Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Losing the peace

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited May 9 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Losing the peace

The whiff of panic is palpable among what passes for the Leave intelligentsia. Two years ago they were airily asserting that the EU needed a deal more than Britain did and that it could be done over a long lunch, with the EU paying for the post-prandial cigars.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,416
    click bait
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,295
    Good morning old things
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,955

    click bait

    It worked on you :smile:
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,481
    From last thread, On Resolution:

    The full report, of which there were more details in the Guardian, did seem to have some workable ideas. IHT taxed on the recipient rather than the deceased estate has always struck me as a fairer system.

    The £10K for mid-twenty year olds seems bonkers to me. 40% or more of them will have 10Ks of student debt, which the state has imposed. Why then give them £10K? What's the logic of these two positions?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,416

    click bait

    It worked on you :smile:
    nah

    that was TSEs New Thread header
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 132
    Meeks should get out more.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,902

    click bait

    Totally agree. Alastair is wrong to criticise the EU as he does here.

    But if this is the right strategy for the EU, it is not being followed. Instead, at present, the EU negotiators appear to be prioritising nailing Britain to the floor in the short and medium term, seeking to get both small and large advantages out of the ineptness of the Leave chorus line and the paralysis of the British government. This is no doubt extremely satisfying for them, especially after the many examples of generalised hostility and gratuitous rudeness from Leave campaigners at every level. This is not good news for Britain. I suggest that it is not good news for the EU either.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,003
    Interesting header. I hadn't really considered what the EU objectives should be, but I don't agree on the third one. The EU attempting to persuade Britain to rejoin is unlikely to be successful and risks undermining their first two objectives.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,220

    click bait

    Surprising amount of EU-basing in it - even the FT thinks the EU are playing silly beggars on Galileo....
    Sandpit said:

    Unless they can build the planes in 3 months.
    The cynic in me says they only placed such large orders in the first place in order to generate headlines when sanctions were placed on them, and to get the manufactures lobbying on Iran’s behalf.
    No - Iran Air's aircraft are very old (some of them nearly 40 years) and getting spare parts is making them unsafe.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,048
    So the bunch of a-holes in Brussels accurately described by Mr M are the ones that Remainers want us to stay Best Friends Forever with.

    The EU's negotiating approach exemplifies why we are so right to be leaving. They just want to look like the tough guys in order to intimidate and other Sovereign Nation State (!) who might dare to consider following us out of the door. Having a win-win deal with the UK doesn't even feature in their thinking.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,955
    Interesting thread header - AM's are always thought-provoking.

    Surprisingly negative on the EU from someone the swivel-eyed brigade paint as an extreme Remainiac... but has the ring of truth about it. The EU hold all the cards; it's human nature to push that advantage to the limit.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,902
    ‪Anyone know why it only took a few weeks to fully investigate the Debbie Abrahams allegations but it is taking years for the Ken Livingstone investigation? There are wars that have lasted for less time than the latter investigation. ‬
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,406
    The criticism of the EU’s position on Galileo is based on the faulty assumption that Brexit is certain to happen.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,220
    I'd like to see the data that backs this up:

    Euroscepticism is higher in countries that do better than the EU average in terms of economic performance and quality of government, and among those that think their country is doing better than much of the EU. Why is that? It is to a large part due to the fact that they attribute the good economic and political performance to the quality of their national government, not to the EU. Because their country is doing relatively well, or at least they perceive it as such, they think a viable exit option to membership exists.....

    .....This suggests that better performance is not going to be the silver bullet to combat Euroscepticism. Pro-European elites in Brussels and beyond need to live with Eurosceptics.


    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/05/09/euroscepticism-is-here-to-stay/
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,416

    ‪Anyone know why it only took a few weeks to fully investigate the Debbie Abrahams allegations but it is taking years for the Ken Livingstone investigation? There are wars that have lasted for less time than the latter investigation. ‬

    or Keith Vaz
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,421

    ‪Anyone know why it only took a few weeks to fully investigate the Debbie Abrahams allegations but it is taking years for the Ken Livingstone investigation? There are wars that have lasted for less time than the latter investigation. ‬

    to be fair there are wars which have lasted less time than thread headers

    the official unit of time is "leaders of UKIP"
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,625
    An excellent and well balanced piece by Mr Meeks, particularly on Norn.
    The EU negotiating team encouraged by Varadkar is treating the island of Ireland as a more important construct than the United Kingdom.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,902

    ‪Anyone know why it only took a few weeks to fully investigate the Debbie Abrahams allegations but it is taking years for the Ken Livingstone investigation? There are wars that have lasted for less time than the latter investigation. ‬

    to be fair there are wars which have lasted less time than thread headers

    the official unit of time is "leaders of UKIP"
    My favourite unit of time is an Anglo-Zanzibar War.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,332

    ‪Anyone know why it only took a few weeks to fully investigate the Debbie Abrahams allegations but it is taking years for the Ken Livingstone investigation? There are wars that have lasted for less time than the latter investigation. ‬

    Is one a fully signed up Corbynista and the other one isn't?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,937
    Not a bad piece. One bit missing: an EU objective is to save Theresa May.

    Yes, they’d rather have a europhile as British PM but, absent that, they’d rather have her than Jeremy Corbyn or Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    Therefore I don’t expect them to push her too far. They know they deal needs to clear Parliament.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,421

    ‪Anyone know why it only took a few weeks to fully investigate the Debbie Abrahams allegations but it is taking years for the Ken Livingstone investigation? There are wars that have lasted for less time than the latter investigation. ‬

    to be fair there are wars which have lasted less time than thread headers

    the official unit of time is "leaders of UKIP"
    My favourite unit of time is an Anglo-Zanzibar War.
    the war I had in mind
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,902

    ‪Anyone know why it only took a few weeks to fully investigate the Debbie Abrahams allegations but it is taking years for the Ken Livingstone investigation? There are wars that have lasted for less time than the latter investigation. ‬

    Is one a fully signed up Corbynista and the other one isn't?
    You are such a cynic.

