In 1974 Britain voted for the worst Government in its history and had to put up with 5 years of utter turmoil. In 2016 we voted leave. The electorate will have to deal with the outcome of what they voted for. Thats how democracy works. As I said I voted remain but i am now so fed up with the EU I think we should leave with no deal.The EU clearly realise that Britain leaving could mean the end of the EU which is why they are not respecting the democratic decision of a member country.
Since the EU continues to try and play hardball on its own chosen ground, I think the time has come for the UK government to publish two things:
That might concentrate minds in Brussels just a bit, but more importantly it would concentrate minds in governments in Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Dublin etc. As things stand, unless the EU changes tack the UK's first draft would be the only one worth discussing.
There are plenty of impact assessment studies out there looking at what might happen in the EU27 countries under various Brexit scenarios. Individual governments have no doubt done their own ones - Ireland has, for sure. What they all show is that however bad the impact is for individual EU27 it is worse for the UK.
Of course, the UK government could have produced its own draft withdrawal document today, last week or last month. It has not done so because it does not yet know what it wants. Given we are now 13 months from leaving you can't blame the EC for having a go at one itself.
Indeed, considering the difficulty our government found producing an impact assessment of No Deal Brexit on the UK, it does seem touchingly optomistic to expect them to produce 27 on other countries.
Brexit was always going to be difficult, even with a competent, diligent and industrious team working on a common plan. Putting it in the hands of an incompetent, slapdash, lazy team who fight amongst themselves means that it is the EU Deal or No Deal. Fortunately the EU team have put together a reasonable plan to cover our arses. Beggars cannot be choosers.
I’ve figured out that the best guide to what will happen in Brexit is going back over old Dan Hannan speeches and identifying those things he ruled out as loony.
Did "Sir" John Major give a free-vote over Maastricht?
I seem to remember it was a whipped vote and afterwards Tebbit went on telly and complained that the whips were literally pinning young MP's up against the wall by their throats to get them to vote with the government....
Now all of a sudden Major thinks there should be a free vote on Brexit?
I can't find a source, but surely the very fact that the Maastrict rebels are described as such suggests it was whipped.
Peoples' attitudes towards sexual morality don't seem to change as they get older. OTOH, peoples' attitudes towards both the EU and immigration do seem to.
In 1975, 61% of 18-29 year olds backed Remain. 41 years on, about 36% of the same voters, now aged 59-70, did so.
In 2016, 71% of 18-24 year olds backed Remain. If you are talking about being on the side of history ....
Sure, but that's a different group of voters. The original point was whether political views evolved over the course of one's lifetime. In the case of the voters of 1975, they did.
But current twenty somethings aren't saying they were misled by Edward Heath into thinking they were only joining a Common Market. They are voting for the EU as it is and they are happy with it. Their view is just as valid as that of disillusioned oldies. It happens there were slightly fewer of them, at least who could be bothered to vote, so disillusioned oldies pipped the post on the result.
I’ve figured out that the best guide to what will happen in Brexit is going back over old Dan Hannan speeches and identifying those things he ruled out as loony.
Nobody seems that excited about temporary rules during transitions - you need to focus on the medium to long term.
She's going to concede on a customs union, you might as well brace yourself now.
Not sure she will, actually.
I think she has the votes.
Major et al didn't make a speech when the rebels had the votes.
She will , May will call it a customs arrangement, to make you happy.
The one thing May said at PMQ's was that Corbyn wants a custom union and then be able to negotiate UK's own trade deals and she wants to negotiate our own trade deals and have a trade deal with the EU so welcome to labour coming onto the same page as she is on
May is hardline on something = she is so weak and beholden to the arch-Brexiteers May concedes on something = she is so weak and always surrenders Barnier is hardline on something = the EU is just rightfully exploiting its superior leverage Barnier concedes on something = there was no concession, quick let's talk about X instead...
Did "Sir" John Major give a free-vote over Maastricht?
I seem to remember it was a whipped vote and afterwards Tebbit went on telly and complained that the whips were literally pinning young MP's up against the wall by their throats to get them to vote with the government....
Now all of a sudden Major thinks there should be a free vote on Brexit?
Nah, that was because Sir David Lightbown was huge both in height and girth, in the lobbies there's not much room.
I have never used the mute button so much as recently hearing second rate journalist putting their particular spin on Brexit including Islam and Boulton who are impossibly pro EU. We deserve better journalists and politicians and someone who can provide a non biased sensible explanation of the way forward.
Major and others putting forward a second referendum have no idea of the complexity of holding one, the questions and who sets them, the time scale through the HOC and HOL and what happens if it is much the same
They are so desperate to overturn Brexit, they will take any route.
For Major, it is clear that he sees the years of pain in vain. Finally beasted by the bastards, he will be remembered for actually achieving nothing.
In 1974 Britain voted for the worst Government in its history and had to put up with 5 years of utter turmoil. In 2016 we voted leave. The electorate will have to deal with the outcome of what they voted for. Thats how democracy works. As I said I voted remain but i am now so fed up with the EU I think we should leave with no deal.The EU clearly realise that Britain leaving could mean the end of the EU which is why they are not respecting the democratic decision of a member country.
Since the EU continues to try and play hardball on its own chosen ground, I think the time has come for the UK government to publish two things:
1. A first draft of a very limited treaty that would govern relations between the UK and EU in the event that we had to leave under WTO rules, setting out what limited variations on WTO and other concessions say on financial services the EU would be expected to make in return for selective concessions the UK were prepared to make, as well as clarifying what was non-negotiable. Essentially the basis of a minimalist agreement under what would still be in essence a hard Brexit "no deal" scenario.
2. A parallel impact study on the EU (country by country) of the impact of no deal. That would spell out for example the impact of the immediate loss of UK budget contributions and for example the impact of WTO tariffs on the volume of their future exports to the UK and the subsequent erosion of the massive trade surplus in goods with the UK.
That might concentrate minds in Brussels just a bit, but more importantly it would concentrate minds in governments in Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Dublin etc. As things stand, unless the EU changes tack the UK's first draft would be the only one worth discussing.
The first part of that makes a lot of sense. Although if the UK had the legal or political brains to do that, surely they'd have presented their proposed withdrawal treaty to the EU, rather than the other way round?
Yep - we had every right to put together our own document - especially as we are the ones leaving and creating problems that need solving. Unfortunately, though, the government cannot agree what it wants and so is not in a position to make any suggestions. It has therefore fallen to the EU to take the initiative and so now the entire negotiation will be about the EC document and how that should be amended, rather than on groundwork done by the UK. It's another unforced error you can throw in with triggering Article 50 without a plan and drawing red lines to appease the Loons. And it's all about just one thing: keeping Theresa May in 10 Downing Street.
Did "Sir" John Major give a free-vote over Maastricht?
I seem to remember it was a whipped vote and afterwards Tebbit went on telly and complained that the whips were literally pinning young MP's up against the wall by their throats to get them to vote with the government....
Now all of a sudden Major thinks there should be a free vote on Brexit?
I can't find a source, but surely the very fact that the Maastrict rebels are described as such suggests it was whipped.
If so, I am stunned by the hypocrisy.
Jacob Rees-Mogg demolishes John Major:
“Did John Major give a free vote on Maastricht? This is where he really is guilty of being a complete humbug. He whipped that through in the most aggressive whipping in modern history. For that PM to then say ‘oh it should be a free vote’, is either forgetting how he behaved himself, ignoring how he behaved himself, or just straight forward hypocrisy.”
Maybe we should just invade and conquer Eire. That would solve the EU's apparent difficulties and even with our much diminished forces probably wouldn't take more than a few days.
Or maybe we can finally agree that trying to resolve the status of the Irish border separately from our relationship with the EU generally is simply nuts and that the EU position is completely barking. If we have a FTA with the EU what problem exists on the EIre border that does not exist right now and which both sides are quite happy to ignore? The only thing I can think of is third party imports into Eire or the UK. Surely that is just paperwork? And once again exactly the same issue we need to resolve with the rest of the EU?
