Just how the voter will see this will be interesting if TM refuses to agree and will not authorise the 50 billion end payment
I don't think either May or the EU give a fuck about the British voters at the moment. They're irrelevant to the EU and May is more concerned with placating the Leaveslamic State wing of the tory party.
Leaveslamic?
That "tzeeeeeeeeeeee" noise is the sound of air escaping from your credibility.....
Here's a thing I do not get - if the Brexit Loons believe there is no need for any kind of border between the RoI and NI post-Brexit, why do they think there would need to be a border between a NI in the customs union and a mainland Britain outside of it?
ROI/NI is an issue that is handwaved away by people who have no understanding about the actual border, the border communities, the protagonists in the struggle, recent history, not so recent history or very recent history.
They treat it as a theoretical intellectual problem and liken it either to Switzerland or to Camden/Islington.
Were it not so serious it would be amusing.
There is currently a VAT border, corporation tax border and income tax border between NI and Ireland. This does not require people to be physically stopped at the border.
Indeed it works well as it stands - any further obstruction, any messing around with status, any complication in alignments simply increases the possibility of a problem in the area.
Extraordinary development with the EU and the Customs Union. If this is as serious as it looks then the talks will collapse, the Moggites will be triumphant and we will have to start preparing for WTO terms. I would also expect Theresa to resign within days.
Re Brexit: the EU are not going to fly. The question is whether they've been drafted as they have:
1. Because the EU is full of politically tin-eared legalistic bureaucrats. 2. Because they want the UK to be the fall guy for talks that they expect to fail. 3. To draw leverage elsewhere. 4. As a gesture of support, solidarity and purpose but one which is ultimately not a red line. 5. To destablise the UK govt (if so, I think they've been counterproductive)
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
Given the courts have just ruled that we can't even deport European tramps, is there much scope for actually enforcing that?
Wasn't there a court case where the person could not be deported because they had a cat?
Yes - but would you want to live there permanently?
Funnily enough my ex partner did. He gave up advertising photography and moved there. He's now the formost sculptor in the Seychelles. It's a terrific place to live.
Foremost sculptor in The Seychelles? No 1 in a field of 1?
Or am I being unkind?
No I was! He's actually very good and is now working on several civic buildings like the Seychelles University with a statue of Plato. Not THAT one!!
Mr. Abode, Corbyn met with Barnier, and there followed a leak the former would back UK membership of the Customs Union. Collusion seems eminently likely.
Mr. Eagles, stark examples show up the effects most clearly. If you have fewer workers, wages rise as employers (or manorial lords in the 14th century) are forced to compete. If labour is cheap, as it was in the 13th century, this is not the case.
Mr. Topping, I agree other factors are relevant (such as the use of peasant archers in warfare, which rather diminished the Three Estates view of the world). However, it's no use pretending, as some seem to, that rapid changes to the numbers of available workers has no impact on wages.
If collusion is proved, surely both corbyn and Starmer are playing with fire...
The timing of the Sun's Czech stuff on Corbyn now makes much sense though..... Somebody tipped them off about what Labour were up to.
Mr. Blue, I agree on the SNP's constitutional tomfoolery.
Mr. Eagles, it's a clear historical instance whereby a rapid change to workforce numbers had a direct effect upon the wage situation. Of course, it's easier to not bother engaging with the argument I make and claim I compared migrants to the plague.
Leaving aside your ridiculous, and deliberate, distraction, your daft claim also confuses a rapidly diminishing workforce with a rising one. Unless you think the Black Death increased the population, of course...
It'd be easier to have civil discourse if people could engage with arguments rather than just hurl pejoratives at one another.
You made a ridiculous comparison.
Do you really think the circumstances of the 14th century are really comparable to events nearly 700 years later?
I've linked expert analysis with data proving the initial hypothesis was wrong.
Or do you genuinely an event which wiped out around 50% of Europe's population/workforce is comparable to Eastern Europeans moving to the UK?
2 and 2 made 4 in the 14th century, and the concept of doing a job for a wage was a thing then and now, and probably the 14th c employer and the 21st got a similar nice warm feeling when the ratio of job applicants to jobs rose, and v.v. So, yes, if we discard the superficial differences and look at the underlying principles, the C14th can tell us about the 21st. Not much point in history otherwise.
If you really think that the labour markets of the 14th and 21st Centuries are similar then that explains an awful lot about your posts.
Seriously, Steve's comments are not a review of the book, they're a review - and a very favourable and partial review - of Rennard's life. What next: John Wilkes Booth, best remembered as a jobbing actor?
Mr. Abode, doubtful. Between Labour tribalists, Momentum cultists, and the broadcast media being generally pro-EU (not to mention Conservative dithering and incompetence) they'll likely not get much censure at all.
Here's a thing I do not get - if the Brexit Loons believe there is no need for any kind of border between the RoI and NI post-Brexit, why do they think there would need to be a border between a NI in the customs union and a mainland Britain outside of it?
ROI/NI is an issue that is handwaved away by people who have no understanding about the actual border, the border communities, the protagonists in the struggle, recent history, not so recent history or very recent history.
They treat it as a theoretical intellectual problem and liken it either to Switzerland or to Camden/Islington.
Were it not so serious it would be amusing.
There is currently a VAT border, corporation tax border and income tax border between NI and Ireland. This does not require people to be physically stopped at the border.
But there is no customs border. If there were, it would require goods to be checked at the border or something similar. Goods are the problem. People aren't.
Just how the voter will see this will be interesting if TM refuses to agree and will not authorise the 50 billion end payment
I don't think either May or the EU give a fuck about the British voters at the moment. They're irrelevant to the EU and May is more concerned with placating the Leaveslamic State wing of the tory party.
Leaveslamic?
That "tzeeeeeeeeeeee" noise is the sound of air escaping from your credibility.....
Just wait till TSE thinks through the implications of that.
Seriously, Steve's comments are not a review of the book, they're a review - and a very favourable and partial review - of Rennard's life. What next: John Wilkes Booth, best remembered as a jobbing actor?
Hitler: the life of a keen amateur painter. Mao: my life in long-distance walks. Shipman: how to be a caring GP. Peter Sutcliffe: life and loves on the road.
Here's a thing I do not get - if the Brexit Loons believe there is no need for any kind of border between the RoI and NI post-Brexit, why do they think there would need to be a border between a NI in the customs union and a mainland Britain outside of it?
ROI/NI is an issue that is handwaved away by people who have no understanding about the actual border, the border communities, the protagonists in the struggle, recent history, not so recent history or very recent history.
They treat it as a theoretical intellectual problem and liken it either to Switzerland or to Camden/Islington.