    Oh Jeremy Corbyn isn’t like other politicians.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,421

    Not a bad piece. One bit missing: an EU objective is to save Theresa May.

    Yes, they’d rather have a europhile as British PM but, absent that, they’d rather have her than Jeremy Corbyn or Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    Therefore I don’t expect them to push her too far. They know they deal needs to clear Parliament.

    I'm not clear they would, if we are talking about the Commission. I think they would prefer purity of thought to a broad church. The UK could crash and burn and come back once it has seen the light, to be redeemed in the glorious light of Jean-Claude Juncker
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 8,378

    ‪Anyone know why it only took a few weeks to fully investigate the Debbie Abrahams allegations but it is taking years for the Ken Livingstone investigation? There are wars that have lasted for less time than the latter investigation. ‬

    We're looking for Corbynista level 'explain away' how about A comes before L in the alphabet and not got far down the list yet? Explains the Vaz delays too.

    Downside for that is they can't do in John Woodcock if this thesis were to hold...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,373
    I agree with the general conclusion that we're likely to end up with a deal that satisfies no-one truly and is not sustainable in the long-term, due to a combination of EU tin-earedness, the incompetence of May, and the fact the Lords and some MPs seem to think the EU referendum result is there to be overturned rather than implemented.

    As I said a while ago, the bitterness is going to become entrenched, probably for decades.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 429
    rkrkrk said:

    Interesting header. I hadn't really considered what the EU objectives should be, but I don't agree on the third one. The EU attempting to persuade Britain to rejoin is unlikely to be successful and risks undermining their first two objectives.

    I think AM is completely wrong about the EU objectives.

    Barnier had two objectives. One, get the money, to which he was not obviously entitled. Two, tie in the UK to EU regulation come hell or high water.

    The second objective is nothing to do with whether this is good or bad for the EU economy - I doubt that Barnier has given this the slightest thought. The real consequence of Brexit that Barnier wants to avoid is the UK diverging from EU regulation and succeeding. This is the ultimate disaster for Brussels as it would cause the EU to collapse. Once nations realised that the benefits of the club are massively overestimated, the desire for national sovereignty would prevail.

    Barnier was, at one stage, prepared to go about his business by threatening a poor FTA outcome with a lot of 'friction' and hoping that this would pressure the UK into seeking a more integrated model where he could impose at least some measure of regulations. But now, and thanks to the UK Remainers, he has gone all-in (with someone else's money, of course) and is gambling everything on forcing the UK to either stay in the CU (and hence be stuck with full alignment) or at worst pretending to back down and agree to May's stupid customs partnership, which achieves exactly the same thing but less efficiently.

    The danger is that Barnier has overplayed his hand and ends with nothing. Because, other than a complete backing down, how can the UK get an agreement done in time given all the time that has been wasted playing the NI/CU game? And if the Brexiteers really won't stand for the backdown and roll May, at this stage it is too late for any other deal to be agreed.

    No deal beckons. And that is a disaster for Barnier. No money, no control and a major nation on his doorstep that hates the EU with a passion. And then, what if the UK then still succeeds....?
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 429
    Just as I said yesterday. Robbins has an agreement with the EU that they will pretend to 'back down' and accept the customs partnership, which gives them everything they always wanted.

    JRM save us!
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,177

    So the bunch of a-holes in Brussels accurately described by Mr M are the ones that Remainers want us to stay Best Friends Forever with.

    The EU's negotiating approach exemplifies why we are so right to be leaving. They just want to look like the tough guys in order to intimidate and other Sovereign Nation State (!) who might dare to consider following us out of the door. Having a win-win deal with the UK doesn't even feature in their thinking.

    We had a win-win, then we decided to leave.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,416

    So the bunch of a-holes in Brussels accurately described by Mr M are the ones that Remainers want us to stay Best Friends Forever with.

    The EU's negotiating approach exemplifies why we are so right to be leaving. They just want to look like the tough guys in order to intimidate and other Sovereign Nation State (!) who might dare to consider following us out of the door. Having a win-win deal with the UK doesn't even feature in their thinking.

    We had a win-win, then we decided to leave.
    the bulk of the country didn't agree with you
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,220
    The government is investigating ways to ban technology companies from transferring sensitive information to Europe if Brussels carries out its threat to block the UK from the Galileo satellite navigation system.

    There is growing alarm in Westminster that Britain’s future defence and security co-operation treaty could suffer if the EU presses ahead with its approach to Galileo. It has prompted the Treasury to look into how it can change the licences of UK-based companies that specialise in satellite and encryption technology to halt the use of intellectual property overseas, The Times has learnt.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/security-firms-face-ban-on-helping-eu-in-row-over-satellite-dhl2x8wsh
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,625
    Seems like the EU/Varadkar has had a think about what might be best going forward with Britain.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,818
    Morning all :)

    Thank you, Antifrank, as always for an excellent thread and a measured and interesting argument.

    Even though you and I were on opposite sides of the vote on 23/6/16, my expectation was that the EU would comport itself with a measure of carrot and stick but it faced a dilemma. IF the A50 deal was too generous, not only would the UK not need to seek to re-join but it wouldn't have the effect of "ne pas encourager les autres" as far as other prospective exiting countries were concerned.

    Too onerous a deal and the EU would have the problem you described - the UK would harbour such resentment rapprochement would be impossible and UK-EU relations would be irreparably damaged.

    So how to craft an A50 deal which provides enough disincentive to prevent other EU members wanting to leave while a) maintaining a good relationship with the UK in the present and immediate future and b) leaving enough door open to tempt the UK back to full membership in the future ?

