Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Let us salute Theresa May – the “dead woman walking” who could

13»

Comments

  • Pong said:
    A great article is one you disagree with but respect and admire the argument and conclusions reached. It does not mean an intellectually feeble article which you agree with. Preaching to the converted is easy.
  • Britain cannot have a special deal for the City of London, the European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator has told the Guardian, dealing a blow to Theresa May’s hopes of securing a bespoke trade agreement with the bloc.

    Michel Barnier said it was unavoidable that British banks and financial firms would lose the passports that allow them to trade freely in the EU, as a result of any decision to quit the single market.

    “There is no place [for financial services]. There is not a single trade agreement that is open to financial services. It doesn’t exist.” He said the outcome was a consequence of “the red lines that the British have chosen themselves. In leaving the single market, they lose the financial services passport.”

    ....

    The negotiator also said:

    The UK could not stop Brexit unilaterally, arguing that overturning the decision to leave would require the consent of 27 EU member states – a view at odds with one of the authors of article 50, Lord Kerr.
    The UK must follow all rules and regulations of the EU during the transition period, including new laws passed after the UK has left.

    The UK could negotiate trade agreements with the rest of the world during the transition, but they could not come into force.

    He would not confirm British estimates that the final Brexit bill – the UK’s outstanding obligations to the EU – would be no more than €45bn (£39bn).

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/18/uk-cannot-have-a-special-deal-for-the-city-says-eu-brexit-negotiator-barnier
  • NEW THREAD

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,397

    kle4 said:

    Pong said:
    You and Paul Mason need a history lesson.

    For starters have you never heard of The English Civil War
    I think for many people history only really began in the 20th Century. Even with the horrors of the world wars and some genocides in there, people tend to forget about how much awfulness and division there was in the past when making their hyperbolic comparisons of how fractious politics now is unprecedented. It's very nostalgic in that regard, romanticizing the past.
    I think it was 4% of the population was killed during The Civil War.

    For Brexit to match that we’d need circa 2,500,000 fatalities from Brexit.
    4% in England
    6% in Scotland
    40% in Ireland
    Things were so rough in Ireland even some members of the Cromwellian parliaments argued that they needed some relief from the proposed level of money being demanded of the Irish citizenry, IIRC

    More amusingly, looking at some of the old debates, I see this objection from a couple of MPs seemingly objecting to the treating of those representing Ireland differently.

    Mr. Bampfield and Mr. Robinson. All that serve for Ireland should be of this committee.

    Sir Gilbert Pickering and Mr. Highland. Against any such distinction of members. It is an ill precedent, and looks not like an union. Desire that they may be all named, and name as many as you will; but let them not be exclusively added.


    As it once was, so it is now.

    Edit - I love accounts of old parliamentary debates, that even in times of great civil strife you see such mundane procedural arguments, or indeed summaries like this

    Mr. Picketing. The end is not to punish any for their opinions, but to reduce them to the obedience of the government...

    He made a long story to little purpose.


    Hansard should insert such commentary.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited December 2017

    Pong said:
    A great article is one you disagree with but respect and admire the argument and conclusions reached. It does not mean an intellectually feeble article which you agree with. Preaching to the converted is easy.
    Eh?

    With respect, your first sentence is certifiably bonkers.

    Unless you disagree with an article, it can't be great?

  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831

    Britain cannot have a special deal for the City of London, the European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator has told the Guardian, dealing a blow to Theresa May’s hopes of securing a bespoke trade agreement with the bloc.

    Michel Barnier said it was unavoidable that British banks and financial firms would lose the passports that allow them to trade freely in the EU, as a result of any decision to quit the single market.

    “There is no place [for financial services]. There is not a single trade agreement that is open to financial services. It doesn’t exist.” He said the outcome was a consequence of “the red lines that the British have chosen themselves. In leaving the single market, they lose the financial services passport.”

    ....

    The negotiator also said:

    The UK could not stop Brexit unilaterally, arguing that overturning the decision to leave would require the consent of 27 EU member states – a view at odds with one of the authors of article 50, Lord Kerr.
    The UK must follow all rules and regulations of the EU during the transition period, including new laws passed after the UK has left.