I think the EU position on the Irish border, unlike ours, is crystal clear and logical. (a) They need to control what happens on their territory. (b) They are committed by treaty to not operating the Irish border. Logically his means their control needs to extend past that border. Of course that means controlling territory that is not theirs. The UK understandably objects to that. The UK position on the Irish border is that it commits it to be open, it will control it and in any case it doesn't matter whether it's open or not. The only way these contradictions will be resolved is if the UK commits to controlling Northern Ireland on a identical basis to the EU. So far it has refused to do so.
The ball is in our court. We can continue to reject common regulation with the EU for Northern Ireland and take our chance on either the EU folding or doing without a transition. I don't rate that chance particularly highly. The government thought they could get away with making casual commitments that they could quietly forget about. That won't work.
They are committed by treaty to not operating the Irish border.
Which treaty is this?
Actually Ireland and the UK are committed by the British Irish Agreement (GFA), and are backed by the EU, to develop where possible institutions and procedures that apply to the whole of the island of Ireland. They have done this to a significant extent.
(A correction to what I wrote).
It's perhaps surprising how little trade there is across the Irish Border. Ireland exports eleven times as much to rUK as it does to Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland sells about four times as much to rUK as to Ireland.
How much of that is phantom exports? I imagine Ireland has a fair amount of intellectual property being exported via transfer pricing.
I'm confused. Is John Major an utter non-entity that no-one will listen to, or a Titan of Brexitology and Influential Figure who must be destroyed.
Lot of leavers claiming the former, but behaving as though the latter is true.
Neither. A lot of people my age are 'triggered', as I believe modern parlance has it, by John 'ERM' Major.
I quite liked him, up until he ruined my finances. He's also the chap who signed us up to Maastricht, without being clear what he was doing (c.f. his subsequent complaints).
I should be clear, I don't mind the various ex-PMs piping up, or the clamour for additional referendums and so forth. It's the sign of a healthy democracy. I don't think the noises off are making May's job any easier, but that's what she gets paid the big bucks for.
In 1974 Britain voted for the worst Government in its history and had to put up with 5 years of utter turmoil. In 2016 we voted leave. The electorate will have to deal with the outcome of what they voted for. Thats how democracy works. As I said I voted remain but i am now so fed up with the EU I think we should leave with no deal.The EU clearly realise that Britain leaving could mean the end of the EU which is why they are not respecting the democratic decision of a member country.
Since the EU continues to try and play hardball on its own chosen ground, I think the time has come for the UK government to publish two things:
That might concentrate minds in Brussels just a bit, but more importantly it would concentrate minds in governments in Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Dublin etc. As things stand, unless the EU changes tack the UK's first draft would be the only one worth discussing.
There are plenty of impact assessment studies out there looking at what might happen in the EU27 countries under various Brexit scenarios. Individual governments have no doubt done their own ones - Ireland has, for sure. What they all show is that however bad the impact is for individual EU27 it is worse for the UK.
Of course, the UK government could have produced its own draft withdrawal document today, last week or last month. It has not done so because it does not yet know what it wants. Given we are now 13 months from leaving you can't blame the EC for having a go at one itself.
Indeed, considering the difficulty our government found producing an impact assessment of No Deal Brexit on the UK, it does seem touchingly optomistic to expect them to produce 27 on other countries.
Brexit was always going to be difficult, even with a competent, diligent and industrious team working on a common plan. Putting it in the hands of an incompetent, slapdash, lazy team who fight amongst themselves means that it is the EU Deal or No Deal. Fortunately the EU team have put together a reasonable plan to cover our arses. Beggars cannot be choosers.
It turned out the Government did have impact assessments. They showed Brexit to be a bad idea, so the Government wasn't keen to release them and ministers resorted to trashing their own assessments.
Did "Sir" John Major give a free-vote over Maastricht?
I seem to remember it was a whipped vote and afterwards Tebbit went on telly and complained that the whips were literally pinning young MP's up against the wall by their throats to get them to vote with the government....
Now all of a sudden Major thinks there should be a free vote on Brexit?
I can't find a source, but surely the very fact that the Maastrict rebels are described as such suggests it was whipped.
If so, I am stunned by the hypocrisy.
Jacob Rees-Mogg demolishes John Major:
“Did John Major give a free vote on Maastricht? This is where he really is guilty of being a complete humbug. He whipped that through in the most aggressive whipping in modern history. For that PM to then say ‘oh it should be a free vote’, is either forgetting how he behaved himself, ignoring how he behaved himself, or just straight forward hypocrisy.”
And the Moggster knows all about hypocrisy, of course:
Maybe we should just invade and conquer Eire. That would solve the EU's apparent difficulties and even with our much diminished forces probably wouldn't take more than a few days.
Or maybe we can finally agree that trying to resolve the status of the Irish border separately from our relationship with the EU generally is simply nuts and that the EU position is completely barking. If we have a FTA with the EU what problem exists on the EIre border that does not exist right now and which both sides are quite happy to ignore? The only thing I can think of is third party imports into Eire or the UK. Surely that is just paperwork? And once again exactly the same issue we need to resolve with the rest of the EU?
The ball is in our court. We can continue to reject common regulation with the EU for Northern Ireland and take our chance on either the EU folding or doing without a transition. I don't rate that chance particularly highly. The government thought they could get away with making casual commitments that they could quietly forget about. That won't work.
John Major agrees: "And just at the moment when Theresa May is trying to inch her party forward, a warning, from prime minister to prime minister, not just that her approach is wrongheaded, but that her ultimate goal may be impossible to achieve." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43229962
Maybe she's got more balls than you, Mr Major.....
Major is a joke. He screwed his own Premiership by taking us into the ERM when he was Chancellor and then got walked all over by the EU to the extent he ended up writing snotty letters to them moaning about how mean they were.
Then he has the audacity to criticise how other people try to deal with the issues he helped to cause. He is a loser who should just shut up.
You might like to know that the fake news you were peddling on here before the referendum has been corrected:
The point remains. While the least developed countries get tariff free access, lower middle income ones (i.e. those that have escaped failed state status and have growth potential) have to pay tariffs. And both are undermined by the EU's subsidies for its own producers.
May is hardline on something = she is so weak and beholden to the arch-Brexiteers May concedes on something = she is so weak and always surrenders Barnier is hardline on something = the EU is just rightfully exploiting its superior leverage Barnier concedes on something = there was no concession, quick let's talk about X instead...
It's no-one's fault but May's that she vowed to limit the rights of EU citizens coming to the UK during the transition.
I have never used the mute button so much as recently hearing second rate journalist putting their particular spin on Brexit including Islam and Boulton who are impossibly pro EU. We deserve better journalists and politicians and someone who can provide a non biased sensible explanation of the way forward.
Major and others putting forward a second referendum have no idea of the complexity of holding one, the questions and who sets them, the time scale through the HOC and HOL and what happens if it is much the same
They are so desperate to overturn Brexit, they will take any route.
For Major, it is clear that he sees the years of pain in vain. Finally beasted by the bastards, he will be remembered for actually achieving nothing.
Did "Sir" John Major give a free-vote over Maastricht?
I seem to remember it was a whipped vote and afterwards Tebbit went on telly and complained that the whips were literally pinning young MP's up against the wall by their throats to get them to vote with the government....
Now all of a sudden Major thinks there should be a free vote on Brexit?
I can't find a source, but surely the very fact that the Maastrict rebels are described as such suggests it was whipped.
If so, I am stunned by the hypocrisy.
Jacob Rees-Mogg demolishes John Major:
“Did John Major give a free vote on Maastricht? This is where he really is guilty of being a complete humbug. He whipped that through in the most aggressive whipping in modern history. For that PM to then say ‘oh it should be a free vote’, is either forgetting how he behaved himself, ignoring how he behaved himself, or just straight forward hypocrisy.”
So? What does it matter? That was then, this is now. What happened 25 years ago is hardly relevant. It is a bit like Labour still blaming Maggie for everything 30-ish years after she lost power.