    It's not easy and one is tempted to suggest that if you think May and the UK Government are having problems so are the EU. The mutual recognition of incompatible objectives would be a great start - there's a word in the dictionary called "compromise" and most agreements contain compromise by the bucket-load.

    If we are going to define a bad A50 deal as "not getting everything we want" then no deal will look better than any deal because in order to get an agreement we are going to have to give ground in some areas. That can be sold if the ground given is in areas so technical and complex that no voter will either understand or be bothered (obviously not the colour of passports which is the only thing that matters) and that must be May and Davis's hope. However, Ulster and the UK-EU border are a bit more obvious so we have for internal political consumption to be uncompromising.

    The EU doesn't have to worry about that in the same way but it also needs a deal that works. A sensible EU negotiator might recognise our problems in some areas and be accommodating while nailing us to the floor in less obvious more technical issues.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,406


    No deal beckons. And that is a disaster for Barnier. No money, no control and a major nation on his doorstep that hates the EU with a passion.

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,421

    So the bunch of a-holes in Brussels accurately described by Mr M are the ones that Remainers want us to stay Best Friends Forever with.

    The EU's negotiating approach exemplifies why we are so right to be leaving. They just want to look like the tough guys in order to intimidate and other Sovereign Nation State (!) who might dare to consider following us out of the door. Having a win-win deal with the UK doesn't even feature in their thinking.

    We had a win-win, then we decided to leave.
    the bulk of the country didn't agree with you
    Probably 25% of people would have said we were "winning" in the EU
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,373
    Mr. Glenn, hundreds? Ooo.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,421
    edited May 9


    No deal beckons. And that is a disaster for Barnier. No money, no control and a major nation on his doorstep that hates the EU with a passion.

    reminds me of that Michael Foot (?) quote I can never seem to find about it not being the thousand people cheering in the hall that you need to worry about, but the million not cheering at home

    edit: if anyone has the story it would be greatly appreciated
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,657
    edited May 9

    Not a bad piece. One bit missing: an EU objective is to save Theresa May.

    Yes, they’d rather have a europhile as British PM but, absent that, they’d rather have her than Jeremy Corbyn or Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    Therefore I don’t expect them to push her too far. They know they deal needs to clear Parliament.

    She’s unlikely to be replaced with JRM, but more likely someone like Michael Gove, agreeing to serve as interim PM for a year purely to see through the Brexit deal - with the likes of JRM and Dan Hannan standing behind him.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,177

    So the bunch of a-holes in Brussels accurately described by Mr M are the ones that Remainers want us to stay Best Friends Forever with.

    The EU's negotiating approach exemplifies why we are so right to be leaving. They just want to look like the tough guys in order to intimidate and other Sovereign Nation State (!) who might dare to consider following us out of the door. Having a win-win deal with the UK doesn't even feature in their thinking.

    We had a win-win, then we decided to leave.
    the bulk of the country didn't agree with you
    They do now
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,990

    Just as I said yesterday. Robbins has an agreement with the EU that they will pretend to 'back down' and accept the customs partnership, which gives them everything they always wanted.

    JRM save us!
    Still posting from Oz? Are you there permanantly or when are are you coming back to join us.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,048


    No deal beckons. And that is a disaster for Barnier. No money, no control and a major nation on his doorstep that hates the EU with a passion.

    So out of the entire population of Yorkshire, hundreds marched in support of Remain. Clearly a force to be reckoned with.

    Meanwhile millions of Tykes take to the streets to watch some blokes in lycra go wizzing past.
  • kingbongokingbongo Posts: 105
    Alistair Meeks' threads are so much better than most of his comments - it's blindingly obvious to anyone that the EU could be playing this to both their and the UK's benefit but have chosen instead to emphasise bitterness and a sour future direction for UK/EU relations.

    I wish the whole referendum thing had never happened but the EU doing Farage's work for him with schoolboy mocking of all and every UK suggestion and exhibiting a proud lack of interest in making any suggestions of their own - the whole 'it's entirely down to the UK' argument may be true but really really stupid strategically - leaves me, as an EU resident Brit, fuming at the indecision of May's government and the perfidious behaviour of the EU.

    In my darkest moments I admit to feeling a sense of 'sod it - diamond hard brexit it is' - but then I won't be too badly hit as I live overseas so reason kicks back in and I hope for BINO - which is still my favoured outcome and will still probably be what happens. Any higher ideals of what the EU is and what it might be, that I have held for the last 40 years, are gone though.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 883
    Great thread, and among the easy smirks at how Leave is unravelling, some hard truths for those of us who believe in internationalism and good EU relations.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,888
    Thank you Mr Meeks: an interesting and thoughtful piece.

    One thing has always interested me - this idea that if the EU were perceived to be too generous to the UK it would encourage others to demand the same. I wonder how far this is true. Other countries don't seem to have the same issues as the UK has had with free movement, not least because they don't see it as immigration in the way that many in the UK do and because of geographical issues and different welfare systems. They also have a different view of the nation state for historical reasons. So would there really be this push from others to get a similar Britain-lite deal?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,416

    So the bunch of a-holes in Brussels accurately described by Mr M are the ones that Remainers want us to stay Best Friends Forever with.

    The EU's negotiating approach exemplifies why we are so right to be leaving. They just want to look like the tough guys in order to intimidate and other Sovereign Nation State (!) who might dare to consider following us out of the door. Having a win-win deal with the UK doesn't even feature in their thinking.

    We had a win-win, then we decided to leave.
    the bulk of the country didn't agree with you
    They do now
    youd lose the second referendum
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,399

    ‪Anyone know why it only took a few weeks to fully investigate the Debbie Abrahams allegations but it is taking years for the Ken Livingstone investigation? There are wars that have lasted for less time than the latter investigation. ‬

    I love the song in Cabaret - it ends 'she doesn't look Jewish at all ' :)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,433
    kingbongo said:

    Alistair Meeks' threads are so much better than most of his comments - it's blindingly obvious to anyone that the EU could be playing this to both their and the UK's benefit but have chosen instead to emphasise bitterness and a sour future direction for UK/EU relations.

