Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Tony Blair should be Diane Abbott’s role model

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited January 29 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Tony Blair should be Diane Abbott’s role model

There was something churlish about Diane Abbott’s attempt to put down Tony Blair recently — “no one can now remember that they supported Tony Blair.”

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • First unlike Abbott
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,494
    Davis really doesn't look well.
    image
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,427

    Davis really doesn't look well.
    image

    It is hard work defending a policy you’ve lost faith in.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,612
    Astonishing their friendship survived, after Corbyn's radical clumsiness:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/22/revealed-jeremy-corbyn-showed-off-naked-diane-abbott-to-impress/
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,612

    Davis really doesn't look well.
    image

    Nah - that's just his "inscrutable" face....
  • FensterFenster Posts: 1,556

    Davis really doesn't look well.
    image

    He looks better than I'll look at 70.

    It's unlikely I'll get there.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,434

    Davis really doesn't look well.
    image

    Nah - that's just his "inscrutable" face....
    The lighting is weird, there's no way the bloke behind him is that colour in real life. Also, is that the world's fattest man in a blue shirt on the left, or a blue cushion?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,932
    "So perhaps the best we can hope for is that the Labour leader says to his old friend “If you want me to be Prime Minister you have got to raise your game.”"

    If Corbyn becomes PM it will not be because of his Shadow Cabinet but because the country will be so heartily sick of the Tories by then.

    Corbyn might as well have little Lego figures in his team, frankly.

    Abbott is not shining now. But she did make one of the best speeches in the Commons against 90-day detention, one of Blair's most loathsome policies. I don't much like her but she was spot on when criticising the government over that proposed policy.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,612
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Davis really doesn't look well.
    image

    Nah - that's just his "inscrutable" face....
    The lighting is weird, there's no way the bloke behind him is that colour in real life. Also, is that the world's fattest man in a blue shirt on the left, or a blue cushion?
    Mr Creosote I think.....
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,648

    Astonishing their friendship survived, after Corbyn's radical clumsiness:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/22/revealed-jeremy-corbyn-showed-off-naked-diane-abbott-to-impress/

    Imagine a top Hollywood producer had done this - there would be meltdown.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,992
    The first paragraph is prophetic, and worth remembering.

    If he does win office there will come a day when Jeremy Corbyn will also be extremely unpopular, and many people will also "forget" that they ever support him too.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,612
    TGOHF said:

    Astonishing their friendship survived, after Corbyn's radical clumsiness:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/22/revealed-jeremy-corbyn-showed-off-naked-diane-abbott-to-impress/

    Imagine a top Hollywood producer had done this - there would be meltdown.
    IOKIYAL.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,345

    Davis really doesn't look well.
    image

    Nah - that's just his "inscrutable" face....
    He looks fine on TV:

    http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/fa4983be-4391-43bf-bad8-0b742339b5ee
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,218
    Diane Abbott serves a very useful function in politics today, namely to remind us that, no matter how incompetent some current ministers occasionally look, we could easily do an awful lot worse.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,992
    On topic, this doesn't fill me with any reassurance whatsoever that Labour have learnt any lessons other than the solution to any problem is to just throw more money at it.

    I really don't want to spend the rest of my life going through an endless political cycle where Labour gets elected to spend money like water, crashes the economy, and then the Tories get elected to sort it out, suffering all the unpopularity and brand damage for the tough decisions they take in the meantime, only for Labour to win again once people get fed up with it just as the Tories start to get a grip.

    But, it's probably what will happen.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,090



    I really don't want to spend the rest of my life going through an endless political cycle where Labour gets elected to spend money like water, crashes the economy, and then the Tories get elected to sort it out, suffering all the unpopularity and brand damage for the tough decisions they take in the meantime, only for Labour to win again once people get fed up with it just as the Tories start to get a grip.

    That cycle did appear to have been broken....

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,654
    edited January 29

    Ref our discussion of whether a Norway or Canada outcomes is more likely. This point is key. It makes Canada very problematic. We can't extend Article 50 if we have already left, nor can the EU (probably) legally extend the transition period on the same terms. There is a very high risk of an open-ended WTO period before any Canada deal is agreed, where any eventual Canada deal will at best be very mediocre. This makes Norway (permanent "vassal state") more likely, assuming we don't cancel Brexit entirely.



  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,218
    FF43 said:

    Ref our discussion of whether a Norway or Canada outcomes is more likely. This point is key. It makes Canada very problematic. We can't extend Article 50 if we have already left, nor can the EU (probably) legally extend the transition period on the same terms. There is a very high risk of an open-ended WTO period before any Canada deal is agreed, where any eventual Canada deal will at best be very mediocre. This makes Norway (permanent "vassal state") more likely, assuming we don't cancel Brexit entirely
    That makes no sense. Why would a Norway-style deal be any easier or quicker to negotiate than a Canada-style deal?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,648
    Fenster said:

    Davis really doesn't look well.
    image

    He looks better than I'll look at 70.

