It would be seriously out of character for her but is there a chance that May just might tell the EU where to go with this nonsense and become, you know, popular? That would be a turn up for the books.
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.
I have long believed the common brown rat has received very bad press over the years and that it remains unproven that it had anything whatsoever to do with it.
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
And today the EC has spelled out what it views as ongoing regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland. The PM has said that this is not acceptable. So time for her to spell out what is.
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
So she's going to extend it to the whole UK?
Today Barnier has angered a huge part of this Country and done enormous harm to his case
Working as I do in the corporate transactional sector, I see this in transactional terms. Our agreement with the EU in December was the Heads of Terms document, and what we have seen today is the first draft of the Purchase Agreement, the key transaction contract document.
In my sphere of work, it is very rare that the first draft of the Agreement completely reflects the Heads. More often than not, the lawyers who prepare the first draft of the document will take an aggressive stance and produce a document that is weighted heavily in favour of their client. In addition, the first draft of the Agreement will often expose the fact that there remain a number of issues that should have been resolved at Heads stage but haven't been.
This seems to be exactly what has happened here. It should come as no surprise that the EU's lawyers have produced a very aggressive and partisan document, and it should come as no surprise that we still need to agree issues not covered in December.
What happens from here? Well the first point is that no transaction document is ever agreed at the first draft stage. Second point is that the EU, by producing an aggressive document, will know that they will need to concede a number of key points throughout the process. Third point, the end document is usually one that is fair to both sides.
It would be seriously out of character for her but is there a chance that May just might tell the EU where to go with this nonsense and become, you know, popular? That would be a turn up for the books.
We've been here before, it didn't turn out too well.
Mr. L, weren't the crusades (to the Holy Land, anyway) largely done by then, though?
As an aside, disease did really hollow out Constantinople, making it even harder to defend against the Turks.
Yes they were but after the Plague there was no energy, personnel or resources to have another go. Add a few more million to the population of western Europe and a whole other set of pressures would have come into play.
Edit, pure speculation, but I also wonder if doing much for the Church was quite as popular after a series of horrors. As you said, it wasn't just the plague.
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.
Time to differentiate between a Uk built hard border and an EU (via their regional vassal state the ROI) built and manned hard border.
"You build a border if you want to" should be May's line.
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.
That's how hard climate change can hit you in pre-industrial societies.
Much of that was down to a diminution of the late medieval warm period, which affected harvests and probably made England more susceptible to nasty pandemics like the Plague.
Not the best time to be alive; it's a wonder we managed to fit in an hundred years war with France right in the middle of it, yet alone achieve several celebrated victories.
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.
Time to differentiate between a Uk built hard border and an EU (via their regional vassal state the ROI) built and manned hard border.
"You build a border if you want to" should be May's line.
Got it - so we take the international pariah, cannot be trusted, no trade deals and economic catastrophe route. I see.
Working as I do in the corporate transactional sector, I see this in transactional terms. Our agreement with the EU in December was the Heads of Terms document, and what we have seen today is the first draft of the Purchase Agreement, the key transaction contract document.
In my sphere of work, it is very rare that the first draft of the Agreement completely reflects the Heads. More often than not, the lawyers who prepare the first draft of the document will take an aggressive stance and produce a document that is weighted heavily in favour of their client. In addition, the first draft of the Agreement will often expose the fact that there remain a number of issues that should have been resolved at Heads stage but haven't been.
This seems to be exactly what has happened here. It should come as no surprise that the EU's lawyers have produced a very aggressive and partisan document, and it should come as no surprise that we still need to agree issues not covered in December.
What happens from here? Well the first point is that no transaction document is ever agreed at the first draft stage. Second point is that the EU, by producing an aggressive document, will know that they will need to concede a number of key points throughout the process. Third point, the end document is usually one that is fair to both sides.
Exactly. Though given this is politics and note pure "money" so to speak, there is a greater danger of one side telling the other to "go stick it".
It would be seriously out of character for her but is there a chance that May just might tell the EU where to go with this nonsense and become, you know, popular? That would be a turn up for the books.
Did the whole enemies of the people, they are sabotaging our election, no deal is better than a bad deal, citizens of nowhere thing pass you by??
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?
You think the mandate of 2016 will last a hundred years? That's bordering on insane.