    I wish the whole referendum thing had never happened but the EU doing Farage's work for him with schoolboy mocking of all and every UK suggestion and exhibiting a proud lack of interest in making any suggestions of their own - the whole 'it's entirely down to the UK' argument may be true but really really stupid strategically - leaves me, as an EU resident Brit, fuming at the indecision of May's government and the perfidious behaviour of the EU.

    In my darkest moments I admit to feeling a sense of 'sod it - diamond hard brexit it is'....

    It seems as though those negotiating the deal have similarly little stake on the outcome as it might affect ordinary citizens (as opposed to their political careers).... and are rather less resistant to the pull of emotion than are you.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,502
    The Galileo thing sounds dumb, unless it's just a negotiating card that they intend to trade.

    On Northern Ireland the problem is that there just aren't enough logical possibilities to have the luxury of discarding unpleasant ones. The British want a circle, but they want it to have four corners. Since this isn't a thing, you need to talk about other options, like a rectangle with rounded corners, and see if any of them can satisfy both sides of the negotiation that the British are having with themselves.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,048
    Cyclefree said:

    Thank you Mr Meeks: an interesting and thoughtful piece.

    One thing has always interested me - this idea that if the EU were perceived to be too generous to the UK it would encourage others to demand the same. I wonder how far this is true. Other countries don't seem to have the same issues as the UK has had with free movement, not least because they don't see it as immigration in the way that many in the UK do and because of geographical issues and different welfare systems. They also have a different view of the nation state for historical reasons. So would there really be this push from others to get a similar Britain-lite deal?

    Denmark, Poland, Hungary in the first wave.

    Then the Netherlands, Italy and Sweden.

    Very soon they have to shut up shop and return to a Common Market. Then we can all rejoin.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,220
    No doubt reappearing in one, or more, newspaper columns tomorrow, after a little judicious rearranging.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,220
    edited May 9

    The Galileo thing sounds dumb, unless it's just a negotiating card that they intend to trade.

    Its having a material impact on the project as its held up the ordering of new satellites....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,406

    No doubt reappearing in one, or more, newspaper columns tomorrow, after a little judicious rearranging.....
    "They shouldn't make us capitulate like that. They should make us capitulate like this."
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,640
    Really good article. One small correction, I suggest. The UK is not primarily excluded from the highest level of access to Galileo because of security concerns. The access levels available to members and non-members were set by treaty when Galileo was formulated. The EU is not prepared to offer the UK special access that is unavailable under current rules and which isn't available to other non-members. This is in the context of the UK having rejected membership after a campaign that aimed to devalue membership by claiming the UK wouldn't lose out by leaving. Your first EU objective applies:

    make sure that the EU’s rules retain coherence (so Britain must not be given special favours, even if they are in the short term economic interest of the EU, because they would destroy the EU’s long term stability).

    The Irish border is sui generis and, I believe, more objectively questionable. Ultimately the UK can have a hard border if it wants one, although we probably don't actually want one. It's a huge mess.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,416

    Cyclefree said:

    Thank you Mr Meeks: an interesting and thoughtful piece.

    One thing has always interested me - this idea that if the EU were perceived to be too generous to the UK it would encourage others to demand the same. I wonder how far this is true. Other countries don't seem to have the same issues as the UK has had with free movement, not least because they don't see it as immigration in the way that many in the UK do and because of geographical issues and different welfare systems. They also have a different view of the nation state for historical reasons. So would there really be this push from others to get a similar Britain-lite deal?

    Denmark, Poland, Hungary in the first wave.

    Then the Netherlands, Italy and Sweden.

    Very soon they have to shut up shop and return to a Common Market. Then we can all rejoin.
    the basic problem for Euro federalists is they are trying to push their project before the electorate is ready

    if they had patience they would be more likely to get there.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,888

    Cyclefree said:

    Thank you Mr Meeks: an interesting and thoughtful piece.

    One thing has always interested me - this idea that if the EU were perceived to be too generous to the UK it would encourage others to demand the same. I wonder how far this is true. Other countries don't seem to have the same issues as the UK has had with free movement, not least because they don't see it as immigration in the way that many in the UK do and because of geographical issues and different welfare systems. They also have a different view of the nation state for historical reasons. So would there really be this push from others to get a similar Britain-lite deal?

    Denmark, Poland, Hungary in the first wave.

    Then the Netherlands, Italy and Sweden.

    Very soon they have to shut up shop and return to a Common Market. Then we can all rejoin.
    Well, Denmark has an opt out from the Euro and shows no signs of wanting to leave or demand further exemptions. I doubt that Poland and Hungary, when push comes to shove, will follow the UK's route, not with Putin breathing down their necks.

    And I would be very surprised if two of the founder members would do anything either.

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,478
    Good piece, AM.

    This too.

    rkrkrk said:

    Interesting header. I hadn't really considered what the EU objectives should be, but I don't agree on the third one. The EU attempting to persuade Britain to rejoin is unlikely to be successful and risks undermining their first two objectives.

    I think AM is completely wrong about the EU objectives.

    Barnier had two objectives. One, get the money, to which he was not obviously entitled. Two, tie in the UK to EU regulation come hell or high water.

    The second objective is nothing to do with whether this is good or bad for the EU economy - I doubt that Barnier has given this the slightest thought. The real consequence of Brexit that Barnier wants to avoid is the UK diverging from EU regulation and succeeding. This is the ultimate disaster for Brussels as it would cause the EU to collapse. Once nations realised that the benefits of the club are massively overestimated, the desire for national sovereignty would prevail.