    It's unlikely I'll get there.
    Is 70 too old for a minister ?
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 31
    I mean, I think Diane is there specifically to clash with the "Law and Order" message. Her background, both personal and political, means that she understands an experience with law enforcement that is more tinged by the obvious racial animus the policing system in this country operates with. If "Law and Order" in the US is a dog whistle tactic (which it is), I don't see why it isn't over here where we also disproportionately incarcerate people of colour, and deaths in police custody are majority non-white. Her speech on 42 day detention was amazing, and that sort of perspective on policing is exactly what we need.

    It should also be noted that yes, Corbyn and Boris gave bad interviews during the election, but neither are the same level of punchline that Diane finds herself to be, despite being a groundbreaking politician in many other ways. Boris can get away with flubbing interview questions he had literally sneaked a peek at during the break and being pretty outrageously racist and still sit on the front bench 'coz that's just Boris' way, but Diane gets some numbers wrong (yes, in a spectacular way) and that joke still gets brought out for every HIGNIFY or other political "maths" issue.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,612

    Davis really doesn't look well.
    image

    Nah - that's just his "inscrutable" face....
    He looks fine on TV:

    http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/fa4983be-4391-43bf-bad8-0b742339b5ee
    And its deffo not a cushion!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,489
    Of course it was Gordon Brown who coined the all-important sound-bite for his then office-sharing buddy and mate Tony.

    What a complex relationship they have had.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,517
    Mr. Borough, and yet the much friendlier Cameron-Osborne relationship didn't see Osborne become PM.

    Reminds me a bit of the Diadochi. Practically every one of those who survived the early years had bad (sometimes terrible) relationships with their sons, except Antigonus, who always got along well with Demetrius. But they ended up defeated at the Battle of Ipsus.

    Many Plantagenet kings likewise didn't get along with their sons, except Edward III and the Black Prince, but the latter died of a wasting disease before his father expired, so never became king.

    Hmm. Maybe I should look more into this. Does getting along with your dad make succeeding him as king/emperor less likely?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,654
    edited January 29

    FF43 said:

    Ref our discussion of whether a Norway or Canada outcomes is more likely. This point is key. It makes Canada very problematic. We can't extend Article 50 if we have already left, nor can the EU (probably) legally extend the transition period on the same terms. There is a very high risk of an open-ended WTO period before any Canada deal is agreed, where any eventual Canada deal will at best be very mediocre. This makes Norway (permanent "vassal state") more likely, assuming we don't cancel Brexit entirely
    That makes no sense. Why would a Norway-style deal be any easier or quicker to negotiate than a Canada-style deal?
    Canada and Norway are different beasts. There isn't a spectrum between the two where Norway is Canada with more of everything. A preferential trade agreement, ie Canada, specifies every aspect of the relationship. If it's not in the document, it isn't part of the relationship. Every point in it has to be haggled over. Each of the 27 EU countries will look to include their special requests. Norway (EEA or equivalent) is participation in a rules-based system. The rules are defined by that system, which exists already. As a consequence, the Canadian treaty is 1600 pages long; the Norwegian EEA is 40 pages long and we would adopt those 40 pages with a number of protocols.

    Edit. The UK negotiations is an order of magnitude more complex than the Canadian CETA, which took about a decade to negotiate. They were looking for a discretionary free trade agreement; we necessarily must deal also with fisheries, citizenship, migration, third party arrangements, nuclear waste handling, Irish border issues etc etc.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,489
    The comments in the thread on this FT letter are funny:



    Especially, "Look at what the Woodstock Generation has become, and weep"
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,459
    TGOHF said:
    Can't decide which is most wanky, the wannabe Wolfie Smiths, a Winny themed cafe called Blighty or a bunch of right wing snowflakes describing dweeby students as 'attacking' and 'storming' said premises. Let's save some time, In the fucking sea with the lot of them.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,489

    Mr. Borough, and yet the much friendlier Cameron-Osborne relationship didn't see Osborne become PM.

    Reminds me a bit of the Diadochi. Practically every one of those who survived the early years had bad (sometimes terrible) relationships with their sons, except Antigonus, who always got along well with Demetrius. But they ended up defeated at the Battle of Ipsus.

    Many Plantagenet kings likewise didn't get along with their sons, except Edward III and the Black Prince, but the latter died of a wasting disease before his father expired, so never became king.