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
Regulatory alignment means SM & CU, to all intents and purposes. This is impossiblle for TM. It is clear that the choice is between fully IN or completely OUT. Barnier has increased the risk of no deal.
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.
That's how hard climate change can hit you in pre-industrial societies.
Much of that was down to a diminution of the late medieval warm period, which affected harvests and probably made England more susceptible to nasty pandemics like the Plague.
Not the best time to be alive; it's a wonder we managed to fit in an hundred years war with France right in the middle of it, yet alone achieve several celebrated victories.
No doubt due to evil capitalist blacksmith forges belching out CO2.
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.
Time to differentiate between a Uk built hard border and an EU (via their regional vassal state the ROI) built and manned hard border.
"You build a border if you want to" should be May's line.
Got it - so we take the international pariah, cannot be trusted, no trade deals and economic catastrophe route. I see.
You forgot the outsourcing of maintaining our border to a foreign entity. Surely the very essence of taking back control?
It would be seriously out of character for her but is there a chance that May just might tell the EU where to go with this nonsense and become, you know, popular? That would be a turn up for the books.
We've been here before, it didn't turn out too well.
I remembered that and that's why I said it would be out of character. But the EU are massively overplaying their hand here. A cynic might wonder if there is lots of stuff in the draft to be taken out so that the ultimate deal becomes more sellable. Just maybe they have learned from their complete incompetence with Cameron after all.
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.
I have long believed the common brown rat has received very bad press over the years and that it remains unproven that it had anything whatsoever to do with it.
In Kelly's 'The Great Mortality', he lays the blame firmly at the foot, or possibly, whiskers of the marmot. Apparently trade routes shifted North under the Mongol khanate, and caravans from the east travelled through the marmotian heartlands. Bubonic plague is endemic among them.
On topic, it's time for May to take a lead from that wise statesman Jay-Z.
"I got 99 problems but a hard border with the Republic of Ireland ain't one"
It would be seriously out of character for her but is there a chance that May just might tell the EU where to go with this nonsense and become, you know, popular? That would be a turn up for the books.
Most people aren't following it, and those that are will only be doing so through their pre-existing prisms and prejudices.
So, no. Unless Barnier and Juncker come over to London, take a slash on Winston Churchill's statue whilst being filmed and shouting insults at him in French, break into the Victoria Tower at night to secretly raise an EU flag over the Houses of Parliament, and both personally pledge in the Guildhall to put the Queen's Corgis out of their misery, and install Tusk as President in Buckingham Palace, then no.
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?
You think the mandate of 2016 will last a hundred years? That's bordering on insane.
The EU won't last 100 years. Possibly not 40-50.
Just as the Thatcher reforms showed how a enterprising dynamic reforms in Britain could lead the way for soporific economies in Europe, so will Brexit.
Working as I do in the corporate transactional sector, I see this in transactional terms. Our agreement with the EU in December was the Heads of Terms document, and what we have seen today is the first draft of the Purchase Agreement, the key transaction contract document.
In my sphere of work, it is very rare that the first draft of the Agreement completely reflects the Heads. More often than not, the lawyers who prepare the first draft of the document will take an aggressive stance and produce a document that is weighted heavily in favour of their client. In addition, the first draft of the Agreement will often expose the fact that there remain a number of issues that should have been resolved at Heads stage but haven't been.
This seems to be exactly what has happened here. It should come as no surprise that the EU's lawyers have produced a very aggressive and partisan document, and it should come as no surprise that we still need to agree issues not covered in December.
What happens from here? Well the first point is that no transaction document is ever agreed at the first draft stage. Second point is that the EU, by producing an aggressive document, will know that they will need to concede a number of key points throughout the process. Third point, the end document is usually one that is fair to both sides.
Makes sense to me. The one caveat is that even though it is the UK requiring the changes to the status quo, the UK has left it to the EC to draft the document and so to set the terms of the negotiation. That is obviously because the government is not capable of agreeing its own document, but it does allow changes to the first draft to be portrayed as victories - something that will suit both sides, of course, if we get to a final deal. This may just be a very clever way of side-lining the loons.
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?
You think the mandate of 2016 will last a hundred years? That's bordering on insane.
"100" was a long term figure I plucked out of the air to illustrate a general point. Who knows where we will be in 100 years time, or 25 for that matter, of course.