Were it not so serious it would be amusing.
There is currently a VAT border, corporation tax border and income tax border between NI and Ireland. This does not require people to be physically stopped at the border.
If no one is actually going to build border posts then it does actually become something of a "theoretical intellectual problem". Hypothesising that large, fully taxed and regulated businesses are somehow going to smuggle large quantities of goods via the Irish Sea is the epitome of a thought experiment that is destined to remain just that.
For all Boris's infelicity with analogies, an ANPR system may well be the limit of whatever gets built. Personally I would still expect a Canada+(+?) FTA which might render even that moot.
Mr. Blue, I agree on the SNP's constitutional tomfoolery.
Mr. Eagles, it's a clear historical instance whereby a rapid change to workforce numbers had a direct effect upon the wage situation. Of course, it's easier to not bother engaging with the argument I make and claim I compared migrants to the plague.
Leaving aside your ridiculous, and deliberate, distraction, your daft claim also confuses a rapidly diminishing workforce with a rising one. Unless you think the Black Death increased the population, of course...
It'd be easier to have civil discourse if people could engage with arguments rather than just hurl pejoratives at one another.
You made a ridiculous comparison.
Do you really think the circumstances of the 14th century are really comparable to events nearly 700 years later?
I've linked expert analysis with data proving the initial hypothesis was wrong.
Or do you genuinely an event which wiped out around 50% of Europe's population/workforce is comparable to Eastern Europeans moving to the UK?
2 and 2 made 4 in the 14th century, and the concept of doing a job for a wage was a thing then and now, and probably the 14th c employer and the 21st got a similar nice warm feeling when the ratio of job applicants to jobs rose, and v.v. So, yes, if we discard the superficial differences and look at the underlying principles, the C14th can tell us about the 21st. Not much point in history otherwise.
It is very simple, do you think the death of circa 50% of the workforce is comparable to the Eastern Europeans moving to the UK ?
Re Brexit: the EU are not going to fly. The question is whether they've been drafted as they have:
1. Because the EU is full of politically tin-eared legalistic bureaucrats. 2. Because they want the UK to be the fall guy for talks that they expect to fail. 3. To draw leverage elsewhere. 4. As a gesture of support, solidarity and purpose but one which is ultimately not a red line. 5. To destablise the UK govt (if so, I think they've been counterproductive)
These are of course not mutually exclusive.
(1) This is a treaty so it's bound to be legalistic. Eurocrats and the EU27 countries don't care about the others. It's not that they are malign. They are completely uninterested.
Mr. Blue, I agree on the SNP's constitutional tomfoolery.
Mr. Eagles, it's a clear historical instance whereby a rapid change to workforce numbers had a direct effect upon the wage situation. Of course, it's easier to not bother engaging with the argument I make and claim I compared migrants to the plague.
Leaving aside your ridiculous, and deliberate, distraction, your daft claim also confuses a rapidly diminishing workforce with a rising one. Unless you think the Black Death increased the population, of course...
It'd be easier to have civil discourse if people could engage with arguments rather than just hurl pejoratives at one another.
You made a ridiculous comparison.
Do you really think the circumstances of the 14th century are really comparable to events nearly 700 years later?
I've linked expert analysis with data proving the initial hypothesis was wrong.
Or do you genuinely an event which wiped out around 50% of Europe's population/workforce is comparable to Eastern Europeans moving to the UK?
2 and 2 made 4 in the 14th century, and the concept of doing a job for a wage was a thing then and now, and probably the 14th c employer and the 21st got a similar nice warm feeling when the ratio of job applicants to jobs rose, and v.v. So, yes, if we discard the superficial differences and look at the underlying principles, the C14th can tell us about the 21st. Not much point in history otherwise.
If you really think that the labour markets of the 14th and 21st Centuries are similar then that explains an awful lot about your posts.
Holy God.
Was the concept of working for a wage completely unknown in the 14th century?
Was it the case in the 14th century that demand for a good tended, other things being equal, to a. increase or b. decrease, the price of the good?
Seriously, Steve's comments are not a review of the book, they're a review - and a very favourable and partial review - of Rennard's life. What next: John Wilkes Booth, best remembered as a jobbing actor?
Perhaps the final paragraph is the deepest sarcasm ever written on this site?
On topic, not impressed by the hagiography of Rennard. However, I'll always give the Lib Dems credit for going into coalition. As Sir Humphrey would put it, a courageous decision. Clegg put country before party, but then I guess he could afford to.
Clegg didn't have a choice.
What were the alternatives ?
1) Prop up an utterly weak Labour 'rainbow coalition' - it would collapse and the LibDems would be destroyed at the subsequent general election.
2) Allow a Conservative minority government - at a time of his choosing Cameron would call a second general election and the LibDems would be destroyed.
3) Oppose both the Conservatives and Labour - an immediate second general election follows and the LibDems are destroyed.
After decades of banging on about coalition governments the LibDems couldn't turn down one when it was offered.
The Lib Dems' mistake was to make it a five year coalition. They should have included a break clause after two years, allowing them to review their options at that stage. They could have done so on the logic that there was an immediate financial crisis that needed sorting and that steps after that would need to be thought about at that stage.
They could have been reasonably confident that come 2012 the Conservatives would be behind in the polls, giving them time to cleanse themselves in opposition, constructive or otherwise.
Unconvinced that would have been acceptable to the Tories. I think they'd have done better if they'd just followed through on at least one of their big promises (tuition fees, nuclear deterrent, constitutional reform).
The tuition fees betrayal was political madness by the LibDems.
That they allowed it at the same time as Osborne was shovelling money at triple lock pensions highlighted their broken promise.
Err, the triple lock was a LibDem policy (and a sensible one at the time, given how far behind the income of pensioners dependent on the state pension had fallen).
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
Given the courts have just ruled that we can't even deport European tramps, is there much scope for actually enforcing that?
Wasn't there a court case where the person could not be deported because they had a cat?
Yes - but would you want to live there permanently?
Funnily enough my ex partner did. He gave up advertising photography and moved there. He's now the formost sculptor in the Seychelles. It's a terrific place to live.
Foremost sculptor in The Seychelles? No 1 in a field of 1?
Or am I being unkind?
No I was! He's actually very good and is now working on several civic buildings like the Seychelles University with a statue of Plato. Not THAT one!!
Looking at Seychelles Uni I see it’s working with Gibraltar on the latter’s new University. Hmmmm
And I thought Basildon University Hospital was a bit of a stretch. Mind, Seychelles could be a good place to study.