    Hmm. Maybe I should look more into this. Does getting along with your dad make succeeding him as king/emperor less likely?

    iirc there was a book (possibly 'Political Animals') which said that a significant number of leaders and PMs had lost their father early in life.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,218
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Ref our discussion of whether a Norway or Canada outcomes is more likely. This point is key. It makes Canada very problematic. We can't extend Article 50 if we have already left, nor can the EU (probably) legally extend the transition period on the same terms. There is a very high risk of an open-ended WTO period before any Canada deal is agreed, where any eventual Canada deal will at best be very mediocre. This makes Norway (permanent "vassal state") more likely, assuming we don't cancel Brexit entirely
    That makes no sense. Why would a Norway-style deal be any easier or quicker to negotiate than a Canada-style deal?
    Canada and Norway are different beasts. There isn't a spectrum between the two where Norway is Canada with more of everything. A preferential trade agreement, ie Canada, specifies every aspect of the relationship. If it's not in the document, it isn't part of the relationship. Every point in it has to be haggled over. Each of the 27 EU countries will look to include their special requests. Norway (EEA or equivalent) is participation in a rules-based system. The rules are defined by that system, which exists already. As a consequence, the Canadian treaty is 1600 pages long; the Norwegian EEA is 40 pages long and we would adopt those 40 pages with a number of protocols.
    Well, a literal Norway-style deal (i.e. EEA) is participation in a rules-based system we've just decided to leave, so it's a non-starter. Even if we ignored motivation behind the referendum result and tried to go the EEA route. it wouldn't be straightforward - for a start, it would introduce four more countries to add to the 27 whose unanimous consent was required, and it would throw up all sorts of further questions about how much we pay and what happens to the political balance of EFTA and the EEA.

    I take your point about the greater level of detail required for a trade deal, but we start from 100% regulatory alignment so I don't think it's too bad.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,991

    The comments in the thread on this FT letter are funny:



    Especially, "Look at what the Woodstock Generation has become, and weep"

    The FT has become quite liberal on many issues but draws the line at free love.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,827

    On topic, this doesn't fill me with any reassurance whatsoever that Labour have learnt any lessons other than the solution to any problem is to just throw more money at it.

    I really don't want to spend the rest of my life going through an endless political cycle where Labour gets elected to spend money like water, crashes the economy, and then the Tories get elected to sort it out, suffering all the unpopularity and brand damage for the tough decisions they take in the meantime, only for Labour to win again once people get fed up with it just as the Tories start to get a grip.

    But, it's probably what will happen.

    FPTnP leads to this sort of thing
  • FensterFenster Posts: 1,556
    TGOHF said:

    Fenster said:

    Davis really doesn't look well.
    image

    He looks better than I'll look at 70.

    It's unlikely I'll get there.
    Is 70 too old for a minister ?
    Nah - the older and wiser the better.

    Another thing to be said for the older ones is they aren't as fervently over-ambitious as the younger ones, and probably use wiser judgement as a result.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,991

    Astonishing their friendship survived, after Corbyn's radical clumsiness:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/22/revealed-jeremy-corbyn-showed-off-naked-diane-abbott-to-impress/


    Yeah, dreadful lack of commitment. Corbyn goes out leafletting whilst Abbott stays abed.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,648
    Is there any specific mention of the Uk beginning to discuss FTA with other non EU nations - perhaps I just can't find it.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,654

    FF43 said:


    Canada and Norway are different beasts. There isn't a spectrum between the two where Norway is Canada with more of everything. A preferential trade agreement, ie Canada, specifies every aspect of the relationship. If it's not in the document, it isn't part of the relationship. Every point in it has to be haggled over. Each of the 27 EU countries will look to include their special requests. Norway (EEA or equivalent) is participation in a rules-based system. The rules are defined by that system, which exists already. As a consequence, the Canadian treaty is 1600 pages long; the Norwegian EEA is 40 pages long and we would adopt those 40 pages with a number of protocols.

    Well, a literal Norway-style deal (i.e. EEA) is participation in a rules-based system we've just decided to leave, so it's a non-starter. Even if we ignored motivation behind the referendum result and tried to go the EEA route. it wouldn't be straightforward - for a start, it would introduce four more countries to add to the 27 whose unanimous consent was required, and it would throw up all sorts of further questions about how much we pay and what happens to the political balance of EFTA and the EEA.

    I take your point about the greater level of detail required for a trade deal, but we start from 100% regulatory alignment so I don't think it's too bad.
    I doubt we would join the EEA, The Norwegians would be very uncomfortable and the EU wouldn't want to upset an arrangement they think works. In our case it would I think be an Association Agreement between us and the EU and indirectly with the EEA, on the same terms.

    Your point about staying in a rules-based system we've just decided to leave is totally valid. Every option available to us has big problems, including rejoining the EU, but we will have to decide what compromise we are prepared to make. This what we are discussing.