I'm confused. Is John Major an utter non-entity that no-one will listen to, or a Titan of Brexitology and Influential Figure who must be destroyed.
Lot of leavers claiming the former, but behaving as though the latter is true.
Neither. A lot of people my age are 'triggered, as I believe modern parlance has it, by John 'ERM' Major.
I quite liked him, up until he ruined my finances. He's also the chap who signed us up to Maastricht, without being clear what he was doing (c.f. his subsequent complaints).
I should be clear, I don't mind the various ex-PMs piping up, or the clamour for additional referendums and so forth. It's the sign of a healthy democracy. I don't think the noises off are making May's job any easier, but that's what she gets paid the big bucks for.
I think that feelings ran very deep for a long time over the ERM fiasco, the interest rate hikes, and the repossessions. A lot of voters took their revenge in 1997.
Peoples' attitudes towards sexual morality don't seem to change as they get older. OTOH, peoples' attitudes towards both the EU and immigration do seem to.
In 1975, 61% of 18-29 year olds backed Remain. 41 years on, about 36% of the same voters, now aged 59-70, did so.
In 2016, 71% of 18-24 year olds backed Remain. If you are talking about being on the side of history ....
Sure, but that's a different group of voters. The original point was whether political views evolved over the course of one's lifetime. In the case of the voters of 1975, they did.
But current twenty somethings aren't saying they were misled by Edward Heath into thinking they were only joining a Common Market. They are voting for the EU as it is and they are happy with it. Their view is just as valid as that of disillusioned oldies. It happens there were slightly fewer of them, at least who could be bothered to vote, so disillusioned oldies pipped the post on the result.
But of course the EU as it is, is not the EU as it will be in 40 years time. Just as the EEC that was voted for in 1975 is not the EU that we have today. The overwhelming majority of those young voting for Remain today will not have looked in detail at what the EU aspires to nor the meaning of the various treaties we signed up to.
Moreover the majority of those voting in a hypothetical referendum in 40 years time will have grown up never having known membership of the EU and - like me - will not have had a chance to vote in a previous referendum on the matter. The idea that you can predict how their views will have developed in the intervening years is ludicrous.
a)May is hardline on something = she is so weak and beholden to the arch-Brexiteers b)May concedes on something = she is so weak and always surrenders c)Barnier is hardline on something = the EU is just rightfully exploiting its superior leverage d)Barnier concedes on something = there was no concession, quick let's talk about X instead...
a) never happens unless followed by b) c) is followed by b) d) never happens because of b)
So its simple all roads lead to b) as easily as strong and stable ( e)) leads to weak and wobbly f) as in f) ing useless
In 1974 Britain voted for the worst Government in its history and had to put up with 5 years of utter turmoil. In 2016 we voted leave. The electorate will have to deal with the outcome of what they voted for. Thats how democracy works. As I said I voted remain but i am now so fed up with the EU I think we should leave with no deal.The EU clearly realise that Britain leaving could mean the end of the EU which is why they are not respecting the democratic decision of a member country.
Since the EU continues to try and play hardball on its own chosen ground, I think the time has come for the UK government to publish two things:
1. A first draft of a very limited treaty that would govern relations between the UK and EU in the event that we had to leave under WTO rules, setting out what limited variations on WTO and other concessions say on financial services the EU would be expected to make in return for selective concessions the UK were prepared to make, as well as clarifying what was non-negotiable. Essentially the basis of a minimalist agreement under what would still be in essence a hard Brexit "no deal" scenario.
2. A parallel impact study on the EU (country by country) of the impact of no deal. That would spell out for example the impact of the immediate loss of UK budget contributions and for example the impact of WTO tariffs on the volume of their future exports to the UK and the subsequent erosion of the massive trade surplus in goods with the UK.
That might concentrate minds in Brussels just a bit, but more importantly it would concentrate minds in governments in Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Dublin etc. As things stand, unless the EU changes tack the UK's first draft would be the only one worth discussing.
There are plenty of impact assessment studies out there looking at what might happen in the EU27 countries under various Brexit scenarios. Individual governments have no doubt done their own ones - Ireland has, for sure. What they all show is that however bad the impact is for individual EU27 it is worse for the UK.
The German government certainly claims to have done one, the problem is that it's utterly implausible. Just a 0.2% loss of German GDP under hard Brexit, compared to a 1.7% loss of UK GDP. This claim is from a country whose exports to the UK are double what we export to them and whose industries benefited hugely from the opening up of UK markets for manufacturing goods in the 1970s on our joining the EEC, whereas it sounded the death knell for many of ours. It's fantasy stuff frankly designed to bolster a negotiating position, which is why the UK government needs to do it properly and spell it out to them and their people.
I quite liked him, up until he ruined my finances. He's also the chap who signed us up to Maastricht, without being clear what he was doing (c.f. his subsequent complaints).
You were one of home owners he literally threw to the wolves in his mad attempt to stay in the ERM then?
At least we all knew where we stood with the Tories after that... And most of us acted accordingly by voting for Labour in our droves in 1997.
It's interesting that the government has announced its climb-down on the rights of EU citizens during the transition on the same day as the EC withdrawal agreement document was published. On any other day, the government would have been roasted for this, but today the EC document will get all the attention. It's almost as if it were coordinated. Hmmm.
Mr. Smithson, Thatcher isn't, and Major wasn't until he started being hypocritical over the EU. One might've thought a keen cricketer would prefer not to bat for the other side.
As a general observation, PMs have to do things. That usually means they significantly bugger up in at least one area. The joy of opposition is that you can always sound splendid without having to trouble yourself with the grubby business of governing...
Peoples' attitudes towards sexual morality don't seem to change as they get older. OTOH, peoples' attitudes towards both the EU and immigration do seem to.
In 1975, 61% of 18-29 year olds backed Remain. 41 years on, about 36% of the same voters, now aged 59-70, did so.
In 2016, 71% of 18-24 year olds backed Remain. If you are talking about being on the side of history ....
Sure, but that's a different group of voters. The original point was whether political views evolved over the course of one's lifetime. In the case of the voters of 1975, they did.
But current twenty somethings aren't saying they were misled by Edward Heath into thinking they were only joining a Common Market. They are voting for the EU as it is and they are happy with it. Their view is just as valid as that of disillusioned oldies. It happens there were slightly fewer of them, at least who could be bothered to vote, so disillusioned oldies pipped the post on the result.
But of course the EU as it is, is not the EU as it will be in 40 years time. Just as the EEC that was voted for in 1975 is not the EU that we have today. The overwhelming majority of those young voting for Remain today will not have looked in detail at what the EU aspires to nor the meaning of the various treaties we signed up to.
Moreover the majority of those voting in a hypothetical referendum in 40 years time will have grown up never having known membership of the EU and - like me - will not have had a chance to vote in a previous referendum on the matter. The idea that you can predict how their views will have developed in the intervening years is ludicrous.
Barring something apocalyptic, it's a reasonable guess that the world will be more integrated in the future than it is today. If you think that will lead to more separation between Britain and the rest of Europe (including Ireland), I think you're indulging in fantasies.
It's interesting that the government has announced its climb-down on the rights of EU citizens during the transition on the same day as the EC withdrawal agreement document was published. On any other day, the government would have been roasted for this, but today the EC document will get all the attention. It's almost as if it were coordinated. Hmmm.
In this particular instance I am not sure I care. We should never have tried to use the matter of existing EU migrants as a bargaining chip in any way and this just goes some way to righting that.
In 1974 Britain voted for the worst Government in its history and had to put up with 5 years of utter turmoil. In 2016 we voted leave. The electorate will have to deal with the outcome of what they voted for. Thats how democracy works. As I said I voted remain but i am now so fed up with the EU I think we should leave with no deal.The EU clearly realise that Britain leaving could mean the end of the EU which is why they are not respecting the democratic decision of a member country.