Re Brexit: the EU are not going to fly. The question is whether they've been drafted as they have:
1. Because the EU is full of politically tin-eared legalistic bureaucrats. 2. Because they want the UK to be the fall guy for talks that they expect to fail. 3. To draw leverage elsewhere. 4. As a gesture of support, solidarity and purpose but one which is ultimately not a red line. 5. To destablise the UK govt (if so, I think they've been counterproductive)
These are of course not mutually exclusive.
You're absolutely right. This is just a draft and the final version will clearly need to add Scotland to the common regulatory area too.
Seriously, Steve's comments are not a review of the book, they're a review - and a very favourable and partial review - of Rennard's life. What next: John Wilkes Booth, best remembered as a jobbing actor?
Perhaps the final paragraph is the deepest sarcasm ever written on this site?
Mike wins that award.
This, of course, doesn’t really matter because Mrs May has said that there will not be another referendum and when she makes statements like that about elections we all know how much we can rely on them.
Re Brexit: the EU are not going to fly. The question is whether they've been drafted as they have:
1. Because the EU is full of politically tin-eared legalistic bureaucrats. 2. Because they want the UK to be the fall guy for talks that they expect to fail. 3. To draw leverage elsewhere. 4. As a gesture of support, solidarity and purpose but one which is ultimately not a red line. 5. To destablise the UK govt (if so, I think they've been counterproductive)
These are of course not mutually exclusive.
6. Because when the UK eventually backs down it can get some changes to the original document which it can then present as a victory.
My vote is on 6.
Why else would the UK government not have produced its own draft withdrawal text? Why else would it not have presented its own proposals for solving the Irish border problem?
Seriously, Steve's comments are not a review of the book, they're a review - and a very favourable and partial review - of Rennard's life. What next: John Wilkes Booth, best remembered as a jobbing actor?
Mr. Eagles, I find it hard to believe that supply of labour doesn't have *any* impact on wages. After the Black Death, wages for those at the lower end of society rose as there were too many fields and not enough workers to tend to them. Supply of labour fell sharply, wages rose quickly.
Well done on comparing immigrants to an actual plague.
Are you related to Max Mosley ?
He's wrong anyway because after the Black Death the Statute of Labourers in the UK ensured (with admittedly varied effect) that wages remained subdued, certainly below their market clearing level. Although real wages did rise a few decades later.
I think that the Staute of Labourers was intended to ensure that wages remained depressed, but I’m not too sure that it did. Wikipedia suggests that wages rose about 100% in the 100 years 1350-1450
I remember reading an excellent book many years ago by Barbara Tuchman, "A Distant Mirror" about the terrible 14th century. She looked at this in some detail and explained it was not so much a shortage of workers in the country but the need to stop the trend of those living in the country being attracted to the dizzy lights of city life. Where there had previously been surplus population to facilitate this that was no longer the case.
Here's a thing I do not get - if the Brexit Loons believe there is no need for any kind of border between the RoI and NI post-Brexit, why do they think there would need to be a border between a NI in the customs union and a mainland Britain outside of it?
ROI/NI is an issue that is handwaved away by people who have no understanding about the actual border, the border communities, the protagonists in the struggle, recent history, not so recent history or very recent history.
They treat it as a theoretical intellectual problem and liken it either to Switzerland or to Camden/Islington.
Were it not so serious it would be amusing.
There is currently a VAT border, corporation tax border and income tax border between NI and Ireland. This does not require people to be physically stopped at the border.
If no one is actually going to build border posts then it does actually become something of a "theoretical intellectual problem". Hypothesising that large, fully taxed and regulated businesses are somehow going to smuggle large quantities of goods via the Irish Sea is the epitome of a thought experiment that is destined to remain just that.
For all Boris's infelicity with analogies, an ANPR system may well be the limit of whatever gets built. Personally I would still expect a Canada+(+?) FTA which might render even that moot.
A FTA needs the T checking. Otherwise it is an open border.
Extraordinary development with the EU and the Customs Union. If this is as serious as it looks then the talks will collapse, the Moggites will be triumphant and we will have to start preparing for WTO terms. I would also expect Theresa to resign within days.
I agree with most of that, but why would Mrs May resign?
Mr. Blue, I agree on the SNP's constitutional tomfoolery.
Mr. Eagles, it's a clear historical instance whereby a rapid change to workforce numbers had a direct effect upon the wage situation. Of course, it's easier to not bother engaging with the argument I make and claim I compared migrants to the plague.
Leaving aside your ridiculous, and deliberate, distraction, your daft claim also confuses a rapidly diminishing workforce with a rising one. Unless you think the Black Death increased the population, of course...
It'd be easier to have civil discourse if people could engage with arguments rather than just hurl pejoratives at one another.
You made a ridiculous comparison.
Do you really think the circumstances of the 14th century are really comparable to events nearly 700 years later?
I've linked expert analysis with data proving the initial hypothesis was wrong.
Or do you genuinely an event which wiped out around 50% of Europe's population/workforce is comparable to Eastern Europeans moving to the UK?
2 and 2 made 4 in the 14th century, and the concept of doing a job for a wage was a thing then and now, and probably the 14th c employer and the 21st got a similar nice warm feeling when the ratio of job applicants to jobs rose, and v.v. So, yes, if we discard the superficial differences and look at the underlying principles, the C14th can tell us about the 21st. Not much point in history otherwise.
If you really think that the labour markets of the 14th and 21st Centuries are similar then that explains an awful lot about your posts.
Holy God.
Was the concept of working for a wage completely unknown in the 14th century?
Was it the case in the 14th century that demand for a good tended, other things being equal, to a. increase or b. decrease, the price of the good?
Re Brexit: the EU are not going to fly. The question is whether they've been drafted as they have:
1. Because the EU is full of politically tin-eared legalistic bureaucrats. 2. Because they want the UK to be the fall guy for talks that they expect to fail. 3. To draw leverage elsewhere. 4. As a gesture of support, solidarity and purpose but one which is ultimately not a red line. 5. To destablise the UK govt (if so, I think they've been counterproductive)
These are of course not mutually exclusive.
Also I wouldn't assume we won't sign. We need the transition. No doubt there will be a bit softening before that. But it is a pretty miserable affair, that I for one didn't vote for.
The bit saying that the European court of justice will be the arbiter of disputes over the withdrawal agreement is fairly provocative, too, in the context of the rest of the document.
And gives at least a shred of substance to the Rees Mogg 'vassal state' claim.
Mr. Eagles, leaving aside your decoy hysteria, the plague reduced the workforce. Large scale migration increases the workforce.