    I don't expect having existing regulatory alignment to massively speed up negotiations. The key is what is in the document. And don't forget the scope is vastly bigger and more urgent than CETA. Many FTAs never happen. We are still to see FTAs between the EU and Japan, the USA and India. The EU hasn't dragged its feet on those deals any more than its potential partners.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,991
    At the edge there'll be blue birds over trhe white cliffs of Dover.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,427

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Ref our discussion of whether a Norway or Canada outcomes is more likely. This point is key. It makes Canada very problematic. We can't extend Article 50 if we have already left, nor can the EU (probably) legally extend the transition period on the same terms. There is a very high risk of an open-ended WTO period before any Canada deal is agreed, where any eventual Canada deal will at best be very mediocre. This makes Norway (permanent "vassal state") more likely, assuming we don't cancel Brexit entirely
    That makes no sense. Why would a Norway-style deal be any easier or quicker to negotiate than a Canada-style deal?
    Canada and Norway are different beasts. There isn't a spectrum between the two where Norway is Canada with more of everything. A preferential trade agreement, ie Canada, specifies every aspect of the relationship. If it's not in the document, it isn't part of the relationship. Every point in it has to be haggled over. Each of the 27 EU countries will look to include their special requests. Norway (EEA or equivalent) is participation in a rules-based system. The rules are defined by that system, which exists already. As a consequence, the Canadian treaty is 1600 pages long; the Norwegian EEA is 40 pages long and we would adopt those 40 pages with a number of protocols.
    Well, a literal Norway-style deal (i.e. EEA) is participation in a rules-based system we've just decided to leave, so it's a non-starter. Even if we ignored motivation behind the referendum result and tried to go the EEA route. it wouldn't be straightforward - for a start, it would introduce four more countries to add to the 27 whose unanimous consent was required, and it would throw up all sorts of further questions about how much we pay and what happens to the political balance of EFTA and the EEA.

    I take your point about the greater level of detail required for a trade deal, but we start from 100% regulatory alignment so I don't think it's too bad.
    The idea that it will be easier because we start with 100% regulatory alignment is a canard. We have to set up a framework which takes into account potential future movement on the EU side, and presumably retains our flexibility for future FTAs with the US etc.

    Whereas, EEA is off the shelf and the other EFTA nations seem to be very open to our membership.

    Its not as “vasally” as the proposed transition period which risks becoming indefinite depending on how long it takes to negotiate an FTA which the EU has no particular interest in prioritising.

    It may be the hard Brexiters come around finally to EFTA as a better transition - just as @rcs1000 and others argued at the outset.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,427
    TGOHF said:

    Is there any specific mention of the Uk beginning to discuss FTA with other non EU nations - perhaps I just can't find it.

    There isn’t.
    It’s a one way ticket to vassal-land with no guarantees beyond that.

    It’s not just the Rees-Moggers who would find this unacceptable.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,517
    Mr. Borough, I remember watching a video about VC winners, indicating that most had lost their fathers early in life and had younger siblings, and suggesting this fostered a very strong surrogate father figure sense of responsibility within them that was subsequently extended to their fellow soldiers.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    I can think of no better example of how dire any Corbyn government would be than that the truly vile Diane Abbott would be home secretary -other than the truly odious John McDonnell would be chancellor.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,886
    stevef said:

    I can think of no better example of how dire any Corbyn government would be than that the truly vile Diane Abbott would be home secretary -other than the truly odious John McDonnell would be chancellor.

    Problem is 41% were happy to vote them into office a few months ago despite the Tories saying how awful they were going to be. They need to find a new way of convincing people.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 883
    Not a lot of sympathy for the Brexit fans this afternoon. Yes those terms of negotiation will leave us economically alive but with our influence stripped away till end 2020, but this is all happening because they pushed so hard for Brexit and haven't come up with any other deliverable approach since.

    You won, suck it up etc. The Bill Cashes of this world own this however much they fume against it. My sneaking respect for Boris Johnson for staying in Government and trying to make the impossible work somehow is still there.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    AndyJS said:

    stevef said:

    I can think of no better example of how dire any Corbyn government would be than that the truly vile Diane Abbott would be home secretary -other than the truly odious John McDonnell would be chancellor.

    Problem is 41% were happy to vote them into office a few months ago despite the Tories saying how awful they were going to be. They need to find a new way of convincing people.
    40%. But were they happy to vote them into office? Or were many voting on the basis that they were going to lose -which is what many Labour MPs were saying.

    In any case there are many examples in history of where people are truly vile but popular. including the obvious one.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,872
    tpfkar said:

    My sneaking respect for Boris Johnson for staying in Government and trying to make the impossible work somehow is still there.

    He is not trying to make it work.

    He is trying to position himself so that when it fails utterly he can say "I told you so"
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    TGOHF said:
    Is boris going to beat them up?