However, the EU deep down are pretty good at tactics to be sure, but I cannot fathom their strategic goal? Surely they either, in general terms want a "Canada" to continue my analogy, or they wish to convince a large majority of us of the worth of the EU "Project" so we settle down to being good Europeans in their eyes, (the latter being something similar to your view perhaps?). I cant see that saying you want to economically snip off a bit of the UK does either for them across the broad generality of UK voters.
Insert "Corsica" into their text instead of "NI" and replace "ECJ" with "Supreme Court in London" and see how that would play in France?
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
And today the EC has spelled out what it views as ongoing regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland. The PM has said that this is not acceptable. So time for her to spell out what is.
When's 'That Speech' due? Is it tomorrow? Theresa needs to spell out, with the precision of a watchmaker and the clarity of a burbling creek, exactly what post-Brexit Britain will look like - NI border, customs arrangements, immigration levels, EU citizens' rights, the lot. Only then can we escape this quicksand.
The UK let the EU set the agenda because hugely complicated draft documents proposing treaties, amendments, relationships, is exactly what the EU is all about whereas I'm sure our expertise on the issue is lacking and hence we probably couldn't have produced such a document even if we had wanted.
That in itself speaks a lot for our preparedness for the forthcoming negotiations.
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
And today the EC has spelled out what it views as ongoing regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland. The PM has said that this is not acceptable. So time for her to spell out what is.
When's 'That Speech' due? Is it tomorrow? Theresa needs to spell out, with the precision of a watchmaker and the clarity of a burbling creek, exactly what post-Brexit Britain will look like - NI border, customs arrangements, immigration levels, EU citizens' rights, the lot. Only then can we escape this quicksand.
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
And today the EC has spelled out what it views as ongoing regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland. The PM has said that this is not acceptable. So time for her to spell out what is.
When's 'That Speech' due? Is it tomorrow? Theresa needs to spell out, with the precision of a watchmaker and the clarity of a burbling creek, exactly what post-Brexit Britain will look like - NI border, customs arrangements, immigration levels, EU citizens' rights, the lot. Only then can we escape this quicksand.
Daft negotiation tactics to reveal your hand with such clarity.
You never sensibly tell a future employer what salary you want in £ and pence - you let them make the offer and respond.
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
And today the EC has spelled out what it views as ongoing regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland. The PM has said that this is not acceptable. So time for her to spell out what is.
When's 'That Speech' due? Is it tomorrow? Theresa needs to spell out, with the precision of a watchmaker and the clarity of a burbling creek, exactly what post-Brexit Britain will look like - NI border, customs arrangements, immigration levels, EU citizens' rights, the lot. Only then can we escape this quicksand.
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
Regulatory alignment means SM & CU, to all intents and purposes. This is impossiblle for TM. It is clear that the choice is between fully IN or completely OUT. Barnier has increased the risk of no deal.
Only in regards to the border between NI and the Republic. Though the UK might have to replicate that to appease the DUP.
Free movement could still end though and we would still technically be out of the SM and CU
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
And today the EC has spelled out what it views as ongoing regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland. The PM has said that this is not acceptable. So time for her to spell out what is.
When's 'That Speech' due? Is it tomorrow? Theresa needs to spell out, with the precision of a watchmaker and the clarity of a burbling creek, exactly what post-Brexit Britain will look like - NI border, customs arrangements, immigration levels, EU citizens' rights, the lot. Only then can we escape this quicksand.
Daft negotiation tactics to reveal your hand with such clarity.
You never sensibly tell a future employer what salary you want in £ and pence - you let them make the offer and respond.
I think we're beyond that playground faux wisdom approach.
The EU seems to have spelled out what they want. It is now our turn and, as @GreenHeron has noted, eventually come to some agreement. Without our side of the proposals, the negotiations will be conducted entirely with reference to the EU's document.
That's a fall of just under a cent? Seems an appropriate response.
And fits the mood music on a day where Toy'R'Us (UK) has gone into liquidation and Maplin appears to be about to do the same.
We're dooommmed Capt Mainwaring! We're all dooommmed!!!!
That is nothing to do with Brexit but the advance of the internet and on line sales. It is just going to get worse for the high street and the blame, if you want to apportion blame, is with every on line shopper
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
And today the EC has spelled out what it views as ongoing regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland. The PM has said that this is not acceptable. So time for her to spell out what is.