In your daft comparison, large scale migration would be similar to having no plague. A collapse in inward migration and having large numbers emigrate would be similar to the plague.
Apart from pretending that workforce numbers don't affect wages at all and completely getting wrong the comparison you yourself decided to make whilst simultaneously not engaging at all with the basic argument (number of the workforce affects wages), it's a worthy contribution.
I don't like making salty posts, but there's so much wrong with what you wrote, and obviously wrong at that, it'd be unseemly not to point that out.
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
You know all this about everyone in Hartlepool do you Roger?
Amazing.
Perhaps everything could be decided by you on our behalf. Off you go. Listen to the arguments for us and tell us what the answer is. From your home somewhere in another country where you won't be affected by the consequences for us here.
Lighten up! You need a few days in a health spa in Hartlipool
Mr. L, it's not often commented on, but even pre-Black Death the population was declining (about 10% over a few decades) due to repeated poor harvests. The plague's impact meant that the population at the end of the 14th century was something like 2.5m (3.5m at the end of the 13th), and wouldn't hit that relative high again for roughly 300 years.
European history could've been very different had the population not been reduced so rapidly.
Mr. Eagles, I find it hard to believe that supply of labour doesn't have *any* impact on wages. After the Black Death, wages for those at the lower end of society rose as there were too many fields and not enough workers to tend to them. Supply of labour fell sharply, wages rose quickly.
Well done on comparing immigrants to an actual plague.
Are you related to Max Mosley ?
He's wrong anyway because after the Black Death the Statute of Labourers in the UK ensured (with admittedly varied effect) that wages remained subdued, certainly below their market clearing level. Although real wages did rise a few decades later.
I think that the Staute of Labourers was intended to ensure that wages remained depressed, but I’m not too sure that it did. Wikipedia suggests that wages rose about 100% in the 100 years 1350-1450
I remember reading an excellent book many years ago by Barbara Tuchman, "A Distant Mirror" about the terrible 14th century. She looked at this in some detail and explained it was not so much a shortage of workers in the country but the need to stop the trend of those living in the country being attracted to the dizzy lights of city life. Where there had previously been surplus population to facilitate this that was no longer the case.
Some things don't really change.
Can’t recall who wrote it, but I gather that to maintain medieval cities, such as London, immigration for the countryside was essential as the rate of infant mortality was so high.
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
You know all this about everyone in Hartlepool do you Roger?
Amazing.
Perhaps everything could be decided by you on our behalf. Off you go. Listen to the arguments for us and tell us what the answer is. From your home somewhere in another country where you won't be affected by the consequences for us here.
Lighten up! You need a few days in a health spa in Hartlipool
I don't think you were joking.
Cyclefree sums up your pomposity and snobbery very well.
Re Brexit: the EU are not going to fly. The question is whether they've been drafted as they have:
1. Because the EU is full of politically tin-eared legalistic bureaucrats. 2. Because they want the UK to be the fall guy for talks that they expect to fail. 3. To draw leverage elsewhere. 4. As a gesture of support, solidarity and purpose but one which is ultimately not a red line. 5. To destablise the UK govt (if so, I think they've been counterproductive)
These are of course not mutually exclusive.
Also I wouldn't assume we won't sign. We need the transition. No doubt there will be a bit softening before that. But it is a pretty miserable affair, that I for one didn't vote for.
Indeed - any change to this text can be painted as a victory for the UK government, even though to all intents and purposes the principles remains the same. That way the UK gets to cave in a way that saves some face.
Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep
You know all this about everyone in Hartlepool do you Roger?
Amazing.
Perhaps everything could be decided by you on our behalf. Off you go. Listen to the arguments for us and tell us what the answer is. From your home somewhere in another country where you won't be affected by the consequences for us here.
Lighten up! You need a few days in a health spa in Hartlipool
Re Brexit: the EU are not going to fly. The question is whether they've been drafted as they have:
1. Because the EU is full of politically tin-eared legalistic bureaucrats. 2. Because they want the UK to be the fall guy for talks that they expect to fail. 3. To draw leverage elsewhere. 4. As a gesture of support, solidarity and purpose but one which is ultimately not a red line. 5. To destablise the UK govt (if so, I think they've been counterproductive)
These are of course not mutually exclusive.
(1) This is a treaty so it's bound to be legalistic. Eurocrats and the EU27 countries don't care about the others. It's not that they are malign. They are completely uninterested.
I don't think that's right.
I note a growing split between the more doctrinaire approach of the EU Commission and the more practical approach of the EU27.
Both want to protect the EU and its four freedoms, but there is a difference of views on how to do that.
Re Brexit: the EU are not going to fly. The question is whether they've been drafted as they have:
1. Because the EU is full of politically tin-eared legalistic bureaucrats. 2. Because they want the UK to be the fall guy for talks that they expect to fail. 3. To draw leverage elsewhere. 4. As a gesture of support, solidarity and purpose but one which is ultimately not a red line. 5. To destablise the UK govt (if so, I think they've been counterproductive)
These are of course not mutually exclusive.
(1) This is a treaty so it's bound to be legalistic. Eurocrats and the EU27 countries don't care about the others. It's not that they are malign. They are completely uninterested.
I don't think that's right.
I note a growing split between the more doctrinaire approach of the EU Commission and the more practical approach of the EU27.
Both want to protect the EU and its four freedoms, but there is a difference of views on how to do that.
What's your evidence, other than UK government briefing to the Telegraph?
BBC reporting No 10 will not sign off on this and in the end the EU is not going to get it's 50 billion
The BBC thinks either the UK accepts the EU position or there is no deal. In fact it's a negotiation between the two sides.
This is the biggest negotiation of our lifetime. The level of incomprehension of the process of negotiating is breath-taking. Especially the number of media pundits who think they have a right to know every element of the discussions, every step of the way.
Maybe they could be diverted to a day out at an abbatoir and a sausage factory instead. To see every step of the process there.
It's astonishing. It doesn't help that the government is in a weak Parliamentary position as there is then an inevitable desire to see it through a failing lens. And the Article 50 process undoubtedly gives the EU a structural advantage in the negotiation. But [most] UK journalists seem far too comfortable reporting only on the evolution of our position.
Maybe they need to draft Arlene Foster and the DUP into our negotiating team. They do at least know how to negotiate and play hardball until they get what they want.
The EU have crossed the Rubicon in interferring with the internal structure of the UK.
WTO it is. Fuck Off EU.
I think this is their first serious mistake and will harden public opinion against them
Why would they give a fig? If we trudge off with our tails between our legs, they will say it just proves that leaving the EU is no picnic. Our example will be cited as a sad but salutary lesson.
