We've been here before about the talks before phase 1 was agreed. There were all kinds of alarums and excursions and people like SeanT beside themselves with fury...and then they agreed.
It'll happen again. That's how EU negotiations always work. They always run into a crisis. There is always a moment when they look hopeless. And they always end up agreeing a fudge, just enough to keep the show on the road. Expect a deal with lots of loose ends, to be haggled over for years.
Sure you say that, but the EU and remainer extremists always insist the EU means precisely what it says it means (in this case that negotiation is pointless) and is absolutely correct in what it is claiming to say, and that only the foolish believe otherwise.
The danger surely has to be that while that is their regular strategy, it will come unstuck sooner or later because politics can be irrational, and if we are unlucky it will be this time. Particularly when we know for a fact plenty of people on our side, and equally as clearly many people on the EU side, don't want a deal at all. Tusk clearly does not, as his talk is far beyond diplomatic tough talk. He's outright dismissed the very concept of negotiation as delusional, that cannot be normal, it's not just saying the demands from the UK are unreasonable, but that any requests at all would be unreasonable.
We've been here before about the talks before phase 1 was agreed. There were all kinds of alarums and excursions and people like SeanT beside themselves with fury...and then they agreed.
It'll happen again. That's how EU negotiations always work. They always run into a crisis. There is always a moment when they look hopeless. And they always end up agreeing a fudge, just enough to keep the show on the road. Expect a deal with lots of loose ends, to be haggled over for years.
Sure you say that, but the EU and remainer extremists always insist the EU means precisely what it says it means (in this case that negotiation is pointless) and is absolutely correct in what it is claiming to say, and that only the foolish believe otherwise.
The danger surely has to be that while that is their regular strategy, it will come unstuck sooner or later because politics can be irrational, and if we are unlucky it will be this time. Particularly when we know for a fact plenty of people on our side, and equally as clearly many people on the EU side, don't want a deal at all. Tusk clearly does not, as his talk is far beyond diplomatic tough talk. He's outright dismissed the very concept of negotiation as delusional, that cannot be normal, it's not just saying the demands from the UK are unreasonable, but that any requests at all would be unreasonable.
Tusk is merely agreeing with our government. The Brexit destination is 3rd country status outside CU and SM, and without accession status. We would have put ourselves in the status of Belarus. Brexit means Brexit.
We are just negotiating transition to that point. In time there may be an FTA but that will follow years later.
We've been here before about the talks before phase 1 was agreed. There were all kinds of alarums and excursions and people like SeanT beside themselves with fury...and then they agreed.
It'll happen again. That's how EU negotiations always work. They always run into a crisis. There is always a moment when they look hopeless. And they always end up agreeing a fudge, just enough to keep the show on the road. Expect a deal with lots of loose ends, to be haggled over for years.
Sure you say that, but the EU and remainer extremists always insist the EU means precisely what it says it means (in this case that negotiation is pointless) and is absolutely correct in what it is claiming to say, and that only the foolish believe otherwise.
The danger surely has to be that weasonable.
Tusk is merely agreeing with our government. The Brexit destination is 3rd country status outside CU and SM, and without accession status. We would have putpourselves in the status of Belarus. Brexit means Brexit.
We are merely negotiating transition to that point. In time there may be an FTA but that will follow years later.
Except he isn't agreeing with our government, since his comments were about how he disagreed with what is reportedly our government's position, so I don't know why you are insisting he is agreeing with them. He is saying they are delusional, and you seriously think that means he actually agrees with them?
If he is not a liar then he is claiming we are asking to negotiate things which he is saying are non-negotiable. Clearly that means we think there are things that are negotiable which he does not think can be negotiated. Ergo, there is disagreement and you are demonstrably incorrect in claiming they are in agreement. I note also you haven't touched on the earlier point of whether the EU has identical relations with all non-EU countries, since if they do have different relations, then clearly the status of the future relationship is negotiable, and what that might could reasonable be taken to be part of 'transitioning' to the exit.
I have absolutely no idea what you think is being negotiated in terms of the transition, since you appear to think we can gain nothing, not even an agreement on what might happen next, during the transition, in which case why the f*** are we even having a transitionary stage? They want us to do things during that transitionary stage for some reason, presumably, but why would we if nothing can be gained? That's not negotiation at all.
Totally ON topic. I recently bought another batch of wine from Amazon Fresh.
Apart from their tendency to overpackage (all that bloody cardboard!) their service is peerless. The selection is huge, the prices are pretty good, and (maybe most importantly) they reliably deliver in a specified hour the very next day (sometimes the same evening). No one else can match all this.
But I just got a couple of corked wines (in the £30 bracket) and rang them. They immediately refunded. Again: exemplary.
But what would they do if you ordered some wines in the £100-£1000 a bottle bracket (and they sell them) and you then said, Sorry, this is corked, I want a refund. How could they possibly argue, or demand a test? They would simply have to yield and give you the money back, even if you were a nasty person and you were totally lying, and you guzzled the lovely wine. £1000 a bottle.
That's a big risk. I guess their algorithm tells them that people willing to spend squillions on wine are people who are unlikely to commit basic fraud.
That all sounds very tiring.
Wouldn't it be easier to buy at the supermarket ?
Drinking £100+ bottles of wine isn't about drinking wine.
Hasn't anybody remembered the lesson of the Brexit Bill.