    Barnier was, at one stage, prepared to go about his business by threatening a poor FTA outcome with a lot of 'friction' and hoping that this would pressure the UK into seeking a more integrated model where he could impose at least some measure of regulations. But now, and thanks to the UK Remainers, he has gone all-in (with someone else's money, of course) and is gambling everything on forcing the UK to either stay in the CU (and hence be stuck with full alignment) or at worst pretending to back down and agree to May's stupid customs partnership, which achieves exactly the same thing but less efficiently.

    The danger is that Barnier has overplayed his hand and ends with nothing. Because, other than a complete backing down, how can the UK get an agreement done in time given all the time that has been wasted playing the NI/CU game? And if the Brexiteers really won't stand for the backdown and roll May, at this stage it is too late for any other deal to be agreed.

    No deal beckons. And that is a disaster for Barnier. No money, no control and a major nation on his doorstep that hates the EU with a passion. And then, what if the UK then still succeeds....?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,888
    A couple of further questions:-

    1. Would giving Britain special favours over some things really destroy the EU's long-term stability? Why and how would this happen?

    2. How would Britain continue to be a thorn in the EU's flesh and how would this manifest itself?
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 429
    No, just in time. The 'climbdown' has been planned all along. Now the EU will start leaking their support to bolster May so she can use this to show her cabinet that she has a solution (which gives the EU everything they want, of course).

    Of course, not sure how it works when every member of the Cabinet that voted Leave will vote against her Customs Partnership. Not sure then how you manage to claim that you have delivered the result of the referendum when everyone who supported the winning side tells you that you are wrong.

    Then she can make Olly Robbins a Lord and he can join the rest of the undemocratic pigswill. Of course, May will have to join him as there is no way she can ever stand for election again after this type of sellout.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,220
    FF43 said:

    The EU is not prepared to offer the UK special access that is unavailable under current rules and which isn't available to other non-members.

    But it still wants a deep and meaningful security treaty......with a country it 'can't trust'?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,736
    edited May 9

    ‪Anyone know why it only took a few weeks to fully investigate the Debbie Abrahams allegations but it is taking years for the Ken Livingstone investigation? There are wars that have lasted for less time than the latter investigation. ‬

    And one are a set of allegations that happened in private, so you would think require some careful investigation and the other is all on public record....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,990
    edited May 9

    The Galileo thing sounds dumb, unless it's just a negotiating card that they intend to trade.

    Its having a material impact on the project as its held up the ordering of new satellites....
    We told them we were out of Euratom and the EMA. Not surprised. UK picking and choosing again!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,220
    The UK is “indispensable” to the success of the EU’s Galileo satellite navigation system, and excluding the country after Brexit would be “another invitation for [Russian president] Vladimir Putin to question Europe's defence capabilities”, says German MEP Christian Ehler.

    Despite the UK’s deep involvement in Galileo since the project’s start, future participation is at risk, leaving it looking at the possibility of establishing its own system.


    https://sciencebusiness.net/news/excluding-uk-europes-galileo-system-would-be-gift-putin-says-mep
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,433
    FF43 said:

    Really good article. One small correction, I suggest. The UK is not primarily excluded from the highest level of access to Galileo because of security concerns. The access levels available to members and non-members were set by treaty when Galileo was formulated. The EU is not prepared to offer the UK special access that is unavailable under current rules and which isn't available to other non-members. This is in the context of the UK having rejected membership after a campaign that aimed to devalue membership by claiming the UK wouldn't lose out by leaving....

    Switzerland is a "third country", and yet a supplier of essential components (the precision clocks) for the system...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43546209
    The Financial Times reports that in its letter to the UK government, the European Commission said security elements of the GPS project needed to be protected to avoid them being "irretrievably compromised" for several years by being shared with the UK, which will be a "third party" after Brexit.

    Commission spokesman Alexander Winterstein said it was "the right time to start thinking about adjusting co-operation" on Galileo because the the UK becomes a "third country" - ie no longer a member of the EU - on 29 March, 2019…


    The EU attitude on this is not defensible.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,174
    Alastair accepts the EU is shooting itself in the foot with a terrible strategy, but doesn't seem to make the next logical step of accepting that the EU is poor at this sort of decision making in general. Whether on the Common Agricultural Policy, or Eurozone reform, or the refugee crisis, or a US trade deal, it makes bad decision after bad decision. There is a fundamental driver to this, which is that the EU prioritises European integration at the expense of everything else, even good policy. The "Brexit must be punished" mentality is just a facet of that. It's also the reason why, whatever the difficulties leaving, we are better off out of the thing long term.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,322
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Thank you Mr Meeks: an interesting and thoughtful piece.

    One thing has always interested me - this idea that if the EU were perceived to be too generous to the UK it would encourage others to demand the same. I wonder how far this is true. Other countries don't seem to have the same issues as the UK has had with free movement, not least because they don't see it as immigration in the way that many in the UK do and because of geographical issues and different welfare systems. They also have a different view of the nation state for historical reasons. So would there really be this push from others to get a similar Britain-lite deal?

    Denmark, Poland, Hungary in the first wave.

    Then the Netherlands, Italy and Sweden.

    Very soon they have to shut up shop and return to a Common Market. Then we can all rejoin.
    Well, Denmark has an opt out from the Euro and shows no signs of wanting to leave or demand further exemptions. I doubt that Poland and Hungary, when push comes to shove, will follow the UK's route, not with Putin breathing down their necks.

    And I would be very surprised if two of the founder members would do anything either.

    The EU, like democracy, is the worst system apart from all the rest. No country is going leave it, and small countries (Serbia etc) will continue to want to join the club. Most of Europe consists of small countries who are quite used to playing follow the leader. Indeed, have never never done anything else.

    However, what the UK’s leaving does do is clearly leave Europe under German hegemony with France providing a bit of song and dance during intermissions.