BBC reporting No 10 will not sign off on this and in the end the EU is not going to get it's 50 billion
The UK needs to come up with some solutions. So far, it has failed to do so. The choice is only the EU Way or No Way for as long as the UK government remains paralysed by the fear of upsetting the Brexit Loons.
I think a fine system should be introduced for every time you use the word "loons".
Here's a thing I do not get - if the Brexit Loons believe there is no need for any kind of border between the RoI and NI post-Brexit, why do they think there would need to be a border between a NI in the customs union and a mainland Britain outside of it?
ROI/NI is an issue that is handwaved away by people who have no understanding about the actual border, the border communities, the protagonists in the struggle, recent history, not so recent history or very recent history.
They treat it as a theoretical intellectual problem and liken it either to Switzerland or to Camden/Islington.
Were it not so serious it would be amusing.
There is currently a VAT border, corporation tax border and income tax border between NI and Ireland. This does not require people to be physically stopped at the border.
But there is no customs border. If there were, it would require goods to be checked at the border or something similar. Goods are the problem. People aren't.
Of course there is currently a customs border. For the zillionth time, it is illegal for booze'n'fags to be sold across the border without declaration to customs and payment of excise duty, yet there are no physical border checks. The same could of course apply to other goods. How many more times does this blindingly obvious point have to be made before people stop wilfully ignoring it?
In the same way that Obama's 'back of the queue' comment misunderstood the British psyche of bloody minded stubborn resistance to bullying so the EU may well find the UK's reaction to 'hard ball' may not be what they expected it would be.
Nothing will make a country rally round more than an unreasonable* external threat and, bar the ultra-remainer quislings, I can see a hardening in support for the government rather than a crumbling.
*Unreasonable in this context being an issue of perspective rather than absolutes - not that this distinction will matter to the reaction.
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
Given the courts have just ruled that we can't even deport European tramps, is there much scope for actually enforcing that?
Wasn't there a court case where the person could not be deported because they had a cat?
Yes - but would you want to live there permanently?
Funnily enough my ex partner did. He gave up advertising photography and moved there. He's now the formost sculptor in the Seychelles. It's a terrific place to live.
Foremost sculptor in The Seychelles? No 1 in a field of 1?
Or am I being unkind?
No I was! He's actually very good and is now working on several civic buildings like the Seychelles University with a statue of Plato. Not THAT one!!
Looking at Seychelles Uni I see it’s working with Gibraltar on the latter’s new University. Hmmmm
And I thought Basildon University Hospital was a bit of a stretch. Mind, Seychelles could be a good place to study.
Well if you google the University and see a front on shot of it you'll see his handiwork right in the centre of frame. A ten foot statue of Plato sitting down
Re Brexit: the EU are not going to fly. The question is whether they've been drafted as they have:
1. Because the EU is full of politically tin-eared legalistic bureaucrats. 2. Because they want the UK to be the fall guy for talks that they expect to fail. 3. To draw leverage elsewhere. 4. As a gesture of support, solidarity and purpose but one which is ultimately not a red line. 5. To destablise the UK govt (if so, I think they've been counterproductive)
These are of course not mutually exclusive.
6. Because when the UK eventually backs down it can get some changes to the original document which it can then present as a victory.
My vote is on 6.
Why else would the UK government not have produced its own draft withdrawal text? Why else would it not have presented its own proposals for solving the Irish border problem?
In answer to your first question because the UK government is incapable of coming with a coherent legally usable text. And to the second because it made commitments on the border that it had no intention of keeping, pace the Johnson letter leak.
This "negotiation" is looking ever more Greek. While we might criticise EU obduracy, Greek deception isn't something we should aspire to. We did much better than that before.
The EU have crossed the Rubicon in interferring with the internal structure of the UK.
WTO it is. Fuck Off EU.
It's not the EU, it's the Commission - and it has codified what was agreed in December. The UK government has chosen not to do that and so has ensured the EC text will be the basis for the negotiation. That is either incredibly stupid, or it has been agreed behind closed doors as a means for the UK to claim that any changes to the text that are now made represent a victory.
Extraordinary development with the EU and the Customs Union. If this is as serious as it looks then the talks will collapse, the Moggites will be triumphant and we will have to start preparing for WTO terms. I would also expect Theresa to resign within days.
We can only hope so. As I said at the time, agreeing to regulatory alignment to get through the Phase 1 was a disastrous mistake by May - if she had refused there is every chance the EU would have backed down at the time. But she was so determined to get her headline that stupidity won out - how could she not see that the EU would use this to undermine the entire trade negotiation process? What sort of idiot hands their opponent the option to get everything they want at the end of the day and then starts a negotiation?
This was a decision that, on its own, disqualifies May from the office of PM.
King Cole, mortality was very high due to disease. Believe the (initial) Black Death toll in London was 60%. Also, cities more prone to fire-related deaths.
Front Bench exclusive: The day Tom Watson almost convinced Jeremy Corbyn to resign as Labour leader
Jeremy Corbyn came within moments of resigning in 2016. That’s the claim in Front Bench’s exclusives extracts from the book Ten Years in the Death of the Labour Party, by Tom Harris, the Labour MP for Glasgow South from 2001 to 2015 and former shadow minister.
British politics doesn’t have much time for nostalgia. But as long ago as it may seem, it’s only nine months since strong and stable Theresa May blew her majority and Jeremy Corbyn went from being the Tories’ best vote winner to a genuine electoral threat. Before the 2017 election it was Labour that was tearing itself apart on Brexit, and the Conservatives who were remarkably united and certain of election victory.
And it all could’ve been very different had Corbyn resigned in July 2016.
Send in the deal maker
Harris tells the story of how, in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum and the overwhelming vote of no confidence in Corbyn by his own MPs, deputy Labour leader Tom Watson tried to do a deal with Corbyn to get him to stand down. MPs were angry at Corbyn’s poor referendum performance and terrified of the electoral doom he seemed to guarantee. Huge swathes of his shadow cabinet had resigned before forcing the confidence vote.
In Harris’s words, “Watson was, above all else, a deal maker”. If anyone could convince Corbyn to dislodge himself, it was Watson – and the Labour leaders’ team knew as much. Per Harris, “at one point, a request from Watson for a private one-on-one with his leader was rejected because Corbyn’s staff feared Watson might end up “bullying” Corbyn into doing something Corbyn might later regret”.
Nevertheless the two did meet, and Corbyn seriously considered his request. Indeed, a source close to Watson told Harris “He only changed his mind because Angela Eagle announced she was standing against him and that decided it for him. If she’d just waited until Tom had done his job, he might have gone.”