When's 'That Speech' due? Is it tomorrow? Theresa needs to spell out, with the precision of a watchmaker and the clarity of a burbling creek, exactly what post-Brexit Britain will look like - NI border, customs arrangements, immigration levels, EU citizens' rights, the lot. Only then can we escape this quicksand.
Daft negotiation tactics to reveal your hand with such clarity.
You never sensibly tell a future employer what salary you want in £ and pence - you let them make the offer and respond.
I think we're beyond that playground faux wisdom approach.
The EU seems to have spelled out what they want. It is now our turn and, as @GreenHeron has noted, eventually come to some agreement. Without our side of the proposals, the negotiations will be conducted entirely with reference to the EU's document.
Did you miss the Florence speech ?
The EU are forcing the pace and the Uk is slow handing them - their weakness shows in their desperation.
I think we're beyond that playground faux wisdom approach.
The EU seems to have spelled out what they want. It is now our turn and, as @GreenHeron has noted, eventually come to some agreement. Without our side of the proposals, the negotiations will be conducted entirely with reference to the EU's document.
The problem is the one identified months ago - the EU has flatly refused to enter into substantive discussions about the future relationship until the 'withdrawal' (including the Irish border) has been agreed, but the Irish border issue is entirely about the future relationship. What is the UK supposed to do faced with this nonsensical approach? All we can do is what Theresa May has been doing, namely saying we want to discuss the future relationship.
I have mingled with the proles on the Daily Mail, and I can report that the main stories are Harry & Meghan, snow, snow, dangerous snow and comforting food to eat during Snowmageddon.
The EU malarkey appears about halfway down, after Toys-R-Us and a murder.
Working as I do in the corporate transactional sector, I see this in transactional terms. Our agreement with the EU in December was the Heads of Terms document, and what we have seen today is the first draft of the Purchase Agreement, the key transaction contract document.
In my sphere of work, it is very rare that the first draft of the Agreement completely reflects the Heads. More often than not, the lawyers who prepare the first draft of the document will take an aggressive stance and produce a document that is weighted heavily in favour of their client. In addition, the first draft of the Agreement will often expose the fact that there remain a number of issues that should have been resolved at Heads stage but haven't been.
This seems to be exactly what has happened here. It should come as no surprise that the EU's lawyers have produced a very aggressive and partisan document, and it should come as no surprise that we still need to agree issues not covered in December.
What happens from here? Well the first point is that no transaction document is ever agreed at the first draft stage. Second point is that the EU, by producing an aggressive document, will know that they will need to concede a number of key points throughout the process. Third point, the end document is usually one that is fair to both sides.
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
And today the EC has spelled out what it views as ongoing regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland. The PM has said that this is not acceptable. So time for her to spell out what is.
When's 'That Speech' due? Is it tomorrow? Theresa needs to spell out, with the precision of a watchmaker and the clarity of a burbling creek, exactly what post-Brexit Britain will look like - NI border, customs arrangements, immigration levels, EU citizens' rights, the lot. Only then can we escape this quicksand.
Daft negotiation tactics to reveal your hand with such clarity.
You never sensibly tell a future employer what salary you want in £ and pence - you let them make the offer and respond.
I think we're beyond that playground faux wisdom approach.
The EU seems to have spelled out what they want. It is now our turn and, as @GreenHeron has noted, eventually come to some agreement. Without our side of the proposals, the negotiations will be conducted entirely with reference to the EU's document.
Did you miss the Florence speech ?
The EU are forcing the pace and the Uk is slow handing them - their weakness shows in their desperation.
And they have shown their hand and caused great anger towards them from many which is likely, depending on how TM resists them to increase support for leaving
I think we're beyond that playground faux wisdom approach.
The EU seems to have spelled out what they want. It is now our turn and, as @GreenHeron has noted, eventually come to some agreement. Without our side of the proposals, the negotiations will be conducted entirely with reference to the EU's document.
The problem is the one identified months ago - the EU has flatly refused to enter into substantive discussions about the future relationship until the 'withdrawal' (including the Irish border) has been agreed, but the Irish border issue is entirely about the future relationship. What is the UK supposed to do faced with this nonsensical approach? All we can do is what Theresa May has been doing, namely saying we want to discuss the future relationship.