Since the EU continues to try and play hardball on its own chosen ground, I think the time has come for the UK government to publish two things:
1. A first draft of a very limited treaty that would govern relations between the UK and EU in the event that we had to leave under WTO rules, setting out what limited variations on WTO and other concessions say on financial services the EU would be expected to make in return for selective concessions the UK were prepared to make, as well as clarifying what was non-negotiable. Essentially the basis of a minimalist agreement under what would still be in essence a hard Brexit "no deal" scenario.
2. A parallel impact study on the EU (country by country) of the impact of no deal. That would spell out for example the impact of the immediate loss of UK budget contributions and for example the impact of WTO tariffs on the volume of their future exports to the UK and the subsequent erosion of the massive trade surplus in goods with the UK.
That might concentrate minds in Brussels just a bit, but more importantly it would concentrate minds in governments in Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Dublin etc. As things stand, unless the EU changes tack the UK's first draft would be the only one worth discussing.
There are plenty of impact assessment studies out there looking at what might happen in the EU27 countries under various Brexit scenarios. Individual governments have no doubt done twever bad the impact is for individual EU27 it is worse for the UK.
The German government certainly claims to have done one, the problem is that it's utterly implausible. Just a 0.2% loss of German GDP under hard Brexit, compared to a 1.7% loss of UK GDP. This claim is from a country whose exports to the UK are double what we export to them and whose industries benefited hugely from the opening up of UK markets for manufacturing goods in the 1970s on our joining the EEC, whereas it sounded the death knell for many of ours. It's fantasy stuff frankly designed to bolster a negotiating position, which is why the UK government needs to do it properly and spell it out to them and their people.
Except we dont just export to Germany in the Eu do we
It is funny how the election winning leaders of parties are the ones that are often most hated by their own. Heath, Major, Blair, etc
Well Major did win one (by the skin of his teeth) but then he went down to the worst defeat since the Duke Of Wellington, so...
Looking back now with a bit of perspective he's really a footnote compared to Mrs Thatcher for most people?
Remembered (if at all) for a "surprise" 4th term win, the ERM disaster and recession and being the PM who was turfed out in the worst defeat since 1832 by Tony Blair.
I’ve figured out that the best guide to what will happen in Brexit is going back over old Dan Hannan speeches and identifying those things he ruled out as loony.
There was that marvellous letter to The Times some time ago which went along the lines of: I am grateful to Emma Thompson for making her views clear on XYZ topic. I find that she saves me much time and energy given that after long and careful deliberation of any particular issue, I always find that the appropriate course of action is the precise opposite of the one she advocates.
I quite liked him, up until he ruined my finances. He's also the chap who signed us up to Maastricht, without being clear what he was doing (c.f. his subsequent complaints).
You were one of home woners he literally threw to the wolves in his mad attempt to stay in the ERM then?
At least we all knew where we stood with the Tories after that... And most of us acted accordingly by voting for Labour in our droves in 1997.
Yes. My mortgage was about to go up to something redonkulous like 18% before we crashed out. I was lucky not to end up with negative equity, but he cost my sisters around 400k due to the housing slide.
In 1997 I voted Labour for the first time in my life.
Maybe we should just invade and conquer Eire. That would solve the EU's apparent difficulties and even with our much diminished forces probably wouldn't take more than a few days.
Or maybe we can finally agree that trying to resolve the status of the Irish border separately from our relationship with the EU generally is simply nuts and that the EU position is completely barking. If we have a FTA with the EU what problem exists on the EIre border that does not exist right now and which both sides are quite happy to ignore? The only thing I can think of is third party imports into Eire or the UK. Surely that is just paperwork? And once again exactly the same issue we need to resolve with the rest of the EU?
The ball is in our court.
John Major agrees: "And just at the moment when Theresa May is trying to inch her party forward, a warning, from prime minister to prime minister, not just that her approach is wrongheaded, but that her ultimate goal may be impossible to achieve." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43229962
Maybe she's got more balls than you, Mr Major.....
Major is a joke. He screwed his own Premiership by taking us into the ERM when he was Chancellor and then got walked all over by the EU to the extent he ended up writing snotty letters to them moaning about how mean they were.
Then he has the audacity to criticise how other people try to deal with the issues he helped to cause. He is a loser who should just shut up.
You might like to know that the fake news you were peddling on here before the referendum has been corrected:
The point remains. While the least developed countries get tariff free access, lower middle income ones (i.e. those that have escaped failed state status and have growth potential) have to pay tariffs. And both are undermined by the EU's subsidies for its own producers.
Not really, the EBA agreement, and related EU trade deals give preferential access to EU markets, tariff free and across all goods (except guns) while maintaining their own protections. This applies to all african countries except Gabon and Libya as well as a whole swathe of other countries.
Leaving the EU means imposing WTO tariffs on them, at least until the UK replicates the deal. Ditto for many of the other countries such as South Korea. The EU has developed over the years into a major advocate for Free Trade as an aid to development.
Peoples' attitudes towards sexual morality don't seem to change as they get older. OTOH, peoples' attitudes towards both the EU and immigration do seem to.
In 1975, 61% of 18-29 year olds backed Remain. 41 years on, about 36% of the same voters, now aged 59-70, did so.
In 2016, 71% of 18-24 year olds backed Remain. If you are talking about being on the side of history ....
Sure, but that's a different group of voters. The original point was whether political views evolved over the course of one's lifetime. In the case of the voters of 1975, they did.
But current twenty somethings aren't saying they were misled by Edward Heath into thinking they were only joining a Common Market. They are voting for the EU as it is and they are happy with it. Their view is just as valid as that of disillusioned oldies. It happens there were slightly fewer of them, at least who could be bothered to vote, so disillusioned oldies pipped the post on the result.
But of course the EU as it is, is not the EU as it will be in 40 years time. Just as the EEC that was voted for in 1975 is not the EU that we have today. The overwhelming majority of those young voting for Remain today will not have looked in detail at what the EU aspires to nor the meaning of the various treaties we signed up to.
Moreover the majority of those voting in a hypothetical referendum in 40 years time will have grown up never having known membership of the EU and - like me - will not have had a chance to vote in a previous referendum on the matter. The idea that you can predict how their views will have developed in the intervening years is ludicrous.
Barring something apocalyptic, it's a reasonable guess that the world will be more integrated in the future than it is today. If you think that will lead to more separation between Britain and the rest of Europe (including Ireland), I think you're indulging in fantasies.
I think it's more likely that there are cycles of integration and separation.
The point remains. While the least developed countries get tariff free access, lower middle income ones (i.e. those that have escaped failed state status and have growth potential) have to pay tariffs. And both are undermined by the EU's subsidies for its own producers.
Just as a matter of interest, which large trading block offers more tariff free access to low and middle income countries?
Certainly not the US, which has has no Asian FTAs, and only Morocco in Africa. Not Mercosur, which has virtually nothing. Nor China, which has 14 FTAs, of which none are in Africa and only one (with Pakistan) is of a real poor or middle income country. Neither India nor Japan are big on FTAs with poor or middle income countries either.
Who's left?
The EU has agreements with much of sub-Saharan Africa. Through the Euromed agreements, it has them with Morocco, Algeria, Jordon, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Tunsia. It has an FTA with South Africa. There are agreements with much of Central and Southern America. It has agreed, although not implemented, an FTA with Vietnam.
There are many, many, many reasons to be critical of the EU, which I have enumerated many times on here.
But- by a country mile - it is most open economy to poor and middle income countries in the world.
I quite liked him, up until he ruined my finances. He's also the chap who signed us up to Maastricht, without being clear what he was doing (c.f. his subsequent complaints).
You were one of home woners he literally threw to the wolves in his mad attempt to stay in the ERM then?
At least we all knew where we stood with the Tories after that... And most of us acted accordingly by voting for Labour in our droves in 1997.
Yes. My mortgage was about to go up to something redonkulous like 18% before we crashed out. I was lucky not to end up with negative equity, but he cost my sisters around 400k due to the housing slide.
In 1997 I voted Labour for the first time in my life.
Then you were very naive. Every move in interest rates from the time Major became Chancellor to 1994 was down.