    The bogeyman conjured up by Brexiters will now come true...because of Brexit.
  • Torby_FennelTorby_Fennel Posts: 231
    kingbongo said:

    Alistair Meeks' threads are so much better than most of his comments - it's blindingly obvious to anyone that the EU could be playing this to both their and the UK's benefit but have chosen instead to emphasise bitterness and a sour future direction for UK/EU relations.

    I think it's also blindingly obvious that the UK could also be playing this to both their and the EU's benefit but are not doing. It seems to me that most (but by no means all) of the bitterness and fault is on the UK side. Though I totally understand that we all see these problems through the prism of what side we were on in the referendum.

    Things are so bad now that there aren't even any solutions to this mess that could even unite the various factions of Brexiters let alone unite the majority of the country. What a total mess.

    However, looking at faults on the Remain side, I still think that David Cameron's attempts at renegotiation prior to the referendum are a big part of why we are where we are. He simply shouldn't have done it. The referendum should have been our membership as it was versus exit - rather than renegotiated membership versus exit. By seeking renegotiation Cameron sent out the message that maybe our membership wasn't all that wonderful... from that moment on the whole Remain campaign was undermined as Remainers were put on the back foot and lost the chance to campaign for what we really believe in and had to fall grudgingly in behind Cameron's diluted membership plan. Whether or not we would have won if things had been different I don't know but we'd certainly have been able to fight a more positive campaign. I didn't really believe in the kind of diluted Remain that I was forced to vote for but it was the only kind of Remain on offer...

    Oh, and the word "Remain" itself is such a half hearted word anyway... It implies reluctance. Just a cursory online search for synonyms for "Remain" show how bad a choice it was.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,406
    Elliot said:

    Alastair accepts the EU is shooting itself in the foot with a terrible strategy, but doesn't seem to make the next logical step of accepting that the EU is poor at this sort of decision making in general. Whether on the Common Agricultural Policy, or Eurozone reform, or the refugee crisis, or a US trade deal, it makes bad decision after bad decision. There is a fundamental driver to this, which is that the EU prioritises European integration at the expense of everything else, even good policy. The "Brexit must be punished" mentality is just a facet of that. It's also the reason why, whatever the difficulties leaving, we are better off out of the thing long term.

    Your own examples don't support your argument. The Eurozone reforms people (especially in the UK) propose involve more integration and they have been resisted for this reason.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,322
    edited May 9
    Greater EU amenability to the customs arrangement is surely not going to persuade the true faith Brexiters. In fact, this just adds more reasons to dismiss it.

    However, it may persuade one or two waverers on the sub-committee. Williamson? May only needs one vote there.

    Then, she can push it through cabinet and parliament and dare the Brexiters to blink.
  • kingbongokingbongo Posts: 105

    FF43 said:

    The EU is not prepared to offer the UK special access that is unavailable under current rules and which isn't available to other non-members.

    But it still wants a deep and meaningful security treaty......with a country it 'can't trust'?
    This is the sort of thing that people who write "but this is what the UK wanted" get wrong.

    This is a political not a legal process - rather than say " we have a problem because of the legal structure which the UK and the EU need to work through and we will be seeking ways to do that" the PR machine spurts out "the EU sees the UK as a third country and we can't trust them, (except of course with security and intelligence information, where it would be an outrageous breach of every European value if the UK didn't tell us everything all the time)".

    it's infuriating
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,640
    edited May 9

    FF43 said:

    The EU is not prepared to offer the UK special access that is unavailable under current rules and which isn't available to other non-members.

    But it still wants a deep and meaningful security treaty......with a country it 'can't trust'?
    As I say, it's the application of rules, not a lack of trust, that is driving this. If we want the highest level of access to Galileo we can get it simply by being a member of the EU. Nevertheless the counterargument is a valid one. It is in the EU's interest to have a good relationship with countries that are non-members. It needs to manage the tension between that and maintaining the value of membership. Bear in mind, as the EU certainly does, that our government implicitly undermines the value of EU membership in the pursuit of its interest.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,988
    Reading the story makes it seem like less of a U-turn if the removal was only ever intended to be temporary.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,736

    Reading the story makes it seem like less of a U-turn if the removal was only ever intended to be temporary.
    If you believe that, I have some magic beans to sell you...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,220

    Reading the story makes it seem like less of a U-turn if the removal was only ever intended to be temporary.
    If you believe that, I have some magic beans to sell you...
    While Mrs May's portrait sparked criticism and protests from students, the image just below her of the Marxist geographer Doreen Massey remained in place.

    Ms Massey has worked as an adviser to the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, who cited her in his speeches.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 14,161
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    The EU is not prepared to offer the UK special access that is unavailable under current rules and which isn't available to other non-members.

    But it still wants a deep and meaningful security treaty......with a country it 'can't trust'?
    As I say, it's the application of rules, not a lack of trust, that is driving this. If we want the highest level of access to Galileo we can get it simply by being a member of the EU. Nevertheless the counterargument is a valid one. It is in the EU's interest to have a good relationship with countries that are non-members. It needs to manage the tension between that and maintaining the value of membership. Bear in mind, as the EU certainly does, that our government implicitly undermines the value of EU membership in the pursuit of its interest.
    So change the rules. It's not difficult.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,962
    For those of you watching the West Virginia Third, Richard Ojeda swept to victory in the Democratic Primary, with 30,000 votes. That's almost four times as many votes as the winner of the Republican Primary, Carol Miller, who mustered 9,000.

    This is a District Donald Trump won 74-24 at the General.