The EU is very willing - keen, even - to hear the UK government's proposals for cross-border trade in Ireland post-Brexit and how this will be managed - that is clear from the framework document signed in December. The problem is that the UK government has not come up with anything yet. Today's document is the EC's draft of what the fall-back position will be if the UK continues to fail to come up with proposals of its own.
I think we're beyond that playground faux wisdom approach.
The EU seems to have spelled out what they want. It is now our turn and, as @GreenHeron has noted, eventually come to some agreement. Without our side of the proposals, the negotiations will be conducted entirely with reference to the EU's document.
The problem is the one identified months ago - the EU has flatly refused to enter into substantive discussions about the future relationship until the 'withdrawal' (including the Irish border) has been agreed, but the Irish border issue is entirely about the future relationship. What is the UK supposed to do faced with this nonsensical approach? All we can do is what Theresa May has been doing, namely saying we want to discuss the future relationship.
She could explain what the future relationship looks like with reference to NI specifically. It would require a document, similar to the one that the EU has produced. You are saying that the EU's stance, which is either helpful or not depending upon your point of view, has completely hindered the UK government from saying anything they want either now, during the transition period, or post-transition as a future state between the two entities.
I have mingled with the proles on the Daily Mail, and I can report that the main stories are Harry & Meghan, snow, snow, dangerous snow and comforting food to eat during Snowmageddon.
The EU malarkey appears about halfway down, after Toys-R-Us and a murder.
That's the problem with the EU crying wolf and faking bluster and threats - it becomes boring.
I have mingled with the proles on the Daily Mail, and I can report that the main stories are Harry & Meghan, snow, snow, dangerous snow and comforting food to eat during Snowmageddon.
The EU malarkey appears about halfway down, after Toys-R-Us and a murder.
I have mingled with the proles on the Daily Mail, and I can report that the main stories are Harry & Meghan, snow, snow, dangerous snow and comforting food to eat during Snowmageddon.
The EU malarkey appears about halfway down, after Toys-R-Us and a murder.
Exactly
It blows your theory about a wave of anger sweeping across the nation out of the water.
Conservative Home got the 2005 Tory leadership result almost spot on in its poll then, it is normally pretty accurate on Tory members sentiment.
The March next leader poll tomorrow or Friday should confirm if May goes Tory members will elect Boris or Mogg to succeed her
You always bang on about this, but I see no evidence that the ConHome polls are in any way scientific or accurate.
The 2005 Conservative Home Tory members poll for the leadership which got Cameron's victory margin almost exactly right is evidence enough of its accuracy
I think we're beyond that playground faux wisdom approach.
The EU seems to have spelled out what they want. It is now our turn and, as @GreenHeron has noted, eventually come to some agreement. Without our side of the proposals, the negotiations will be conducted entirely with reference to the EU's document.
The problem is the one identified months ago - the EU has flatly refused to enter into substantive discussions about the future relationship until the 'withdrawal' (including the Irish border) has been agreed, but the Irish border issue is entirely about the future relationship. What is the UK supposed to do faced with this nonsensical approach? All we can do is what Theresa May has been doing, namely saying we want to discuss the future relationship.
But why did Theresa May and David Davis agree to such a sequencing ?
He promised us the row of the summer over it then surrendered like a Frenchman.
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.
Today's mortality rate is 100%. How high was it back then?
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.
I don`t think anything would make the country "rally round" T May and her bunch of hapless clowns. Even though Corbyn & Co have been doing their best.
I don`t usually refer to people as a "bunch", though that is something that seems to be finding its way into our usage. In the present case, it is the best collective noun that I can think of.
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.
Today's mortality rate is 100%. How high was it back then?
It was said that Black Death sufferers had breakfast with their families and dinner with their ancestors.
Conservative Home got the 2005 Tory leadership result almost spot on in its poll then, it is normally pretty accurate on Tory members sentiment.
The March next leader poll tomorrow or Friday should confirm if May goes Tory members will elect Boris or Mogg to succeed her
You always bang on about this, but I see no evidence that the ConHome polls are in any way scientific or accurate.