Tue, 08 Feb 1994 5.1250 Tue, 23 Nov 1993 5.3750 Tue, 26 Jan 1993 5.8750 Fri, 13 Nov 1992 6.8750 Fri, 16 Oct 1992 7.8750 Tue, 22 Sep 1992 8.8750 Tue, 05 May 1992 9.8750 Wed, 04 Sep 1991 10.3750 Fri, 12 Jul 1991 10.8750 Fri, 24 May 1991 11.3750 Fri, 12 Apr 1991 11.8750 Fri, 22 Mar 1991 12.3750 Wed, 27 Feb 1991 12.8750 Wed, 13 Feb 1991 13.3750 Mon, 08 Oct 1990 13.8750 Fri, 06 Oct 1989 14.8750
Maybe we should just invade and conquer Eire. That would solve the EU's apparent difficulties and even with our much diminished forces probably wouldn't take more than a few days.
Or maybe we can finally agree that trying to resolve the status of the Irish border separately from our relationship with the EU generally is simply nuts and that the EU position is completely barking. If we have a FTA with the EU what problem exists on the EIre border that does not exist right now and which both sides are quite happy to ignore? The only thing I can think of is third party imports into Eire or the UK. Surely that is just paperwork? And once again exactly the same issue we need to resolve with the rest of the EU?
The ball is in our court. We can continue to reject common regulation with the EU for Northern Ireland and take our chance on either the EU folding or doing without a transition. I don't rate that chance particularly highly. The government thought they could get away with making casual commitments that they could quietly forget about. That won't work.
John Major agrees: "And just at the moment when Theresa May is trying to inch her party forward, a warning, from prime minister to prime minister, not just that her approach is wrongheaded, but that her ultimate goal may be impossible to achieve." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43229962
Maybe she's got more balls than you, Mr Major.....
Major is a joke. He screwed his own Premiership by taking us into the ERM when he was Chancellor and then got walked all over by the EU to the extent he ended up writing snotty letters to them moaning about how mean they were.
Then he has the audacity to criticise how other people try to deal with the issues he helped to cause. He is a loser who should just shut up.
You might like to know that the fake news you were peddling on here before the referendum has been corrected:
The point remains. While the least developed countries get tariff free access, lower middle income ones (i.e. those that have escaped failed state status and have growth potential) have to pay tariffs. And both are undermined by the EU's subsidies for its own producers.
The point doesn't remain. If you claim the EU is cruelly abusing poverty stricken African countries by imposing punitive tariffs when it doesn't apply any tariffs at all, unlike most countries, you are libelling it.
Peoples' attitudes towards sexual morality don't seem to change as they get older. OTOH, peoples' attitudes towards both the EU and immigration do seem to.
In 1975, 61% of 18-29 year olds backed Remain. 41 years on, about 36% of the same voters, now aged 59-70, did so.
In 2016, 71% of 18-24 year olds backed Remain. If you are talking about being on the side of history ....
Sure, but that's a different group of voters. The original point was whether political views evolved over the course of one's lifetime. In the case of the voters of 1975, they did.
But current twenty somethings aren't saying they were misled by Edward Heath into thinking they were only joining a Common Market. They are voting for the EU as it is and they are happy with it. Their view is just as valid as that of disillusioned oldies. It happens there were slightly fewer of them, at least who could be bothered to vote, so disillusioned oldies pipped the post on the result.
But of course the EU as it is, is not the EU as it will be in 40 years time. Just as the EEC that was voted for in 1975 is not the EU that we have today. The overwhelming majority of those young voting for Remain today will not have looked in detail at what the EU aspires to nor the meaning of the various treaties we signed up to.
Moreover the majority of those voting in a hypothetical referendum in 40 years time will have grown up never having known membership of the EU and - like me - will not have had a chance to vote in a previous referendum on the matter. The idea that you can predict how their views will have developed in the intervening years is ludicrous.
Barring something apocalyptic, it's a reasonable guess that the world will be more integrated in the future than it is today. If you think that will lead to more separation between Britain and the rest of Europe (including Ireland), I think you're indulging in fantasies.
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
I quite liked him, up until he ruined my finances. He's also the chap who signed us up to Maastricht, without being clear what he was doing (c.f. his subsequent complaints).
You were one of home woners he literally threw to the wolves in his mad attempt to stay in the ERM then?
At least we all knew where we stood with the Tories after that... And most of us acted accordingly by voting for Labour in our droves in 1997.
Yes. My mortgage was about to go up to something redonkulous like 18% before we crashed out. I was lucky not to end up with negative equity, but he cost my sisters around 400k due to the housing slide.
In 1997 I voted Labour for the first time in my life.
The point remains. While the least developed countries get tariff free access, lower middle income ones (i.e. those that have escaped failed state status and have growth potential) have to pay tariffs. And both are undermined by the EU's subsidies for its own producers.
Just as a matter of interest, which large trading block offers more tariff free access to low and middle income countries?
The US charges full tariffs on half of imports from LDCs and in total imports half as much as the EU from them.
For all those who say the EU needs us more than we need them.
Look its simple
If Germany loses £30bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £20 bn If France loses £20 bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £15bn If Spain loses £10bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £7bn
In Sun logic Germany France and Spain are worse off than us FFS
In actual terms we lose £42bn guess who is worst off plus there are 24 other losses for us to add in and only 1 for Italy, Greece etc etc
Peoples' attitudes towards sexual morality don't seem to change as they get older. OTOH, peoples' attitudes towards both the EU and immigration do seem to.
In 1975, 61% of 18-29 year olds backed Remain. 41 years on, about 36% of the same voters, now aged 59-70, did so.
In 2016, 71% of 18-24 year olds backed Remain. If you are talking about being on the side of history ....
Sure, but that's a different group of voters. The original point was whether political views evolved over the course of one's lifetime. In the case of the voters of 1975, they did.
But current twenty somethings aren't saying they were misled by Edward Heath into thinking they were only joining a Common Market. They are voting for the EU as it is and they are happy with it. Their view is just as valid as that of disillusioned oldies. It happens there were slightly fewer of them, at least who could be bothered to vote, so disillusioned oldies pipped the post on the result.
But of course the EU as it is, is not the EU as it will be in 40 years time. Just as the EEC that was voted for in 1975 is not the EU that we have today. The overwhelming majority of those young voting for Remain today will not have looked in detail at what the EU aspires to nor the meaning of the various treaties we signed up to.
Moreover the majority of those voting in a hypothetical referendum in 40 years time will have grown up never having known membership of the EU and - like me - will not have had a chance to vote in a previous referendum on the matter. The idea that you can predict how their views will have developed in the intervening years is ludicrous.
Barring something apocalyptic, it's a reasonable guess that the world will be more integrated in the future than it is today. If you think that will lead to more separation between Britain and the rest of Europe (including Ireland), I think you're indulging in fantasies.
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
Mine is akin to the EU. Why reach for stupid analogies when we have the real thing to look at?
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
I quite liked him, up until he ruined my finances. He's also the chap who signed us up to Maastricht, without being clear what he was doing (c.f. his subsequent complaints).
You were one of home woners he literally threw to the wolves in his mad attempt to stay in the ERM then?
At least we all knew where we stood with the Tories after that... And most of us acted accordingly by voting for Labour in our droves in 1997.
Yes. My mortgage was about to go up to something redonkulous like 18% before we crashed out. I was lucky not to end up with negative equity, but he cost my sisters around 400k due to the housing slide.
In 1997 I voted Labour for the first time in my life.
Then you were very naive. Every move in interest rates from the time Major became Chancellor to 1994 was down.