    "a couple of black eyes and a cracked rib"

    Hilarious.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,654
    tpfkar said:

    Not a lot of sympathy for the Brexit fans this afternoon. Yes those terms of negotiation will leave us economically alive but with our influence stripped away till end 2020, but this is all happening because they pushed so hard for Brexit and haven't come up with any other deliverable approach since.

    You won, suck it up etc. The Bill Cashes of this world own this however much they fume against it. My sneaking respect for Boris Johnson for staying in Government and trying to make the impossible work somehow is still there.

    You really think Boris Johnson is trying to make the impossible work? To be fair to Theresa May, and I think the public may be fairer to her than many here, she is at least trying to make the impossible not blow up.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,494

    It may be the hard Brexiters come around finally to EFTA as a better transition - just as @rcs1000 and others argued at the outset.

    Soft Brexiteers were banking on Remainers to do their bidding and to marginalise the hard Brexiteers. They misread the political dynamics.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5339046/boris-johnson-warns-allies-that-brexit-is-still-far-from-certain-and-they-face-a-big-fight-to-deliver-it/

    Boris has told confidantes that still having to accept dictats from Brussels would leave the UK as “just another Norway” and the nationwide vote’s landmark result would have proved “a total waste of time”.

    In that soft Brexit scenario, the mop-haired Tory boss has even claimed to pals: “I’d rather us stay in than leave like that”.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 883
    Scott_P said:

    tpfkar said:

    My sneaking respect for Boris Johnson for staying in Government and trying to make the impossible work somehow is still there.

    He is not trying to make it work.

    He is trying to position himself so that when it fails utterly he can say "I told you so"
    Needs a flounce resignation for that doesn't he? So he can argue for a 'true Brexit' from the backbenches and tell everyone how much better it was all going when he was in charge (not that he ever was.)
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,293
    stevef said:

    In any case there are many examples in history of where people are truly vile but popular. including the obvious one.

    You mean Piers Morgan?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,654

    TGOHF said:

    Is there any specific mention of the Uk beginning to discuss FTA with other non EU nations - perhaps I just can't find it.

    There isn’t.
    It’s a one way ticket to vassal-land with no guarantees beyond that.

    It’s not just the Rees-Moggers who would find this unacceptable.
    The Norwegian Government make an interesting point in their report on the asymmetric Norwegian-EU relationship While they have to accept rules coming from Brussels without any say over them, those rules also protect them because everyone has to follow them. The moment you allow divergence that guarantee of no discrimination is lost.

    Another interesting point is with no input into EU decision-making, swathes of policy simply don't get discussed in Norway, in parliament or elsewhere. It simply becomes a civil servant's implementation process.

    The whole things is worth a read, especially as we will probably end up there.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,827
    edited January 29
    tpfkar said:

    Not a lot of sympathy for the Brexit fans this afternoon. Yes those terms of negotiation will leave us economically alive but with our influence stripped away till end 2020, but this is all happening because they pushed so hard for Brexit and haven't come up with any other deliverable approach since.

    You won, suck it up etc. The Bill Cashes of this world own this however much they fume against it. My sneaking respect for Boris Johnson for staying in Government and trying to make the impossible work somehow is still there.

    For the obsessives Brexit has always offered the opportunity to blame everything on the EU, safe in the knowledge that the true path will never be followed. To avoid losing such a warm comfort blanket, they will always need to hold the view that the true path was never taken, so that the inevitable compromises with reality can continue to take the blame.

    Just as, despite all of the experiments with communism and radical socialism during the 20th Century, there are those today who dismiss these all as aberrations and argue that true communism has never been tried.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,763
    TGOHF said:
    Henry II, Richard I, Edward III, Henry V I mean really.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,992
    IanB2 said:

    On topic, this doesn't fill me with any reassurance whatsoever that Labour have learnt any lessons other than the solution to any problem is to just throw more money at it.

    I really don't want to spend the rest of my life going through an endless political cycle where Labour gets elected to spend money like water, crashes the economy, and then the Tories get elected to sort it out, suffering all the unpopularity and brand damage for the tough decisions they take in the meantime, only for Labour to win again once people get fed up with it just as the Tories start to get a grip.

    But, it's probably what will happen.

    FPTnP leads to this sort of thing
    I'm to be convinced a PR system would be any better, they'd just give you a different type of problem.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,648
    FF43 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Is there any specific mention of the Uk beginning to discuss FTA with other non EU nations - perhaps I just can't find it.

    There isn’t.
    It’s a one way ticket to vassal-land with no guarantees beyond that.

    It’s not just the Rees-Moggers who would find this unacceptable.
    The Norwegian Government make an interesting point in their report on the asymmetric Norwegian-EU relationship While they have to accept rules coming from Brussels without any say over them, those rules also protect them because everyone has to follow them. The moment you allow divergence that guarantee of no discrimination is lost.