The 2005 Conservative Home Tory members poll for the leadership which got Cameron's victory margin almost exactly right is evidence enough of its accuracy
Urrrm, that's not the way it works, is it? For one thing, you're having to go back thirteen years to prove its accuracy. Secondly, even an RNG could get such things correct occasionally. A stopped clock is correct twice a day.
This is nothing to do with ConHome itself; I take all online polls pretending to take opinions with a massive dose of salt. They're almost all voodoo unless they go through some fairly severe hoops, which ConHome does not.
It seems more like you generally agree with the results it gets, and therefore you'd quite like it to be accurate.
And a badly informed one. Border checks would, as they did previously, provide a very convenient and literal target for those who want a united Ireland.
Not to understand this, to make the analogy with Camden and Islington (or Switzerland) is, as I say, to misunderstand the history of Ireland, of Irish Republicanism and of Irish Republicans and yes, to render the whole issue as a theoretical puzzle which can be solved logically.
I have mingled with the proles on the Daily Mail, and I can report that the main stories are Harry & Meghan, snow, snow, dangerous snow and comforting food to eat during Snowmageddon.
The EU malarkey appears about halfway down, after Toys-R-Us and a murder.
Exactly
It blows your theory about a wave of anger sweeping across the nation out of the water.
That will come as tonights news programmes focus on the stupid mistake by Barnier and of course TM speech on Friday will receive attention. Even Sky (Faisal Islam) is saying that TM's comment that no British PM can accept the EU position will play well in the Country
I have mingled with the proles on the Daily Mail, and I can report that the main stories are Harry & Meghan, snow, snow, dangerous snow and comforting food to eat during Snowmageddon.
The EU malarkey appears about halfway down, after Toys-R-Us and a murder.
That's the problem with the EU crying wolf and faking bluster and threats - it becomes boring.
They shot their load too early in 2017.
I doubt that the EU is even remotely concerned about the opinions of the readership of the Daily Mail.
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.
I have long believed the common brown rat has received very bad press over the years and that it remains unproven that it had anything whatsoever to do with it.
Conservative Home got the 2005 Tory leadership result almost spot on in its poll then, it is normally pretty accurate on Tory members sentiment.
The March next leader poll tomorrow or Friday should confirm if May goes Tory members will elect Boris or Mogg to succeed her
You always bang on about this, but I see no evidence that the ConHome polls are in any way scientific or accurate.
The 2005 Conservative Home Tory members poll for the leadership which got Cameron's victory margin almost exactly right is evidence enough of its accuracy
Urrrm, that's not the way it works, is it? For one thing, you're having to go back thirteen years to prove its accuracy. Secondly, even an RNG could get such things correct occasionally. A stopped clock is correct twice a day.
This is nothing to do with ConHome itself; I take all online polls pretending to take opinions with a massive dose of salt. They're almost all voodoo unless they go through some fairly severe hoops, which ConHome does not.
It seems more like you generally agree with the results it gets, and therefore you'd quite like it to be accurate.
Given the 2005 Tory leadership contest was the last time the members were consulted Conservative Home can only do as well as it has leadership contest to measure and last time it did it got the result almost spot on.
There is nothing wrong with online polls, yougov is now mainly online for example and Conservative Home filters out non members from its polls.
But if you want to believe Tory members will vote for Philip Hammond by a landslide be my guest!
Conservative Home got the 2005 Tory leadership result almost spot on in its poll then, it is normally pretty accurate on Tory members sentiment.
The March next leader poll tomorrow or Friday should confirm if May goes Tory members will elect Boris or Mogg to succeed her
You always bang on about this, but I see no evidence that the ConHome polls are in any way scientific or accurate.
The 2005 Conservative Home Tory members poll for the leadership which got Cameron's victory margin almost exactly right is evidence enough of its accuracy
Urrrm, that's not the way it works, is it? For one thing, you're having to go back thirteen years to prove its accuracy. Secondly, even an RNG could get such things correct occasionally. A stopped clock is correct twice a day.
This is nothing to do with ConHome itself; I take all online polls pretending to take opinions with a massive dose of salt. They're almost all voodoo unless they go through some fairly severe hoops, which ConHome does not.
It seems more like you generally agree with the results it gets, and therefore you'd quite like it to be accurate.
Given the 2005 Tory leadership contest was the last time the members were consulted Conservative Home can only do as well as it has leadership contest to measure and last time it did it got the result almost spot on.