    JFK with tattoos is on the march.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,640
    edited May 9
    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    Really good article. One small correction, I suggest. The UK is not primarily excluded from the highest level of access to Galileo because of security concerns. The access levels available to members and non-members were set by treaty when Galileo was formulated. The EU is not prepared to offer the UK special access that is unavailable under current rules and which isn't available to other non-members. This is in the context of the UK having rejected membership after a campaign that aimed to devalue membership by claiming the UK wouldn't lose out by leaving....

    Switzerland is a "third country", and yet a supplier of essential components (the precision clocks) for the system...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43546209
    The Financial Times reports that in its letter to the UK government, the European Commission said security elements of the GPS project needed to be protected to avoid them being "irretrievably compromised" for several years by being shared with the UK, which will be a "third party" after Brexit.

    Commission spokesman Alexander Winterstein said it was "the right time to start thinking about adjusting co-operation" on Galileo because the the UK becomes a "third country" - ie no longer a member of the EU - on 29 March, 2019…


    The EU attitude on this is not defensible.
    Possible. Switzerland (obviously) has a unique speciality in clock manufacture. I think it got that work before it joined Galileo. The issues of which companies do which work is separate from access levels.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,962

    So the bunch of a-holes in Brussels accurately described by Mr M are the ones that Remainers want us to stay Best Friends Forever with.

    The EU's negotiating approach exemplifies why we are so right to be leaving. They just want to look like the tough guys in order to intimidate and other Sovereign Nation State (!) who might dare to consider following us out of the door. Having a win-win deal with the UK doesn't even feature in their thinking.

    It seems like the EU is a no win position with you, Mr Rentool. If they rolled over and gave us everything, then you'd say "See, I told you it was right to leave, we've got a great deal with them without the problems of membership."
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,494
    rcs1000 said:

    So the bunch of a-holes in Brussels accurately described by Mr M are the ones that Remainers want us to stay Best Friends Forever with.

    The EU's negotiating approach exemplifies why we are so right to be leaving. They just want to look like the tough guys in order to intimidate and other Sovereign Nation State (!) who might dare to consider following us out of the door. Having a win-win deal with the UK doesn't even feature in their thinking.

    It seems like the EU is a no win position with you, Mr Rentool. If they rolled over and gave us everything, then you'd say "See, I told you it was right to leave, we've got a great deal with them without the problems of membership."
    Good politics, that is. It's a shame Mr Rentool didn't stand in a more winnable seat.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,220
    In the focus group in Southampton, the men were also keen on a cap on the difference between the pay of executives and their employees, and the nationalisation of the water, energy and rail industries.

    But when asked whether the policies belonged to the Conservative or Labour party, three quickly replied in succession: “Conservative”.

    When the men were told that the policies belonged to Mr Corbyn’s Labour party, not Theresa May’s Conservatives, they went cold, with one calling them “rubbish”.

    “Their sums don’t add up,” said another participant, adding: “Although we haven’t seen the sums. We’re assuming they’re not going to add up.”

    Another said the ideas could not be delivered “without ruining the country”


    https://www.ft.com/content/f2632c6e-4e1d-11e8-a7a9-37318e776bab

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,657

    In the focus group in Southampton, the men were also keen on a cap on the difference between the pay of executives and their employees, and the nationalisation of the water, energy and rail industries.

    But when asked whether the policies belonged to the Conservative or Labour party, three quickly replied in succession: “Conservative”.

    When the men were told that the policies belonged to Mr Corbyn’s Labour party, not Theresa May’s Conservatives, they went cold, with one calling them “rubbish”.

    “Their sums don’t add up,” said another participant, adding: “Although we haven’t seen the sums. We’re assuming they’re not going to add up.”

    Another said the ideas could not be delivered “without ruining the country”


    https://www.ft.com/content/f2632c6e-4e1d-11e8-a7a9-37318e776bab

    Who on Earth would have thought that utility nationalisation and pay restrictions would be Conservative policies?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,640
    rcs1000 said:

    So the bunch of a-holes in Brussels accurately described by Mr M are the ones that Remainers want us to stay Best Friends Forever with.

    The EU's negotiating approach exemplifies why we are so right to be leaving. They just want to look like the tough guys in order to intimidate and other Sovereign Nation State (!) who might dare to consider following us out of the door. Having a win-win deal with the UK doesn't even feature in their thinking.

    It seems like the EU is a no win position with you, Mr Rentool. If they rolled over and gave us everything, then you'd say "See, I told you it was right to leave, we've got a great deal with them without the problems of membership."
    The other way round, Mr RCS ! Mr Rentool wins either way.

    The EU rolls over - "See. We had nothing to lose except our chains. We were right to leave." The EU holds the line - "See how the EU treats us. We were right to leave."
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,416

    Wages still on the rise, one Brexit threat remainers actually met


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/08/dearth-skilled-workers-pushes-wage-growth/
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 1,968
    Lady Phyll Opoku-Gyimah is maybe best-placed to increase the Labour majority in Lewisham East.Some other impressive women coming forwards too.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,736
    Sandpit said:

    In the focus group in Southampton, the men were also keen on a cap on the difference between the pay of executives and their employees, and the nationalisation of the water, energy and rail industries.

    But when asked whether the policies belonged to the Conservative or Labour party, three quickly replied in succession: “Conservative”.

    When the men were told that the policies belonged to Mr Corbyn’s Labour party, not Theresa May’s Conservatives, they went cold, with one calling them “rubbish”.

    “Their sums don’t add up,” said another participant, adding: “Although we haven’t seen the sums. We’re assuming they’re not going to add up.”

    Another said the ideas could not be delivered “without ruining the country”


    https://www.ft.com/content/f2632c6e-4e1d-11e8-a7a9-37318e776bab

    Who on Earth would have thought that utility nationalisation and pay restrictions would be Conservative policies?
    I think rather than voter id restrictions, we need restrictions on those that actually have a clue what the parties stand for before one can vote.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,220
    Sandpit said:

    In the focus group in Southampton, the men were also keen on a cap on the difference between the pay of executives and their employees, and the nationalisation of the water, energy and rail industries.