Around Aberfeldy there are several magnificent Beech hedges. Many were planted in 1745. Now, in 2018, Perth Council have decided that Beech is not a natural Scottish species and that these wonderful trees need to be cut down.
I'd love to say that this was a party political point but its not. Perth no longer has an SNP administration. It is led by the Tories with support from the Lib Dems. It is, however, as vivid a demonstration of stupidity, arrogance and deluded puritanism as you are likely to find today.
It's also worth pointing out that not everyone who voted Remain is an unpatriotic, metropolitan bleeding heart liberal elitist determined to do the country down in order to get a nanny for less than the going rate. Unfortunately, the Brexit process sis not working out as well as it could because the government has decided that Remain voters can be ignored.
Agree on 2nd para.
On 1st: yes - but it's not just perception. It's also experience. Some people's experience has not been as positive as you might think. If anything politicians have been far too slow to think about immigration's costs & benefits. For years they insisted that it was only a good thing. Then some of them jumped on a bandwagon and said that it was the cause of everything wrong. Neither are true of course. A bit more nuance from the start; a bit more willingness to engage with those who raised perfectly legitimate questions about the scale and type and consequences of virtually unrestricted immigration from the late 90's onwards would have worked wonders.
I have just finished reading Shipman's book and it still amazes me that the Remain campaign was so unwilling to engage with the immigration argument. It's as if they thought that if they ignored it it would go away. The same might be said of the EU as well.
Look how that has turned out.
And this is not just a British issue. The same issue is being raised in Italy and in Eastern Europe. In France barriers are being put up to migrants from Italy. Even the Germans are raising the issues about the costs (not just economic) of migration.
If only this had been looked at intelligently years ago we might not be in this mess now. Turning a blind eye is rarely a sensible policy.
It's very possible that the development of AI, drones and machine intelligence, together with an economic boom in Africa and Asia, renders concerns over mass immigration redundant over the next 15-20 years.
I never heard anyone on the Remain side making this (valid) argument, or anything similar.
In answer to your first question because the UK government is incapable of coming with a coherent legally usable text. And to the second because it made commitments on the border that it had no intention of keeping, pace the Johnson letter leak.
This "negotiation" is looking ever more Greek. While we might criticise EU obduracy, Greek deception isn't something we should aspire to. We did much better than that before.
What would be the equivalent for the U.K. of the Eurogroup’s demand that Greece build trust by fulfilling the terms of its 2012 bailout? In my view, at the very least the UK will have to agree in full to the EU’s demands regarding the financial settlement, the Northern Ireland border and the rights of migrants. There will be no discussion of anything else until it has signed up to these, preferably in blood.
The U.K. negotiators’ strategy is foolish in the extreme. They appear to think that if they dig their heels in over the financial settlement, eventually one or more EU countries will break ranks over trade negotiations. But if the Greek precedent is anything to go by, this is a vain hope. The EU27 know where their interests lie. They will stand firm over the Brexit negotiations just as the Eurozone did over Greece, and watch as the UK is dragged, kicking and screaming, over every one of its "red lines."
The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
Given the courts have just ruled that we can't even deport European tramps, is there much scope for actually enforcing that?
Wasn't there a court case where the person could not be deported because they had a cat?
Yes - but would you want to live there permanently?
Funnily enough my ex partner did. He gave up advertising photography and moved there. He's now the formost sculptor in the Seychelles. It's a terrific place to live.
Foremost sculptor in The Seychelles? No 1 in a field of 1?
Or am I being unkind?
No I was! He's actually very good and is now working on several civic buildings like the Seychelles University with a statue of Plato. Not THAT one!!
Looking at Seychelles Uni I see it’s working with Gibraltar on the latter’s new University. Hmmmm
And I thought Basildon University Hospital was a bit of a stretch. Mind, Seychelles could be a good place to study.
Well if you google the University and see a front on shot of it you'll see his handiwork right in the centre of frame. A ten foot statue of Plato sitting down
The bit saying that the European court of justice will be the arbiter of disputes over the withdrawal agreement is fairly provocative, too, in the context of the rest of the document.
And gives at least a shred of substance to the Rees Mogg 'vassal state' claim.
That is the reddest red line I can imagine. Surely not even the Remainers can be so traitorous as to suggest that we let the ECJ have jurisdiction on the withdrawal agreement itself. It would be utter insanity.
In the same way that Obama's 'back of the queue' comment misunderstood the British psyche of bloody minded stubborn resistance to bullying so the EU may well find the UK's reaction to 'hard ball' may not be what they expected it would be.
Nothing will make a country rally round more than an unreasonable* external threat and, bar the ultra-remainer quislings, I can see a hardening in support for the government rather than a crumbling.
*Unreasonable in this context being an issue of perspective rather than absolutes - not that this distinction will matter to the reaction.
"ultra remainer quisling" - Ah William Glenn you mean?
Agree that this could well be counter productive for them
The bit saying that the European court of justice will be the arbiter of disputes over the withdrawal agreement is fairly provocative, too, in the context of the rest of the document.
And gives at least a shred of substance to the Rees Mogg 'vassal state' claim.
That is the reddest red line I can imagine. Surely not even the Remainers can be so traitorous as to suggest that we let the ECJ have jurisdiction on the withdrawal agreement itself. It would be utter insanity.
Around Aberfeldy there are several magnificent Beech hedges. Many were planted in 1745. Now, in 2018, Perth Council have decided that Beech is not a natural Scottish species and that these wonderful trees need to be cut down.
I'd love to say that this was a party political point but its not. Perth no longer has an SNP administration. It is led by the Tories with support from the Lib Dems. It is, however, as vivid a demonstration of stupidity, arrogance and deluded puritanism as you are likely to find today.
Bah.
My sister lived in Aberfeldy for several years when her husband taught there, and her children all started school there. We visited several times. I’m horrified to read that. The hedges are a really notable feature.
The EU have crossed the Rubicon in interferring with the internal structure of the UK.
WTO it is. Fuck Off EU.
I think this is their first serious mistake and will harden public opinion against them
Why would they give a fig? If we trudge off with our tails between our legs, they will say it just proves that leaving the EU is no picnic. Our example will be cited as a sad but salutary lesson.
Re Brexit: the EU are not going to fly. The question is whether they've been drafted as they have:
1. Because the EU is full of politically tin-eared legalistic bureaucrats. 2. Because they want the UK to be the fall guy for talks that they expect to fail. 3. To draw leverage elsewhere. 4. As a gesture of support, solidarity and purpose but one which is ultimately not a red line. 5. To destablise the UK govt (if so, I think they've been counterproductive)
These are of course not mutually exclusive.