There is nothing wrong with online polls, yougov is now mainly online for example and Conservative Home filters out non members from its polls.
But if you want to believe Tory members will vote for Philip Hammond by a landslide be my guest!
So you're claiming it's accurate on one data point, and that from a long time ago? The problems with that should be obvious.
I have issues with the way 'proper' polling companies run their on-line polls, and see no evidence that ConHome are even that strenuous.
The DUP are still the biggest party in NI post Brexit and the SNP also lost almost half their MPs post Brexit
Brexit hasn't yet happened. When the consequences of a hard Brexit dawn on the electorate in different parts of the UK, they will take action to try to reverse its adverse effects. I recall the map of the leave/remain areas of the UK on 24th June 2016 and it will bear fruit if a hard Brexit occurs. Cutting the UK (the sick man of Europe) down to size and stopping it prouncing in an Imperial manner on the world stage would be no bad thing in many foreigners' eyes.
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 to.
The people who move from the UK to France and Spain tend to be affluent retirees with moey to spend ie the equivalent of permanent tourists.
That may be so in France, less so in Spain. But they are all big users of public services - and the older they are the more they use them. That is a cost for the host country.
Aren't those healthcare costs recovered from the NHS ?
I don't think there's much doubt that France and Spain are net financial beneficaries from British expats.
The direct healthcare costs are - just as the UK can recover direct healthcare costs from other EU member states.
There is also little doubt that the UK is a net beneficiary from EU immigration.
A decade of stagnant wages and productivty and falling home ownership because the law of supply and demand doesn't apply to immigrants apparently.
And how does a town like Rotherham benefit from the thousands of East European Roma who have migrated there ?
Or does it not matter if 'people like them' are losing out as long as 'people like me' are benefitting ?
I think we're beyond that playground faux wisdom approach.
The EU seems to have spelled out what they want. It is now our turn and, as @GreenHeron has noted, eventually come to some agreement. Without our side of the proposals, the negotiations will be conducted entirely with reference to the EU's document.
The problem is the one identified months ago - the EU has flatly refused to enter into substantive discussions about the future relationship until the 'withdrawal' (including the Irish border) has been agreed, but the Irish border issue is entirely about the future relationship. What is the UK supposed to do faced with this nonsensical approach? All we can do is what Theresa May has been doing, namely saying we want to discuss the future relationship.
But why did Theresa May and David Davis agree to such a sequencing ?
He promised us the row of the summer over it then surrendered like a Frenchman.
If there is no trade deal agreed then there is no deal at all. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Th trade deal is necessary to resolve the Irish Border issue.
Even under WTO there is no need for a hard border since technology can cope with movements across the border - provided the UK and the EU agree. It's up to Ireland to get the EU to agree since hey would be the ones to suffer if there were barriers to exporting to NI.
Comments
In my sphere of work, it is very rare that the first draft of the Agreement completely reflects the Heads. More often than not, the lawyers who prepare the first draft of the document will take an aggressive stance and produce a document that is weighted heavily in favour of their client. In addition, the first draft of the Agreement will often expose the fact that there remain a number of issues that should have been resolved at Heads stage but haven't been.
This seems to be exactly what has happened here. It should come as no surprise that the EU's lawyers have produced a very aggressive and partisan document, and it should come as no surprise that we still need to agree issues not covered in December.
What happens from here? Well the first point is that no transaction document is ever agreed at the first draft stage. Second point is that the EU, by producing an aggressive document, will know that they will need to concede a number of key points throughout the process. Third point, the end document is usually one that is fair to both sides.
Edit, pure speculation, but I also wonder if doing much for the Church was quite as popular after a series of horrors. As you said, it wasn't just the plague.
"You build a border if you want to" should be May's line.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/02/our-survey-eight-in-ten-party-members-oppose-membership-of-a-customs-union-with-the-eu.html
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/968828404517736448
Much of that was down to a diminution of the late medieval warm period, which affected harvests and probably made England more susceptible to nasty pandemics like the Plague.
Not the best time to be alive; it's a wonder we managed to fit in an hundred years war with France right in the middle of it, yet alone achieve several celebrated victories.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/28/brexit-eu-set-unveil-controversial-irish-border-treaty-theresa/
"Mr Barnier is asked why the document seems to accept there can be an east-west Irish border, but no north-south border.
