsterben-und-wie-es-sich-aufhalten-laesst.html
Are you happy for labour to have the likes of dawn butler on the front bench, rather than intelligent individuals like cooper balls? She is so thick she campaigned in the wrong constituency without realising.
As for shithead / thick. I am extremely comfortable with my intelliectual abilities.
Your comment that "Ireland (or perhaps their puppet masters in Brussels)" is one of these problems. Instead of thinking of Ireland as a client state of the UK or Brussels, try thinking of it as an independent state with its own ambitions, armed forces and foreign policy. Varadkar may be right, he may be wrong, but allow for the possibility that he is doing the best for Ireland as he sees it, without recourse to the UK, Germany, Brussels or anybody else.
Dawn Butler is in the front bench because 175 Labour MPs voted to remove Corbyn. You cannot really expect Corbyn to reward them.
It goes against everything you posted doesn't it.
Lol
Despite. SeanT's insistance that Brexit is a baby, he is wrong: it is a divorce, not a birth. A divorce involves one of two people deciding that a relationship is no longer in their interest and should cease. The adult way to proceed is to accept that the ending incurs disadvantages instead of advantages, and start to cope with the former. The child way to proceed is to blame the ex-spouse for all problems past and future, and wallow in hatred and self pity - the "all women are bastards" scream of the drunken middle-aged divorced man in the pub.
That the UK would no longer be eligible for the European City of Culture program was inevitable given May's decision to leave the EEA as well as the EU. It will not be the first of such events, nor will it be the last. Your reaction, by no means unusual, makes me fear that we will not take the adult route and that @Cyclefree's conclusions in the previous article were correct.
Is he going to be like Alex Ferguson at Man Utd when moyes took over?
[edit: "his", not "this"]
If some Bradford Asians voted for Brexit, they should also swim in a pool of shit! That is what they deserve.
The adult way out of this is to extend the Art.50 period. Then you can indeed do what you are saying.
https://youtu.be/TpqacF6IzS8
I don't think labour will be telling it's voters,if you voted leave,we don't want your vote.
Let's just say,Labour would never get into power.
Survation in the summer had both Davis and Boris getting as high a voteshare for the Tories as May did v Labour (Boris even fractionally higher), Hammond and Rudd got a slightly worse Tory voteshare and Hunt is virtually indistinguishable in most voters eyes to the latter two.
Varadakar is not stupid. His aim is to scupper Brexit, either formally or in effect, and the NI card is the "best" way to do that. Brexit causes massive problems for the idea of Ireland as an independent state for two reasons.
1. If the UK goes, Ireland loses its main shield against those in the EU who would dearly love to drive more integration. Ireland's tax regime wouldn't last five minutes in an EU without the UK, and it also raises questions about other parts of the Irish system where it is out of kilter with the rest of the EU (e.g. the use of Common Law)
2. Logically, if the UK adopts a hard Brexit, Ireland should also exit the EU and align itself with the UK in a common free trade area. It does most of its trade with the UK and such a move would eliminate at a stroke all the concerns about wrecking the Good Friday agreement etc. But the next logical step after that is the question of whether Ireland needs to be its own fully independent country or should just join the rest of the UK in a super-Devo Max agreement.
Hard Brexit is an existential threat to the Irish state. Simple as.
[edit: unfuck nesting]
Of course the wounded outrage of people like you wasn't at the Jocks who opted for safety first. You were clapping like performing seals at Project Fear 1 then.
Ireland is not the only EU country whose economic model is based around a very low corporation tax rate. So, the following countries all have corporate tax rates of 20% or below:
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Hungary
Ireland
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Slovenia
(And for the record, Ireland isn't even the lowest - that goes to Hungary at 9%)
There are other countries who are only just above that level too: such as Sweden (22%), Portugal (21%) and Italy (24%).
Now, it's possible that Ireland on its own could be bullied (although the Germans tried and failed in 2009 when the bailout was made contingent on changes to corporation tax. And the Irish said they'd rather suffer the ignominity of going bust than change their tax system).
But I find it hard to believe they could bully the Finns, the Swedes, the Hungarians, all the Baltic states, the Italians, the Poles and various others.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/row-grows-after-fox-uses-irish-border-as-bargaining-chip-08hnrh7gr
The actual terms of trade won't be known until the end, if then - a short transition period won't give the EU enough time to take any such agreement through its lengthy ratification process, remembering (from the Canadian saga) that all sorts of bodies have vetos and will need to be got on board.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/22/jeremy-hunt-gets-into-twitter-row-over-nhs-with-actor-ralf-little
https://medium.com/basic-income/everything-you-think-you-know-about-the-history-and-future-of-jobs-is-likely-wrong-4f84e3a8945e
In fact in retrospect why did Cameron/Gove/Osborne not replace May after the 2015 election?
Dave didn't replace Mrs May because 1) They don't like pointless changes, 2) Mrs May had done very well in a difficult job, plus she had impressed Dave and George in arguing for, inter alia, introducing same sex marriage and changes to stop and search.
The EU 27 only decide on the final FTA terms.
No Deal means no Transition.
The Transition is simply a means of covering the time from Brexit until the terms of a FTA deal are completed.
5. While an agreement on a future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom as such can only be finalised and concluded once the United Kingdom has become a third country, Article 50 TEU requires to take account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union in the arrangements for withdrawal. To this end, an overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship should be identified during a second phase of the negotiations under Article 50 TEU.
No Deal crashout Hard Brexit remains the default.
A FTA will only be concluded after we have left the EU.
The fact diehard Remainers like you wish it otherwise does not make it so.
Having said that, in practical terms it's now too late. The two sides should have started negotiations on the future relationship soon after the referendum.
Interesting reading through the thread. Leave voters not worthy of charity? Perhaps they should all wear badges so it is easier to identify and punish them?
Progressive, cuddly, donor-friendly, charity-friendly, aiming to be national in scope*, fully diligenced and cause-blind**
www.thefore.org
* although, in truth, too London centric but we are working on that
** although a slight bias towards helping people who are excluded from mainstream society to integrate (i.e. adult literacy, recidivism, gang culture, etc). Perk of being chairman of the parent trust
Hunt did put himself forward, as I recall, on a 'business as usual' platform with article 50 not being triggered for five years.
His campaign didn't last very long.
stirring thing up North to boost his own position is a really stupid idea
Varadkar's played a blinder.
I backed Priti Patel and Michael Gove at long odds. Its got to be a proven beleaver.