    The UK could negotiate trade agreements with the rest of the world during the transition, but they could not come into force.

    He would not confirm British estimates that the final Brexit bill – the UK’s outstanding obligations to the EU – would be no more than €45bn (£39bn).

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/18/uk-cannot-have-a-special-deal-for-the-city-says-eu-brexit-negotiator-barnier

    It is these sorts of pronouncements that prove that he is not fit to be a negotiator. It is fine to have a negotiating position - but there has to be a willingness to actually talk, listen and change. And appearing dogmatically fixed on certain matters does not show the appropriate willingness to negotiate in good faith.

    Yes, that applies to both sides - no doubt about that. But the more Barnier says, the more convinced I am that it should have been put in the hands of an independent international chair who could oversee the whole thing.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    On topic - history is full of examples of politicians who have at one time been enormous electoral liabilities and at another the complete opposite. Even the conventional wisdom about May’s present status is heavily caveated by the fact that she was up against Corbyn. Despite this not just being Corbyn, but a Corbyn who everyone assumed couldn’t win.

    Was the problem at the election really May, or was it the manifesto? How much of her performance was in fact a consequence of bad advice? It is easy to focus in on her apparent weaknesses, especially in the context of the campaign; people seem less prepared to dwell on the reasons why many many voters nevertheless voted for her.
  • Britain cannot have a special deal for the City of London, the European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator has told the Guardian, dealing a blow to Theresa May’s hopes of securing a bespoke trade agreement with the bloc.

    Michel Barnier said it was unavoidable that British banks and financial firms would lose the passports that allow them to trade freely in the EU, as a result of any decision to quit the single market.

    “There is no place [for financial services]. There is not a single trade agreement that is open to financial services. It doesn’t exist.” He said the outcome was a consequence of “the red lines that the British have chosen themselves. In leaving the single market, they lose the financial services passport.”

    ....

    The negotiator also said:

    The UK could not stop Brexit unilaterally, arguing that overturning the decision to leave would require the consent of 27 EU member states – a view at odds with one of the authors of article 50, Lord Kerr.
    The UK must follow all rules and regulations of the EU during the transition period, including new laws passed after the UK has left.

    The UK could negotiate trade agreements with the rest of the world during the transition, but they could not come into force.

    He would not confirm British estimates that the final Brexit bill – the UK’s outstanding obligations to the EU – would be no more than €45bn (£39bn).

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/18/uk-cannot-have-a-special-deal-for-the-city-says-eu-brexit-negotiator-barnier

    It is these sorts of pronouncements that prove that he is not fit to be a negotiator. It is fine to have a negotiating position - but there has to be a willingness to actually talk, listen and change. And appearing dogmatically fixed on certain matters does not show the appropriate willingness to negotiate in good faith.

    Yes, that applies to both sides - no doubt about that. But the more Barnier says, the more convinced I am that it should have been put in the hands of an independent international chair who could oversee the whole thing.
    It literally just is the negotiating position. It's also rubbish. The single market is far from complete across capital markets to begin with. The UK could easily be half-passported.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited December 2017
    kle4 said:

    Pong said:
    You and Paul Mason need a history lesson.

    For starters have you never heard of The English Civil War
    I think for many people history only really began in the 20th Century. Even with the horrors of the world wars and some genocides in there, people tend to forget about how much awfulness and division there was in the past when making their hyperbolic comparisons of how fractious politics now is unprecedented. It's very nostalgic in that regard, romanticizing the past.
    Equally he makes the mistake that today's national leadership are the same as the previous incumbents.

    They are not: the prior lot were told they were unwelcome so withdrew from politics to serve the people in other ways
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Pong said:
    You and Paul Mason need a history lesson.

    For starters have you never heard of The English Civil War
    Or the Mother of all Family Squabbles (aka The War of the Roses)
    Which side were your ancestors on? (I'm guessing both, at one time or another)
    The Galway lot weren't bothered. The Brits were smallholders in Northamptonshire so kept their heads down.

    We subsequently married into the Lancastrians though...
This discussion has been closed.