    Another interesting point is with no input into EU decision-making, swathes of policy simply don't get discussed in Norway, in parliament or elsewhere. It simply becomes a civil servant's implementation process.

    The whole things is worth a read, especially as we will probably end up there.
    Reads like Norway is a vassal state.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,218
    edited January 29
    Ah, we have an answer to the question about negotiating trade deals during the vassal-state period, and also to the question about the UK being consulted:

    16:07 Q: Davis wants the UK to be able to negotiate trade deals during the transition, and he wants the UK to be represented on EU committees. Do you accept that?

    Barnier says he accepts that the UK will want to talk to third countries during the transition.

    But the UK will not be able to implement those agreements during the transition, without the approval of the EU.

    He says if decisions involve the UK, then the UK will be consulted.


    (Not acceptance that we'd have a formal place on committees, though).

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/29/brexit-david-davis-eu-transition-lords-minister-explains-why-she-condemned-hardline-tory-brexiters-as-swivel-eyed-politics-live
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,880
    edited January 29
    Diane Abbot should be planning to invade a Middle Eastern country? Well, it’s a view.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,494
    FF43 said:

    The Norwegian Government make an interesting point in their report on the asymmetric Norwegian-EU relationship While they have to accept rules coming from Brussels without any say over them, those rules also protect them because everyone has to follow them. The moment you allow divergence that guarantee of no discrimination is lost.

    That point stood out for me too. Arguably the more geopolitically significant you are, the more strongly the dynamic applies.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,648

    Ah, we have an answer to the question about negotiating trade deals during the vassal-state period, and also to the question about the UK being consulted:

    16:07 Q: Davis wants the UK to be able to negotiate trade deals during the transition, and he wants the UK to be represented on EU committees. Do you accept that?

    Barnier says he accepts that the UK will want to talk to third countries during the transition.

    But the UK will not be able to implement those agreements during the transition, without the approval of the EU.

    He says if decisions involve the UK, then the UK will be consulted.


    (Not acceptance that we'd have a formal place on committees, though).

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/29/brexit-david-davis-eu-transition-lords-minister-explains-why-she-condemned-hardline-tory-brexiters-as-swivel-eyed-politics-live

    Excellent - so we can have FTA deals lined up with the pen hovering above the signatures awaiting the transition period to end.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,971

    Ah, we have an answer to the question about negotiating trade deals during the vassal-state period, and also to the question about the UK being consulted:

    16:07 Q: Davis wants the UK to be able to negotiate trade deals during the transition, and he wants the UK to be represented on EU committees. Do you accept that?

    Barnier says he accepts that the UK will want to talk to third countries during the transition.

    But the UK will not be able to implement those agreements during the transition, without the approval of the EU.

    He says if decisions involve the UK, then the UK will be consulted.


    (Not acceptance that we'd have a formal place on committees, though).

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/29/brexit-david-davis-eu-transition-lords-minister-explains-why-she-condemned-hardline-tory-brexiters-as-swivel-eyed-politics-live

    That's what I've been saying all along, the UK will start formal negotiations with other nations during transition and be able to sign those deals to be implemented the second transition ends.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,763

    Ah, we have an answer to the question about negotiating trade deals during the vassal-state period, and also to the question about the UK being consulted:

    16:07 Q: Davis wants the UK to be able to negotiate trade deals during the transition, and he wants the UK to be represented on EU committees. Do you accept that?

    Barnier says he accepts that the UK will want to talk to third countries during the transition.

    But the UK will not be able to implement those agreements during the transition, without the approval of the EU.

    He says if decisions involve the UK, then the UK will be consulted.


    (Not acceptance that we'd have a formal place on committees, though).

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/29/brexit-david-davis-eu-transition-lords-minister-explains-why-she-condemned-hardline-tory-brexiters-as-swivel-eyed-politics-live

    Even that makes no sense during the transition.

    Us: can we have a FTA please?
    Unnamed third country: ok no probs, what is your trading relationship with the EU?
    Us: er...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,517
    edited January 29
    Mr. Topping, Alfred!

    Edited extra bit: and William Marshal, now I come to think of it.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,518
    Scott_P said:
    These are all laws that we have had our due say in constructing, and the transition period is relatively short. Unduly prejudicial new laws are very unlikely. To obsess about the technicalities would be a mistake.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,427
    edited January 29

    Ah, we have an answer to the question about negotiating trade deals during the vassal-state period, and also to the question about the UK being consulted:

    16:07 Q: Davis wants the UK to be able to negotiate trade deals during the transition, and he wants the UK to be represented on EU committees. Do you accept that?