    But when asked whether the policies belonged to the Conservative or Labour party, three quickly replied in succession: “Conservative”.

    When the men were told that the policies belonged to Mr Corbyn’s Labour party, not Theresa May’s Conservatives, they went cold, with one calling them “rubbish”.

    “Their sums don’t add up,” said another participant, adding: “Although we haven’t seen the sums. We’re assuming they’re not going to add up.”

    Another said the ideas could not be delivered “without ruining the country”


    https://www.ft.com/content/f2632c6e-4e1d-11e8-a7a9-37318e776bab

    Who on Earth would have thought that utility nationalisation and pay restrictions would be Conservative policies?
    It may be circular logic 'the policy is sensible, therefore it is Conservative'....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,736
    edited May 9

    Lady Phyll Opoku-Gyimah is maybe best-placed to increase the Labour majority in Lewisham East.Some other impressive women coming forwards too.

    In January, LGBT campaigner Phyll Opoku-Gyimah became briefly best-known for turning down the MBE she'd been offered on 2016's New Year's Honours list. She was flattered, she said to Diva magazine, but wasn't hugely keen on accepting an award linked to "colonialism and its toxic and enduring legacy in the Commonwealth, where – among many other injustices – LGBTQI people are still being persecuted, tortured and even killed because of sodomy laws."

    Sounds a perfect Corbynista...its all the evil empire's fault for everything ever.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,970
    As an Irishman once said, "we shouldn't be starting from here".

    The Uk should have started negotiations from a WTO position and then sought concesions from the EU in return for offering lower tariffs for EU exports to the UK.

    Maybe we will end up with WTO terms and start negotiations all over again but three years and a smooth transition will have been lost.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,218
    edited May 9
    Excellent article from Alastair, but if I may venture one criticism, it is that there is an implicit assumption that the EU is a single body which acts, and indeed can act, in a coherent way. In practice, especially when faced with a multi-faceted issue like Brexit, it is a much more amorphous beast. Superficially, its political structures look coherent and purposefully designed, with grand-sounding institutional names such as the EU Parliament, but in reality the boundaries of power and decision making are ill-defined, and its modus operandi is fudge and muddling through.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,184

    Interesting thread header - AM's are always thought-provoking.

    Surprisingly negative on the EU from someone the swivel-eyed brigade paint as an extreme Remainiac... but has the ring of truth about it. The EU hold all the cards; it's human nature to push that advantage to the limit.

    It is only negative for those outside the club, but that was our choice.

    The money is small fry, and only a short term issue. The main EU objective is to have a coherent set of rules and regulations with as few exceptions as possible. It is why they would prefer either CU or SM, but we have refused that (at least officially) .

    I don't see any desire to punish, but the EU is not under any obligation to make our freely chosen hair shirt any more comfortable.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,418

    Superficially, its political structures look coherent and purposefully designed, with grand-sounding institutional names such as the ** Parliament, but in reality the boundaries of power and decision making are ill-defined, and its modus operandi is fudge and muddling through.

    Pungent tang of familiarity there.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,184

    Lady Phyll Opoku-Gyimah is maybe best-placed to increase the Labour majority in Lewisham East.Some other impressive women coming forwards too.

    In January, LGBT campaigner Phyll Opoku-Gyimah became briefly best-known for turning down the MBE she'd been offered on 2016's New Year's Honours list. She was flattered, she said to Diva magazine, but wasn't hugely keen on accepting an award linked to "colonialism and its toxic and enduring legacy in the Commonwealth, where – among many other injustices – LGBTQI people are still being persecuted, tortured and even killed because of sodomy laws."

    Sounds a perfect Corbynista...its all the evil empire's fault for everything ever.
    I do see her point, time that MBE and similar gongs were renamed.

    Perhaps the MBE could be relaunched as The Commonwealth Medal.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,736
    Foxy said:

    Lady Phyll Opoku-Gyimah is maybe best-placed to increase the Labour majority in Lewisham East.Some other impressive women coming forwards too.

    In January, LGBT campaigner Phyll Opoku-Gyimah became briefly best-known for turning down the MBE she'd been offered on 2016's New Year's Honours list. She was flattered, she said to Diva magazine, but wasn't hugely keen on accepting an award linked to "colonialism and its toxic and enduring legacy in the Commonwealth, where – among many other injustices – LGBTQI people are still being persecuted, tortured and even killed because of sodomy laws."

    Sounds a perfect Corbynista...its all the evil empire's fault for everything ever.
    I do see her point, time that MBE and similar gongs were renamed.

    Perhaps the MBE could be relaunched as The Commonwealth Medal.
    That won't satisfy her, as the appalling treatment of gay people in countries who have been independently run for 50 years is still all our fault (despite having some of the most progressive laws in the world).
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 14,161
    edited May 9

    Superficially, its political structures look coherent and purposefully designed, with grand-sounding institutional names such as the ** Parliament, but in reality the boundaries of power and decision making are ill-defined, and its modus operandi is fudge and muddling through.

    Pungent tang of familiarity there.
    Reference to Holyrood? Given that it's no more than a souped up council chamber because you're all a bunch of bottlers and cowards.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,406

    As an Irishman once said, "we shouldn't be starting from here".

    The Uk should have started negotiations from a WTO position and then sought concesions from the EU in return for offering lower tariffs for EU exports to the UK.

    Maybe we will end up with WTO terms and start negotiations all over again but three years and a smooth transition will have been lost.

    Unless you can operate on WTO terms with the EU in reality that is not a serious negotiating position. You'd be asking the EU to suspend disbelief in order to negate their own leverage.

    This is in fact what May tried with her Lancaster House approach with the shock and awe tactic of saying we'd leave the single market and customs union.
This discussion has been closed.