(1) This is a treaty so it's bound to be legalistic. Eurocrats and the EU27 countries don't care about the others. It's not that they are malign. They are completely uninterested.
I don't think that's right.
I note a growing split between the more doctrinaire approach of the EU Commission and the more practical approach of the EU27.
Both want to protect the EU and its four freedoms, but there is a difference of views on how to do that.
What's your evidence, other than UK government briefing to the Telegraph?
It has been widely reported in a number of media outlets.
You just don't want to see any ripples in your masters.
The UK may well end up being the sick man of Europe. But it is precisely because it hasn't been that that it has been drawing in so many people to come and work here from elsewhere in Europe. It has acted as the employer for the unemployed young of the rest of Europe. And the rest of Europe has been a touch slow to recognise that that imposes costs (as well as benefits) on the UK to which those countries have been unwilling to contribute. The idea that it is only the UK which is guilty of wanting to cherry-pick is for the birds, frankly.
Had FoM resulted in other countries being inundated by Britain's unemployed young I am quite certain that the EU would have made changes to the rules.
A number of countries in the EU receive a large number of people from other EU member states. Those that tend to attract older incomers - such as France and Spain - arguably have to deal with much higher costs than the UK does. We get significant benefits from attracting a largely younger set of incomers, who tend to use public services less and who pay a fair amount of tax. The UK is not a victim here and, of course, has always been able to impose limits on free movement for EU citizens, but has chosen not to.
Most significantly Blair failed to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
And no UK government has enforced rules that allow the UK to deport EU citizens who are here, but unable to support themselves.
You are (deliberately I think) missing the point. The issue is the severe downward impact of E European migrants on wage rates and employment prospects at the lower end of the labour market and the inequality that generates throughout the labour market. You choose to ignore that, relying instead on a straw man i.e. the bogus claim that migrants come here to rely on state benefits.
Thoiught there was an official, or otherwise reliable report that said that hadn’t happened.
Yup.
EU migrants have no negative effect on UK wages, says LSE.
Research blames 2008 recession for lower real salaries rather than rise in foreign workers, adding they paid more into UK economy than they took out
Well May has just told Barnier where to stick this agreement it seems.
And she has also said again that there will be no hard border between NI and the RoI. So now it's time for her to explain how that is going to be achieved.
Well May has just told Barnier where to stick this agreement it seems.
And she has also said again that there will be no hard border between NI and the RoI. So now it's time for her to explain how that is going to be achieved.
By stalling until everyone agrees that Brexit should be abandoned.
Mr. L, it's not often commented on, but even pre-Black Death the population was declining (about 10% over a few decades) due to repeated poor harvests. The plague's impact meant that the population at the end of the 14th century was something like 2.5m (3.5m at the end of the 13th), and wouldn't hit that relative high again for roughly 300 years.
European history could've been very different had the population not been reduced so rapidly.
The 100 years war could have been even more violent, exploration (and conquest) of the rest of the planet would have started 100-200 years earlier, Islam would probably have not got nearly so far into Europe as it did (although they were affected as well of course) and there may even have been more Crusades.
The black death seriously knocked the stuffing out of western Europe, no question.
Well May has just told Barnier where to stick this agreement it seems.
And she has also said again that there will be no hard border between NI and the RoI. So now it's time for her to explain how that is going to be achieved.
By the regulatory alignment she agreed to in December
In the same way that Obama's 'back of the queue' comment misunderstood the British psyche of bloody minded stubborn resistance to bullying so the EU may well find the UK's reaction to 'hard ball' may not be what they expected it would be.
Nothing will make a country rally round more than an unreasonable* external threat and, bar the ultra-remainer quislings, I can see a hardening in support for the government rather than a crumbling.
*Unreasonable in this context being an issue of perspective rather than absolutes - not that this distinction will matter to the reaction.
"ultra remainer quisling" - Ah William Glenn you mean?
Agree that this could well be counter productive for them
Could I make the suggestion of laying off the "quisling" rhetoric? Like the rest of us, you are not an self-evident patriot and hero yourself. I guess if you were one, you would be quietly proud of your achievements.
Well May has just told Barnier where to stick this agreement it seems.
And she has also said again that there will be no hard border between NI and the RoI. So now it's time for her to explain how that is going to be achieved.
By the regulatory alignment she agreed to in December
Around Aberfeldy there are several magnificent Beech hedges. Many were planted in 1745. Now, in 2018, Perth Council have decided that Beech is not a natural Scottish species and that these wonderful trees need to be cut down.
I'd love to say that this was a party political point but its not. Perth no longer has an SNP administration. It is led by the Tories with support from the Lib Dems. It is, however, as vivid a demonstration of stupidity, arrogance and deluded puritanism as you are likely to find today.
Bah.
My sister lived in Aberfeldy for several years when her husband taught there, and her children all started school there. We visited several times. I’m horrified to read that. The hedges are a really notable feature.
In the autumn they are one of the most remarkable sights in Scotland. Just stunning. This is vandalism on a Taliban scale (and shows a similar mind set).
The EU have crossed the Rubicon in interferring with the internal structure of the UK.
WTO it is. Fuck Off EU.
I think this is their first serious mistake and will harden public opinion against them
Why should they care about UK public opinion?
Because in 10, 15, 20, 100 years time we are still going to be neighbours.
The EU is repeating its apparent fixation with a 2- 4 year time frame and not giving (seemingly) much thought to the long term. Do they want "Canada" 21 miles from their "USA", similar but different, cooperative, friendly, supportive, or do they want a sort of Japan/China, spiky, suspicious, antagonistic relationship?
Today they have seemingly, in public at least, nudged a long way towards the latter, but as Bismarck said laws and sausages are best not made in public, so any form of backing away from this text by the EU could later be seen as something to sell to harder Brexiteers on the road to an eventual deal. Who knows?
Comments
That "tzeeeeeeeeeeee" noise is the sound of air escaping from your credibility.....
1. Because the EU is full of politically tin-eared legalistic bureaucrats.
2. Because they want the UK to be the fall guy for talks that they expect to fail.
3. To draw leverage elsewhere.
4. As a gesture of support, solidarity and purpose but one which is ultimately not a red line.
5. To destablise the UK govt (if so, I think they've been counterproductive)
These are of course not mutually exclusive.
Seriously, Steve's comments are not a review of the book, they're a review - and a very favourable and partial review - of Rennard's life. What next: John Wilkes Booth, best remembered as a jobbing actor?
What, me stir?
Mao: my life in long-distance walks.
Shipman: how to be a caring GP.