Tue, 08 Feb 1994 5.1250 Tue, 23 Nov 1993 5.3750 Tue, 26 Jan 1993 5.8750 Fri, 13 Nov 1992 6.8750 Fri, 16 Oct 1992 7.8750 Tue, 22 Sep 1992 8.8750 Tue, 05 May 1992 9.8750 Wed, 04 Sep 1991 10.3750 Fri, 12 Jul 1991 10.8750 Fri, 24 May 1991 11.3750 Fri, 12 Apr 1991 11.8750 Fri, 22 Mar 1991 12.3750 Wed, 27 Feb 1991 12.8750 Wed, 13 Feb 1991 13.3750 Mon, 08 Oct 1990 13.8750 Fri, 06 Oct 1989 14.8750
I may not have been clear, or perhaps you are younger than me. 'Reputations are made over years, lost in moments' applied. The Tories USP has always been economic management. The ERM debacle ruined that. In '97, the Tories were exhausted. Time for a change.
Of course, if I'd known that voting Blair would (eventually) get me Brown, I might have paused for thought.
Not really, the EBA agreement, and related EU trade deals give preferential access to EU markets, tariff free and across all goods (except guns) while maintaining their own protections. This applies to all african countries except Gabon and Libya as well as a whole swathe of other countries.
Leaving the EU means imposing WTO tariffs on them, at least until the UK replicates the deal. Ditto for many of the other countries such as South Korea. The EU has developed over the years into a major advocate for Free Trade as an aid to development.
"Leaving the EU means imposing WTO tariffs on them"
In 1974 Britain voted for the worst Government in its history and had to put up with 5 years of utter turmoil. In 2016 we voted leave. The electorate will have to deal with the outcome of what they voted for. Thats how democracy works. As I said I voted remain but i am now so fed up with the EU I think we should leave with no deal.The EU clearly realise that Britain leaving could mean the end of the EU which is why they are not respecting the democratic decision of a member country.
Since the EU continues to try and play hardball on its own chosen ground, I think the time has come for the UK government to publish two things:
1. A scenario.
2. A parallel impact study on the EU (country by country) of the impact of no deal. That would spell out for example the impact of the immediate loss of UK budget contributions and for example the impact of WTO tariffs on the volume of their future exports to the UK and the subsequent erosion of the massive trade surplus in goods with the UK.
That might concentrate minds in Brussels just a bit, but more importantly it would concentrate minds in governments in Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Dublin etc. As things stand, unless the EU changes tack the UK's first draft would be the only one worth discussing.
There are plenty of impact assessment studies out there looking at what might happen in the EU27 countries under various Brexit scenarios. Individual governments have no doubt done their own ones - Ireland has, for sure. What they all show is that however bad the impact is for individual EU27 it is worse for the UK.
The German government certainly claims to have done one, the problem is that it's utterly implausible. Just a 0.2% loss of German GDP under hard Brexit, compared to a 1.7% loss of UK GDP. This claim is from a country whose exports to the UK are double what we export to them and whose industries benefited hugely from the opening up of UK markets for manufacturing goods in the 1970s on our joining the EEC, whereas it sounded the death knell for many of ours. It's fantasy stuff frankly designed to bolster a negotiating position, which is why the UK government needs to do it properly and spell it out to them and their people.
Germany gets reduced access to one market. We get reduced access to 27. That's not fantasy. It's fact.
The point remains. While the least developed countries get tariff free access, lower middle income ones (i.e. those that have escaped failed state status and have growth potential) have to pay tariffs. And both are undermined by the EU's subsidies for its own producers.
Just as a matter of interest, which large trading block offers more tariff free access to low and middle income countries?
Certainly not the US, which has has no Asian FTAs, and only Morocco in Africa. Not Mercosur, which has virtually nothing. Nor China, which has 14 FTAs, of which none are in Africa and only one (with Pakistan) is of a real poor or middle income country. Neither India nor Japan are big on FTAs with poor or middle income countries either.
Who's left?
The EU has agreements with much of sub-Saharan Africa. Through the Euromed agreements, it has them with Morocco, Algeria, Jordon, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Tunsia. It has an FTA with South Africa. There are agreements with much of Central and Southern America. It has agreed, although not implemented, an FTA with Vietnam.
There are many, many, many reasons to be critical of the EU, which I have enumerated many times on here.
But- by a country mile - it is most open economy to poor and middle income countries in the world.
Indeed, to argue the protectionist case, the EU has been so open to developing countries as to run down a lot of indiginous jobs and manufacturing. Just ask a Leicester hosiery worker or Northampton cobbler, if you can find one still in work!
If the EU had been more protectionist, it may have held the populists at bay better.
I'll never forget Sir John Major's intervention when Gordon Brown tried to disrupt the 2007 Tory conference by heading to Iraq.
He absolutely blasted Brown and accused him of using the military for political ends for the snap election he was planning on calling.
That does not in any way excuse the EU omnishambles he visited on the UK.
What a crazy observation. Barmy.
Funny how those who have been the most vociferous supporters of the UK in the EU will take no responsibility whatsoever for its rejection by the people of the UK. To hear you speak, the rejection of the EU is down to a handle of Europhobe loons in the outer reaches of the Tory Party, who wouldn't let it lie. Didn't know when they were beaten. Wouldn't take no for an answer. The Black Knight of British politics.
But here's the thing. These "loons" were the ones who actually read the tone right. They captured the mood of the people. Your lot - despite having every advantage going - screwed up. But your screw up wasn't the product of one campaign. It followed decade after decade of GETTING IT WRONG.
Amaze me - and take some responsibility. Because not one Remainer on here has said "Ooops - we really played our being in the EU so badly..." John Major tried to sew up the running sore by bouncing us into Maastricht. Unfortunately, he left a bunch of swabs in there, festering away, turning the country gangrenous on the whole EU project. To suggest otherwise is crazy, barmy......
Nobody seems that excited about temporary rules during transitions - you need to focus on the medium to long term.
She's going to concede on a customs union, you might as well brace yourself now.
Remember there were some on here who were convinced that Cameron was going to declare for Leave. May is pulling of the same trick. In the end it will be soft Brexit and the Hard Brexiters will thank her for it.
For all those who say the EU needs us more than we need them.
Look its simple
If Germany loses £30bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £20 bn If France loses £20 bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £15bn If Spain loses £10bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £7bn
In Sun logic Germany France and Spain are worse off than us FFS
In actual terms we lose £42bn guess who is worst off plus there are 24 other losses for us to add in and only 1 for Italy, Greece etc etc
It would depend on the extent to which the decline in imports from those countries was replaced by sales from domestic producers.
If, say, we lost exports worth £42 bn, and imported £60 bn in imports from countries other than those three, then we would be worse off. If we lost exports worth £42 bn, but domestic production matched the loss of imports from those three, we would be better off.
Jeremy Corbyn has outflanked a numerous mainstream conservatives on the right in regards to the structural integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
SeanT would fail to find an expletive colourful enough to do this justice.
I quite liked him, up until he ruined my finances. He's also the chap who signed us up to Maastricht, without being clear what he was doing (c.f. his subsequent complaints).
You were one of home woners he literally threw to the wolves in his mad attempt to stay in the ERM then?
At least we all knew where we stood with the Tories after that... And most of us acted accordingly by voting for Labour in our droves in 1997.
Yes. My mortgage was about to go up to something redonkulous like 18% before we crashed out. I was lucky not to end up with negative equity, but he cost my sisters around 400k due to the housing slide.
In 1997 I voted Labour for the first time in my life.
Then you were very naive. Every move in interest rates from the time Major became Chancellor to 1994 was down.
Tue, 08 Feb 1994 5.1250 Tue, 23 Nov 1993 5.3750 Tue, 26 Jan 1993 5.8750 Fri, 13 Nov 1992 6.8750 Fri, 16 Oct 1992 7.8750 Tue, 22 Sep 1992 8.8750 Tue, 05 May 1992 9.8750 Wed, 04 Sep 1991 10.3750 Fri, 12 Jul 1991 10.8750 Fri, 24 May 1991 11.3750 Fri, 12 Apr 1991 11.8750 Fri, 22 Mar 1991 12.3750 Wed, 27 Feb 1991 12.8750 Wed, 13 Feb 1991 13.3750 Mon, 08 Oct 1990 13.8750 Fri, 06 Oct 1989 14.8750
I may not have been clear, or perhaps you are younger than me. 'Reputations are made over years, lost in moments' applied. The Tories USP has always been economic management. The ERM debacle ruined that. In '97, the Tories were exhausted. Time for a change.