    Barnier says he accepts that the UK will want to talk to third countries during the transition.

    But the UK will not be able to implement those agreements during the transition, without the approval of the EU.

    He says if decisions involve the UK, then the UK will be consulted.


    (Not acceptance that we'd have a formal place on committees, though).

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/29/brexit-david-davis-eu-transition-lords-minister-explains-why-she-condemned-hardline-tory-brexiters-as-swivel-eyed-politics-live

    We also need a legally binding commitment - with a date - to conclude an FTA. Otherwise we risk being stuck in a rule-taking purgatory.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    An article from Don that doesn't call for Corbyn to stand down? Truly we are nearing the End of Days. Off to dig my bomb shelter.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,494
    Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,654
    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Is there any specific mention of the Uk beginning to discuss FTA with other non EU nations - perhaps I just can't find it.

    There isn’t.
    It’s a one way ticket to vassal-land with no guarantees beyond that.

    It’s not just the Rees-Moggers who would find this unacceptable.
    The Norwegian Government make an interesting point in their report on the asymmetric Norwegian-EU relationship While they have to accept rules coming from Brussels without any say over them, those rules also protect them because everyone has to follow them. The moment you allow divergence that guarantee of no discrimination is lost.

    Another interesting point is with no input into EU decision-making, swathes of policy simply don't get discussed in Norway, in parliament or elsewhere. It simply becomes a civil servant's implementation process.

    The whole things is worth a read, especially as we will probably end up there.
    Reads like Norway is a vassal state.
    The Norwegian government would like to be in the EU, but can't get the agreement of parliament and wouldn't win a referendum, so they make the best of a bad job.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,218

    Ah, we have an answer to the question about negotiating trade deals during the vassal-state period, and also to the question about the UK being consulted:

    16:07 Q: Davis wants the UK to be able to negotiate trade deals during the transition, and he wants the UK to be represented on EU committees. Do you accept that?

    Barnier says he accepts that the UK will want to talk to third countries during the transition.

    But the UK will not be able to implement those agreements during the transition, without the approval of the EU.

    He says if decisions involve the UK, then the UK will be consulted.


    (Not acceptance that we'd have a formal place on committees, though).

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/29/brexit-david-davis-eu-transition-lords-minister-explains-why-she-condemned-hardline-tory-brexiters-as-swivel-eyed-politics-live

    That's what I've been saying all along, the UK will start formal negotiations with other nations during transition and be able to sign those deals to be implemented the second transition ends.
    In practice we can't have any meaningful discussions with potential trade partners until it's quite clear what our final arrangement with the EU will be. Hopefully that will become clear during next year.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,003
    TGOHF said:

    Astonishing their friendship survived, after Corbyn's radical clumsiness:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/22/revealed-jeremy-corbyn-showed-off-naked-diane-abbott-to-impress/

    Imagine a top Hollywood producer had done this - there would be meltdown.
    Yeah, Twitter would be going crazy over the leaked images
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,654
    edited January 29

    Ah, we have an answer to the question about negotiating trade deals during the vassal-state period, and also to the question about the UK being consulted:

    16:07 Q: Davis wants the UK to be able to negotiate trade deals during the transition, and he wants the UK to be represented on EU committees. Do you accept that?

    Barnier says he accepts that the UK will want to talk to third countries during the transition.

    But the UK will not be able to implement those agreements during the transition, without the approval of the EU.

    He says if decisions involve the UK, then the UK will be consulted.


    (Not acceptance that we'd have a formal place on committees, though).

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/29/brexit-david-davis-eu-transition-lords-minister-explains-why-she-condemned-hardline-tory-brexiters-as-swivel-eyed-politics-live

    That's what I've been saying all along, the UK will start formal negotiations with other nations during transition and be able to sign those deals to be implemented the second transition ends.
    In practice we can't have any meaningful discussions with potential trade partners until it's quite clear what our final arrangement with the EU will be. Hopefully that will become clear during next year.
    After we leave, ie in 2019. Edit. That's what you said. apols,

    Edit, Edit. Although there is a big risk of not knowing before the end of the transition, especially if we go for the Canada route. Incidentally Barnier only says that avoiding that outcome is possible in response to a direct question on it
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 14,818

    Scott_P said:
    These are all laws that we have had our due say in constructing, and the transition period is relatively short. Unduly prejudicial new laws are very unlikely. To obsess about the technicalities would be a mistake.
    Agreed. To be honest if the EU decided to pass a law duting the transition ohase saying all British first born infants had to be sacrificed we would just ignore it. Though I am sure there are some Europhiles on here who would still try to defend the EU and say what a good idea it was.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,648
    rcs1000 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Astonishing their friendship survived, after Corbyn's radical clumsiness:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/22/revealed-jeremy-corbyn-showed-off-naked-diane-abbott-to-impress/

    Imagine a top Hollywood producer had done this - there would be meltdown.
    Yeah, Twitter would be going crazy over the leaked images
    "crazy" isn't the adjective I'd use...
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,180
    So after months of arguing for the UK to take the Norway option permanently, Remainers on here are now castigating the UK for doing it for a two year time period. Well, it's at least nice of them to reveal their arguments early and to show there will be no support among anyone for the Norway option long term.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,218

    Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Not really, they've always said we were.