Mr Barnier dodges the question, then gathers his papers and leaves the podium. "
On topic, it's time for May to take a lead from that wise statesman Jay-Z.
"I got 99 problems but a hard border with the Republic of Ireland ain't one"
Admittedly the original scans better.
So, no. Unless Barnier and Juncker come over to London, take a slash on Winston Churchill's statue whilst being filmed and shouting insults at him in French, break into the Victoria Tower at night to secretly raise an EU flag over the Houses of Parliament, and both personally pledge in the Guildhall to put the Queen's Corgis out of their misery, and install Tusk as President in Buckingham Palace, then no.
And I'm not sure even then.
Just as the Thatcher reforms showed how a enterprising dynamic reforms in Britain could lead the way for soporific economies in Europe, so will Brexit.
However, the EU deep down are pretty good at tactics to be sure, but I cannot fathom their strategic goal? Surely they either, in general terms want a "Canada" to continue my analogy, or they wish to convince a large majority of us of the worth of the EU "Project" so we settle down to being good Europeans in their eyes, (the latter being something similar to your view perhaps?). I cant see that saying you want to economically snip off a bit of the UK does either for them across the broad generality of UK voters.
Insert "Corsica" into their text instead of "NI" and replace "ECJ" with "Supreme Court in London" and see how that would play in France?
But it's a negotiation. Long way to go.
That in itself speaks a lot for our preparedness for the forthcoming negotiations.
You never sensibly tell a future employer what salary you want in £ and pence - you let them make the offer and respond.
The March next leader poll tomorrow or Friday should confirm if May goes Tory members will elect Boris or Mogg to succeed her
Brexit is already undermining rule of law in the UK
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2018/02/brexit-already-undermining-rule-law-uk
A necessary process both for the negotiations and the politics of selling it.
We're dooommmed Capt Mainwaring! We're all dooommmed!!!!
Free movement could still end though and we would still technically be out of the SM and CU
The EU seems to have spelled out what they want. It is now our turn and, as @GreenHeron has noted, eventually come to some agreement. Without our side of the proposals, the negotiations will be conducted entirely with reference to the EU's document.
Volume 1 indeed...
The EU are forcing the pace and the Uk is slow handing them - their weakness shows in their desperation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/28/remainers-scaremongering-irish-border-becoming-actually-dangerous/
The EU malarkey appears about halfway down, after Toys-R-Us and a murder.
That is going to be popular
Now that really is nonsensical.
They shot their load too early in 2017.
Liam Neeson?
He promised us the row of the summer over it then surrendered like a Frenchman.
I don`t usually refer to people as a "bunch", though that is something that seems to be finding its way into our usage. In the present case, it is the best collective noun that I can think of.
This is nothing to do with ConHome itself; I take all online polls pretending to take opinions with a massive dose of salt. They're almost all voodoo unless they go through some fairly severe hoops, which ConHome does not.
It seems more like you generally agree with the results it gets, and therefore you'd quite like it to be accurate.
Not to understand this, to make the analogy with Camden and Islington (or Switzerland) is, as I say, to misunderstand the history of Ireland, of Irish Republicanism and of Irish Republicans and yes, to render the whole issue as a theoretical puzzle which can be solved logically.
Edit: Beaten to it by CR!
NEW THREAD
A recent study fingers human ectoparasites - fleas and lice:
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/6/1304.full.pdf
There is nothing wrong with online polls, yougov is now mainly online for example and Conservative Home filters out non members from its polls.
But if you want to believe Tory members will vote for Philip Hammond by a landslide be my guest!
I have issues with the way 'proper' polling companies run their on-line polls, and see no evidence that ConHome are even that strenuous.
And BTW, I don't want to believe any such thing!
And how does a town like Rotherham benefit from the thousands of East European Roma who have migrated there ?
Or does it not matter if 'people like them' are losing out as long as 'people like me' are benefitting ?
It was clear from 2003 onwards that the political pendulum was swinging rightwards.
The LibDems tried to stop that in 2005 instead of using it to their advantage.
Even under WTO there is no need for a hard border since technology can cope with movements across the border - provided the UK and the EU agree. It's up to Ireland to get the EU to agree since hey would be the ones to suffer if there were barriers to exporting to NI.