Of course, if I'd known that voting Blair would (eventually) get me Brown, I might have paused for thought.
Interest rates well over 10% for several years, and remember that the rate banks charge is 2 or so % above that. No wonder my small business crashed and burned.
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
Not really, the EBA agreement, and related EU trade deals give preferential access to EU markets, tariff free and across all goods (except guns) while maintaining their own protections. This applies to all african countries except Gabon and Libya as well as a whole swathe of other countries.
Leaving the EU means imposing WTO tariffs on them, at least until the UK replicates the deal. Ditto for many of the other countries such as South Korea. The EU has developed over the years into a major advocate for Free Trade as an aid to development.
"Leaving the EU means imposing WTO tariffs on them"
We don't have to.
I think in the short term we do, pending trade deals, unless we abolish all tariffs on all goods from all WTO members developed or undeveloped. That would mean tariff free goods from the EU of course.
Not really, the EBA agreement, and related EU trade deals give preferential access to EU markets, tariff free and across all goods (except guns) while maintaining their own protections. This applies to all african countries except Gabon and Libya as well as a whole swathe of other countries.
Leaving the EU means imposing WTO tariffs on them, at least until the UK replicates the deal. Ditto for many of the other countries such as South Korea. The EU has developed over the years into a major advocate for Free Trade as an aid to development.
"Leaving the EU means imposing WTO tariffs on them"
For all those who say the EU needs us more than we need them.
Look its simple
If Germany loses £30bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £20 bn If France loses £20 bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £15bn If Spain loses £10bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £7bn
In Sun logic Germany France and Spain are worse off than us FFS
In actual terms we lose £42bn guess who is worst off plus there are 24 other losses for us to add in and only 1 for Italy, Greece etc etc
It would depend on the extent to which the decline in imports from those countries was replaced by sales from domestic producers.
If, say, we lost exports worth £42 bn, and imported £60 bn in imports from countries other than those three, then we would be worse off. If we lost exports worth £42 bn, but domestic production matched the loss of imports from those three, we would be better off.
Same applies to the EU countries who have a maximum £30bn problem (on those numbers) we have to extrapolate our £42bn to take account of the other 24 EU nations none of the EU nations do.
I have never used the mute button so much as recently hearing second rate journalist putting their particular spin on Brexit including Islam and Boulton who are impossibly pro EU. We deserve better journalists and politicians and someone who can provide a non biased sensible explanation of the way forward.
Major and others putting forward a second referendum have no idea of the complexity of holding one, the questions and who sets them, the time scale through the HOC and HOL and what happens if it is much the same
They are so desperate to overturn Brexit, they will take any route.
For Major, it is clear that he sees the years of pain in vain. Finally beasted by the bastards, he will be remembered for actually achieving nothing.
To be fair and on reflection , Major did well! on his negotiations on the Maastricht Treaty.He also imo , has much to be proud of for the 1993 Joint declaration of peace for Northern Ireland.
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
Welcome to Brexistan.
Aren't you in the City? You'll be living it large in {Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt}, pick yer poison.
I shall think of you while I'm roasting a turnip over my last candle.
A curious slur on the French, considering it arises from France's utterly admirable refusal to rubber stamp George W's Excellent Iraqi Adventure. I wish we were cowards like that.
I'll never forget Sir John Major's intervention when Gordon Brown tried to disrupt the 2007 Tory conference by heading to Iraq.
He absolutely blasted Brown and accused him of using the military for political ends for the snap election he was planning on calling.
That does not in any way excuse the EU omnishambles he visited on the UK.
What a crazy observation. Barmy.
Funny how those who have been the most vociferous supporters of the UK in the EU will take no responsibility whatsoever for its rejection by the people of the UK. To hear you speak, the rejection of the EU is down to a handle of Europhobe loons in the outer reaches of the Tory Party, who wouldn't let it lie. Didn't know when they were beaten. Wouldn't take no for an answer. The Black Knight of British politics.
But here's the thing. These "loons" were the ones who actually read the tone right. They captured the mood of the people. Your lot - despite having every advantage going - screwed up. But your screw up wasn't the product of one campaign. It followed decade after decade of GETTING IT WRONG.
Amaze me - and take some responsibility. Because not one Remainer on here has said "Ooops - we really played our being in the EU so badly..." John Major tried to sew up the running sore by bouncing us into Maastricht. Unfortunately, he left a bunch of swabs in there, festering away, turning the country gangrenous on the whole EU project. To suggest otherwise is crazy, barmy......
Difficult to know where to start. Major had it right when he talked about the ‘bastards’. There was a steady campaign of EU-vilification in the right-wing Press... remember straight bananas.... Bojo’s idea..... I agree though, we didn’t get as aggressive as we should have done in pointing out the lies. And I’ll give you Blair’s failure to put some controls on immigration, and also Thatchers insistence of opening up tot he East.
Nobody seems that excited about temporary rules during transitions - you need to focus on the medium to long term.
She's going to concede on a customs union, you might as well brace yourself now.
Remember there were some on here who were convinced that Cameron was going to declare for Leave. May is pulling of the same trick. In the end it will be soft Brexit and the Hard Brexiters will thank her for it.
ICYMI
Continuing our discussions about whether Dan Hannan is an idiot or mendacious, or both.
I have never used the mute button so much as recently hearing second rate journalist putting their particular spin on Brexit including Islam and Boulton who are impossibly pro EU. We deserve better journalists and politicians and someone who can provide a non biased sensible explanation of the way forward.
Major and others putting forward a second referendum have no idea of the complexity of holding one, the questions and who sets them, the time scale through the HOC and HOL and what happens if it is much the same
They are so desperate to overturn Brexit, they will take any route.
For Major, it is clear that he sees the years of pain in vain. Finally beasted by the bastards, he will be remembered for actually achieving nothing.
To be fair and on reflection , Major did well! on his negotiations on the Maastricht Treaty.He also imo , has much to be proud of for the 1993 Joint declaration of peace for Northern Ireland.
You won't hear me criticise Major on Northern Ireland. He deserves much of the credit for the hard work that permitted the GFA, that Blair claimed for his own.
Of course, if I'd known that voting Blair would (eventually) get me Brown, I might have paused for thought.
Based on this thread you're not the only person who switched to Blair in 1997 and ended up voting for Brexit. It's probably a far more interesting demographic to analyse in terms of understanding what happened in 2016 than the Labour heartlands Leavers.
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
Welcome to Brexistan.
Aren't you in the City? You'll be living it large in {Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt}, pick yer poison.
I shall think of you while I'm roasting a turnip over my last candle.
You're kidding, right? You'll be spending some of that Brexit dividend. Let there be avocados for all.
Nobody seems that excited about temporary rules during transitions - you need to focus on the medium to long term.
She's going to concede on a customs union, you might as well brace yourself now.
Remember there were some on here who were convinced that Cameron was going to declare for Leave. May is pulling of the same trick. In the end it will be soft Brexit and the Hard Brexiters will thank her for it.
Very true , they will be fulsome in their praise .
I'll never forget Sir John Major's intervention when Gordon Brown tried to disrupt the 2007 Tory conference by heading to Iraq.
He absolutely blasted Brown and accused him of using the military for political ends for the snap election he was planning on calling.
That does not in any way excuse the EU omnishambles he visited on the UK.
What a crazy observation. Barmy.
Funny how those who have been the most vociferous supporters of the UK in the EU will take no responsibility whatsoever for its rejection by the people of the UK. To hear you speak, the rejection of the EU is down to a handle of Europhobe loons in the outer reaches of the Tory Party, who wouldn't let it lie. Didn't know when they were beaten. Wouldn't take no for an answer. The Black Knight of British politics.
But here's the thing. These "loons" were the ones who actually read the tone right. They captured the mood of the people. Your lot - despite having every advantage going - screwed up. But your screw up wasn't the product of one campaign. It followed decade after decade of GETTING IT WRONG.