    As @Tissue_Price rightly says, it's of no consequence anyway. It's only 20 months for heaven's sake, and the EU is institutionally incapable of doing anything much in such a short time. You have to be a fully-paid-up eye-swiveler to be exercised about the transition period.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,763

    Mr. Topping, Alfred!

    Edited extra bit: and William Marshal, now I come to think of it.

    William Marshal??? The William Marshall who put John on the throne???
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,494

    Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Not really, they've always said we were.
    So why are they saying the transition terms will make us become a vassal state if that's what we always were?
  • Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Sorry to correct remainer's but the EU spokesperson in the Barnier news conference said that during transition the UK will be able to have an input.

    And for those who think Barnier is all knowing he seems to be a master at fudge and really gives the impression that he is being assertive while his body language is one of uncertainty, even when speaking in his own language
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,201

    Ah, we have an answer to the question about negotiating trade deals during the vassal-state period, and also to the question about the UK being consulted:

    16:07 Q: Davis wants the UK to be able to negotiate trade deals during the transition, and he wants the UK to be represented on EU committees. Do you accept that?

    Barnier says he accepts that the UK will want to talk to third countries during the transition.

    But the UK will not be able to implement those agreements during the transition, without the approval of the EU.

    He says if decisions involve the UK, then the UK will be consulted.


    (Not acceptance that we'd have a formal place on committees, though).

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/29/brexit-david-davis-eu-transition-lords-minister-explains-why-she-condemned-hardline-tory-brexiters-as-swivel-eyed-politics-live

    That's what I've been saying all along, the UK will start formal negotiations with other nations during transition and be able to sign those deals to be implemented the second transition ends.

    No-one is going to agree an FTA with us until our final relationship with the EU is sorted.

  • Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Not really, they've always said we were.

    As @Tissue_Price rightly says, it's of no consequence anyway. It's only 20 months for heaven's sake, and the EU is institutionally incapable of doing anything much in such a short time. You have to be a fully-paid-up eye-swiveler to be exercised about the transition period.
    Or one of those who see their EU membership disappearing in front of their eyes
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,992

    Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Not really, they've always said we were.

    As @Tissue_Price rightly says, it's of no consequence anyway. It's only 20 months for heaven's sake, and the EU is institutionally incapable of doing anything much in such a short time. You have to be a fully-paid-up eye-swiveler to be exercised about the transition period.
    The issue isn't the transition period it's suspicion over what we're transiting to.

    Either way I expect the terms of it to be qualified prior to its agreement.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,180

    Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.

    Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,517
    edited January 29
    Mr. Topping, you think he should've seized the throne himself?

    William Marshal saved England from the French invasion in the early 13th century.

    Edited extra bit: a review, by me, of a biography of the aforementioned knight: http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/review-greatest-knight-by-thomas.html
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,648

    Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Not really, they've always said we were.
    So why are they saying the transition terms will make us become a vassal state if that's what we always were?

    Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Not really, they've always said we were.
    So why are they saying the transition terms will make us become a vassal state if that's what we always were?
    You're arguing as to whether it's better to be a serf or a captive ?

    Does it matter ?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,763

    Mr. Topping, you think he should've seized the throne himself?

    William Marshal saved England from the French invasion in the early 13th century.

    Edited extra bit: a review, by me, of a biography of the aforementioned knight: http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/review-greatest-knight-by-thomas.html

    We shall of course never know but I can't see how Arthur would have been a worse choice.
  • Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.

    Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
    And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,763
    edited January 29

    Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Not really, they've always said we were.

    As @Tissue_Price rightly says, it's of no consequence anyway. It's only 20 months for heaven's sake, and the EU is institutionally incapable of doing anything much in such a short time. You have to be a fully-paid-up eye-swiveler to be exercised about the transition period.
    The issue isn't the transition period it's suspicion over what we're transiting to.

    Either way I expect the terms of it to be qualified prior to its agreement.
    What should be of much greater concern (if that's what is important to you) is that as small children in Dieppe could have pointed out, ain't no agreement gonna be happening in the ludicrously short time frame we have given ourselves to negotiate a final settlement with the EU. That means a likely or at least possible extension to the transition period.

    And that means....GE2022!!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,763

    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:
    The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
    Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.

    Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
    And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
    Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
This discussion has been closed.