Cast your mind back to November. The newspapers, the public pronouncements, and most everyone on this board was talking about £100bn Brexit bill plus payments in the transition period.
What happened?
Errr £40-45bn, including the transition period, and with some of that money not paid for decades.
This is exactly the same. The EU is talking tough in public and engaging in a bit of anchoring.
The problem we've had is that we've done nothing to prepare for an abrupt exit, and therefore our tough talk looks pretty hollow.
Do we have have Heads of Terms lined up with the EU's existing FTA partners? Errr, no. In fact we've hacked off both the Swiss and the Koreans.
Have we started building the customs infrastructure needed for a tariff border with the EU? Errr, no.
But there will still be a deal, because it is not in either our interests, or the EU's, for there not to be a deal. The deal will, however, probably not be as good as it could have been, if we'd prepared for a hard Brexit from the start.
For the record, I don't think the powers that be in the EU have even the slightest hope of persuading us to stay. I think they merely want a break that is advantageous to them as possible.
The Times says all 11 Con MPs who voted against the Govt in its only defeat on the EU Withdrawal Bill will vote for Soubry amendment. Goes on to say;
"If it were passed, the amendment would compel the government to “take all necessary steps” to implement a trade agreement with the EU “which enables the UK to participate after exit day in a customs union with the EU”. The wording is not binding but it could force Mrs May to change the government’s negotiating objectives."
Goodness knows what happens if it passes. Anything from May resigning to her just shrugging it off and saying it doesn't matter as not binding and won't impact the negotiations?
I see Trump managed a +1 approval rating, pretty much the first since his election - though it's with Rasmussen, which tends to be more favourable. The US polls are just amazingly variable - another one yesterday had him on -21:
This isn't acceptable behaviour from a former intel chief.
The rightwingers in government have lost their mind giving this the green light.
Dearlove's intervention on Brexit was an embarrassment to the UK too. His pleading open letter to Emmanuel Macron just exposed his own lack of understanding.
Comments
The danger surely has to be that while that is their regular strategy, it will come unstuck sooner or later because politics can be irrational, and if we are unlucky it will be this time. Particularly when we know for a fact plenty of people on our side, and equally as clearly many people on the EU side, don't want a deal at all. Tusk clearly does not, as his talk is far beyond diplomatic tough talk. He's outright dismissed the very concept of negotiation as delusional, that cannot be normal, it's not just saying the demands from the UK are unreasonable, but that any requests at all would be unreasonable.
We are just negotiating transition to that point. In time there may be an FTA but that will follow years later.
If he is not a liar then he is claiming we are asking to negotiate things which he is saying are non-negotiable. Clearly that means we think there are things that are negotiable which he does not think can be negotiated. Ergo, there is disagreement and you are demonstrably incorrect in claiming they are in agreement. I note also you haven't touched on the earlier point of whether the EU has identical relations with all non-EU countries, since if they do have different relations, then clearly the status of the future relationship is negotiable, and what that might could reasonable be taken to be part of 'transitioning' to the exit.
I have absolutely no idea what you think is being negotiated in terms of the transition, since you appear to think we can gain nothing, not even an agreement on what might happen next, during the transition, in which case why the f*** are we even having a transitionary stage? They want us to do things during that transitionary stage for some reason, presumably, but why would we if nothing can be gained? That's not negotiation at all.
Good night all.
I dont know where you get such silly ideas from.
Kinnock won the 1986 local elections by just 3% and the 1991 local elections by just 3% as well while Hague won the 2000 local elections by only 2%.
Its another scare story with no substance
And some fringe low ranking Tory agreed to speak
It would be the same as the event to which you refer
Hasn't anybody remembered the lesson of the Brexit Bill.
Cast your mind back to November. The newspapers, the public pronouncements, and most everyone on this board was talking about £100bn Brexit bill plus payments in the transition period.
What happened?
Errr £40-45bn, including the transition period, and with some of that money not paid for decades.
This is exactly the same. The EU is talking tough in public and engaging in a bit of anchoring.
The problem we've had is that we've done nothing to prepare for an abrupt exit, and therefore our tough talk looks pretty hollow.
Do we have have Heads of Terms lined up with the EU's existing FTA partners? Errr, no. In fact we've hacked off both the Swiss and the Koreans.
Have we started building the customs infrastructure needed for a tariff border with the EU? Errr, no.
But there will still be a deal, because it is not in either our interests, or the EU's, for there not to be a deal. The deal will, however, probably not be as good as it could have been, if we'd prepared for a hard Brexit from the start.
Talk softly, but carry a big stick.
But never mind I think we are both past our bed times so once again have a great nights rest BJO
Well now its OMOV with everyone eligible to vote having the chance to elect the new leader of the policy forum in 25 days time
I think Ann Black has a 50/50 chance of being democratically elected leader of the Policy Forum
Or we could watch 4 man Bob!!
"If it were passed, the amendment would compel the government to “take all necessary steps” to implement a trade agreement with the EU “which enables the UK to participate after exit day in a customs union with the EU”. The wording is not binding but it could force Mrs May to change the government’s negotiating objectives."
Goodness knows what happens if it passes. Anything from May resigning to her just shrugging it off and saying it doesn't matter as not binding and won't impact the negotiations?
This isn't acceptable behaviour from a former intel chief.
The rightwingers in government have lost their mind giving this the green light.
Who are they again?