Amaze me - and take some responsibility. Because not one Remainer on here has said "Ooops - we really played our being in the EU so badly..." John Major tried to sew up the running sore by bouncing us into Maastricht. Unfortunately, he left a bunch of swabs in there, festering away, turning the country gangrenous on the whole EU project. To suggest otherwise is crazy, barmy......
Difficult to know where to start. Major had it right when he talked about the ‘bastards’. There was a steady campaign of EU-vilification in the right-wing Press... remember straight bananas.... Bojo’s idea..... I agree though, we didn’t get as aggressive as we should have done in pointing out the lies. And I’ll give you Blair’s failure to put some controls on immigration, and also Thatchers insistence of opening up tot he East.
Fair does to you, Sir, for accepting some of the Remainer blame for Brexit. You make a very fair point about Thatcher wanting to reward those who left the Soviet orbit to join the EU. Too far, too fast could be argued.
But the EU-vilification was to an extent fully deserved, when you had a cadre of European leaders and ex-leaders working to create an EU-superstate on the sly, having no trust in the voters of Europe supporting their vision. And so by-passing democratic channels. That really rankled with many Brits.
Remember there were some on here who were convinced that Cameron was going to declare for Leave. May is pulling of the same trick. In the end it will be soft Brexit and the Hard Brexiters will thank her for it.
They will support anything she does as long as she retains enough popularity to enable the bulk of the Conservative Parliamentary Party to keep their seats and jobs.
As soon as she starts looking like a loser, nothing she says or does will make a scintilla od difference - she'll be hounded out as the terrified backbenchers look for a new saviour.
Comments
Brexit was always going to be difficult, even with a competent, diligent and industrious team working on a common plan. Putting it in the hands of an incompetent, slapdash, lazy team who fight amongst themselves means that it is the EU Deal or No Deal. Fortunately the EU team have put together a reasonable plan to cover our arses. Beggars cannot be choosers.
If so, I am stunned by the hypocrisy.
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/721964799786094593
Read into that whatever you think
May is hardline on something = she is so weak and beholden to the arch-Brexiteers
May concedes on something = she is so weak and always surrenders
Barnier is hardline on something = the EU is just rightfully exploiting its superior leverage
Barnier concedes on something = there was no concession, quick let's talk about X instead...
The Maastricht Rebels were such snowflakes.
For Major, it is clear that he sees the years of pain in vain. Finally beasted by the bastards, he will be remembered for actually achieving nothing.
They prefer the halcyon days of the leadership of IDS.
“Did John Major give a free vote on Maastricht? This is where he really is guilty of being a complete humbug. He whipped that through in the most aggressive whipping in modern history. For that PM to then say ‘oh it should be a free vote’, is either forgetting how he behaved himself, ignoring how he behaved himself, or just straight forward hypocrisy.”
I quite liked him, up until he ruined my finances. He's also the chap who signed us up to Maastricht, without being clear what he was doing (c.f. his subsequent complaints).
I should be clear, I don't mind the various ex-PMs piping up, or the clamour for additional referendums and so forth. It's the sign of a healthy democracy. I don't think the noises off are making May's job any easier, but that's what she gets paid the big bucks for.
https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/01/watch-jacob-rees-mogg-called-for-a-second-eu-referendum-in-parliament/
https://twitter.com/quatremer/status/968887401815986177?ref_src=twcamp^share|twsrc^m5|twgr^email|twcon^7046|twterm^1
Tory MPs replaced IDS in 2003 because they were scared he'd win the next general election.
Moreover the majority of those voting in a hypothetical referendum in 40 years time will have grown up never having known membership of the EU and - like me - will not have had a chance to vote in a previous referendum on the matter. The idea that you can predict how their views will have developed in the intervening years is ludicrous.
c) is followed by b)
d) never happens because of b)
So its simple all roads lead to b) as easily as strong and stable ( e)) leads to weak and wobbly f) as in f) ing useless
At least we all knew where we stood with the Tories after that... And most of us acted accordingly by voting for Labour in our droves in 1997.
As a general observation, PMs have to do things. That usually means they significantly bugger up in at least one area. The joy of opposition is that you can always sound splendid without having to trouble yourself with the grubby business of governing...
Perhaps we should call it the Galba Effect.
You are using JRM Sun logic
Looking back now with a bit of perspective he's really a footnote compared to Mrs Thatcher for most people?
Remembered (if at all) for a "surprise" 4th term win, the ERM disaster and recession and being the PM who was turfed out in the worst defeat since 1832 by Tony Blair.
Oh... And I guess maybe sh*gging Edwina?)
In 1997 I voted Labour for the first time in my life.
Leaving the EU means imposing WTO tariffs on them, at least until the UK replicates the deal. Ditto for many of the other countries such as South Korea. The EU has developed over the years into a major advocate for Free Trade as an aid to development.
Certainly not the US, which has has no Asian FTAs, and only Morocco in Africa.
Not Mercosur, which has virtually nothing. Nor China, which has 14 FTAs, of which none are in Africa and only one (with Pakistan) is of a real poor or middle income country. Neither India nor Japan are big on FTAs with poor or middle income countries either.
Who's left?
The EU has agreements with much of sub-Saharan Africa. Through the Euromed agreements, it has them with Morocco, Algeria, Jordon, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Tunsia. It has an FTA with South Africa. There are agreements with much of Central and Southern America. It has agreed, although not implemented, an FTA with Vietnam.
There are many, many, many reasons to be critical of the EU, which I have enumerated many times on here.
But- by a country mile - it is most open economy to poor and middle income countries in the world.
Wilson won 3, lost 1 and got largest party in the other. So a net plus 3, the same as Blair
Tue, 08 Feb 1994 5.1250
Tue, 23 Nov 1993 5.3750
Tue, 26 Jan 1993 5.8750
Fri, 13 Nov 1992 6.8750
Fri, 16 Oct 1992 7.8750
Tue, 22 Sep 1992 8.8750
Tue, 05 May 1992 9.8750
Wed, 04 Sep 1991 10.3750
Fri, 12 Jul 1991 10.8750
Fri, 24 May 1991 11.3750
Fri, 12 Apr 1991 11.8750
Fri, 22 Mar 1991 12.3750
Wed, 27 Feb 1991 12.8750
Wed, 13 Feb 1991 13.3750
Mon, 08 Oct 1990 13.8750
Fri, 06 Oct 1989 14.8750
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/Repo.asp
https://www.un.org/ldcportal/united-states-imports-from-ldcs/
Look its simple
If Germany loses £30bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £20 bn
If France loses £20 bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £15bn
If Spain loses £10bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £7bn
In Sun logic Germany France and Spain are worse off than us FFS
In actual terms we lose £42bn guess who is worst off plus there are 24 other losses for us to add in and only 1 for Italy, Greece etc etc
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
Oh hang on
Of course, if I'd known that voting Blair would (eventually) get me Brown, I might have paused for thought.
"Leaving the EU means imposing WTO tariffs on them"
We don't have to.
If the EU had been more protectionist, it may have held the populists at bay better.
Where on earth is Peggy going to get a chalet cleaning job now
If, say, we lost exports worth £42 bn, and imported £60 bn in imports from countries other than those three, then we would be worse off. If we lost exports worth £42 bn, but domestic production matched the loss of imports from those three, we would be better off.
Jeremy Corbyn has outflanked a numerous mainstream conservatives on the right in regards to the structural integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
SeanT would fail to find an expletive colourful enough to do this justice.
Economic competence. Tories? My arse!
He did 50% of all the running.
I shall think of you while I'm roasting a turnip over my last candle.
Continuing our discussions about whether Dan Hannan is an idiot or mendacious, or both.
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/721964799786094593
How about Gibraltar?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2649800
As soon as she starts looking like a loser, nothing she says or does will make a scintilla od difference - she'll be hounded out as the terrified backbenchers look for a new saviour.
If this was in the North, we'd put on our big coat and go out and vote.