Peter Sutcliffe: life and loves on the road.
For all Boris's infelicity with analogies, an ANPR system may well be the limit of whatever gets built. Personally I would still expect a Canada+(+?) FTA which might render even that moot.
A simple yes or no will suffice
Eurocrats and the EU27 countries don't care about the others. It's not that they are malign. They are completely uninterested.
Was the concept of working for a wage completely unknown in the 14th century?
Was it the case in the 14th century that demand for a good tended, other things being equal, to a. increase or b. decrease, the price of the good?
And I thought Basildon University Hospital was a bit of a stretch. Mind, Seychelles could be a good place to study.
But a negotiating position.
This, of course, doesn’t really matter because Mrs May has said that there will not be another referendum and when she makes statements like that about elections we all know how much we can rely on them.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/02/22/how-opinion-on-brexit-has-moved-since-the-referendu/#vanilla-comments
My vote is on 6.
Why else would the UK government not have produced its own draft withdrawal text? Why else would it not have presented its own proposals for solving the Irish border problem?
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/amid-recrimination-shambolic-talks-collapse-prospects-restoration-stormont-look-bleak/
Some things don't really change.
And gives at least a shred of substance to the Rees Mogg 'vassal state' claim.
In your daft comparison, large scale migration would be similar to having no plague. A collapse in inward migration and having large numbers emigrate would be similar to the plague.
Apart from pretending that workforce numbers don't affect wages at all and completely getting wrong the comparison you yourself decided to make whilst simultaneously not engaging at all with the basic argument (number of the workforce affects wages), it's a worthy contribution.
I don't like making salty posts, but there's so much wrong with what you wrote, and obviously wrong at that, it'd be unseemly not to point that out.
European history could've been very different had the population not been reduced so rapidly.
Cyclefree sums up your pomposity and snobbery very well.
WTO it is. Fuck Off EU.
I note a growing split between the more doctrinaire approach of the EU Commission and the more practical approach of the EU27.
Both want to protect the EU and its four freedoms, but there is a difference of views on how to do that.
That's how much the stock of Boris has fallen.
It's a negotiating position for the EU - not a red line.
Nothing will make a country rally round more than an unreasonable* external threat and, bar the ultra-remainer quislings, I can see a hardening in support for the government rather than a crumbling.
*Unreasonable in this context being an issue of perspective rather than absolutes - not that this distinction will matter to the reaction.
This "negotiation" is looking ever more Greek. While we might criticise EU obduracy, Greek deception isn't something we should aspire to. We did much better than that before.
This was a decision that, on its own, disqualifies May from the office of PM.
Jeremy Corbyn came within moments of resigning in 2016. That’s the claim in Front Bench’s exclusives extracts from the book Ten Years in the Death of the Labour Party, by Tom Harris, the Labour MP for Glasgow South from 2001 to 2015 and former shadow minister.
British politics doesn’t have much time for nostalgia. But as long ago as it may seem, it’s only nine months since strong and stable Theresa May blew her majority and Jeremy Corbyn went from being the Tories’ best vote winner to a genuine electoral threat. Before the 2017 election it was Labour that was tearing itself apart on Brexit, and the Conservatives who were remarkably united and certain of election victory.
And it all could’ve been very different had Corbyn resigned in July 2016.
Send in the deal maker
Harris tells the story of how, in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum and the overwhelming vote of no confidence in Corbyn by his own MPs, deputy Labour leader Tom Watson tried to do a deal with Corbyn to get him to stand down. MPs were angry at Corbyn’s poor referendum performance and terrified of the electoral doom he seemed to guarantee. Huge swathes of his shadow cabinet had resigned before forcing the confidence vote.
In Harris’s words, “Watson was, above all else, a deal maker”. If anyone could convince Corbyn to dislodge himself, it was Watson – and the Labour leaders’ team knew as much. Per Harris, “at one point, a request from Watson for a private one-on-one with his leader was rejected because Corbyn’s staff feared Watson might end up “bullying” Corbyn into doing something Corbyn might later regret”.
Nevertheless the two did meet, and Corbyn seriously considered his request. Indeed, a source close to Watson told Harris “He only changed his mind because Angela Eagle announced she was standing against him and that decided it for him. If she’d just waited until Tom had done his job, he might have gone.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/28/front-bench-exclusive-day-tom-watson-almost-convinced-jeremy/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter
Around Aberfeldy there are several magnificent Beech hedges. Many were planted in 1745. Now, in 2018, Perth Council have decided that Beech is not a natural Scottish species and that these wonderful trees need to be cut down.
I'd love to say that this was a party political point but its not. Perth no longer has an SNP administration. It is led by the Tories with support from the Lib Dems. It is, however, as vivid a demonstration of stupidity, arrogance and deluded puritanism as you are likely to find today.
Bah.
I never heard anyone on the Remain side making this (valid) argument, or anything similar.
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/968822590428078080
https://twitter.com/steveparks/status/968821747108732928
https://twitter.com/patrick_kidd/status/968823200753897472
What would be the equivalent for the U.K. of the Eurogroup’s demand that Greece build trust by fulfilling the terms of its 2012 bailout? In my view, at the very least the UK will have to agree in full to the EU’s demands regarding the financial settlement, the Northern Ireland border and the rights of migrants. There will be no discussion of anything else until it has signed up to these, preferably in blood.
The U.K. negotiators’ strategy is foolish in the extreme. They appear to think that if they dig their heels in over the financial settlement, eventually one or more EU countries will break ranks over trade negotiations. But if the Greek precedent is anything to go by, this is a vain hope. The EU27 know where their interests lie. They will stand firm over the Brexit negotiations just as the Eurozone did over Greece, and watch as the UK is dragged, kicking and screaming, over every one of its "red lines."
Agree that this could well be counter productive for them
You just don't want to see any ripples in your masters.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/
The black death seriously knocked the stuffing out of western Europe, no question.
She thought Liam Fox, David Davis, and Boris Johnson were worthy of being in the cabinet, and George Osborne CH didn't.
As an aside, disease did really hollow out Constantinople, making it even harder to defend against the Turks.
The EU is repeating its apparent fixation with a 2- 4 year time frame and not giving (seemingly) much thought to the long term. Do they want "Canada" 21 miles from their "USA", similar but different, cooperative, friendly, supportive, or do they want a sort of Japan/China, spiky, suspicious, antagonistic relationship?
Today they have seemingly, in public at least, nudged a long way towards the latter, but as Bismarck said laws and sausages are best not made in public, so any form of backing away from this text by the EU could later be seen as something to sell to harder Brexiteers on the road to an eventual deal. Who knows?