So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
Right ok, so what does a "bare bones" deal look like?
Covers the basics like transport, planes flying, legal contracts, etc. It can then be built on in the coming years to form a more complete agreement. It will stop Barnier and his the clock is tocking stuff. Which will happen again in 2020, with the currently proposed May WA.
Can't see any incentive for the EU to help us out with that tbh.
Their flights use our aerospace etc, etc - they need a deal too. Maybe less than us, but they need a barebones one just as we do. Fudge will be the order of the day if it has to be, there will never be a no deal. It will just be a deal minimus.
Didn't I also read we'd pay £20 billion too?
Probably. There's very little you can't resolve with enough willpower and a chequebook.
Between having a meltdown and no cash, or no meltdown and billions of sterling - the EU will plump for the latter. They're currently being greedy because they think they can get away with it, that's all.
Alternatively Chicken Little the sky doesn't collapse, the economy doesn't collapse and that WTO claim is a total myth.
We crash out of the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake
We crash out of leave the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake.
Your arguments now are no different to those of the Chicken Little's who said the sky would fall if we voted Leave in the first place.
We are still in the EU, the single market and customs union, not crashing out of all of them without an agreed trade deal or transition period, a totally different scenario if it came to fruition next March from in 2016
We voted to leave them all and we were assured that would result in an immediate downturn, which didn't happen. Maybe the CBI, City and Governor of the Bank of England are led by fallible humans who can make mistakes.
Not necessarily, a number of Leavers wanted to Leave the EU but stay in the single market via EFTA or the customs union, the vast majority of the country do not want Brexit to take place without at the bare minimum a trade deal agreed with the EU or on the way to being agreed.
Crash out Brexit ends up with only one result, Remain most likely after EUref2, or full single market membership, it would just be a matter of if not when. Through their stupidity and refusal to compromise the economic damage they would have caused with No Deal would mean Brexiteers would have destroyed for ever voters confidence in a sustainable permanent Brexit outside the EU or EEA
No you're wrong. And if there's damage it is from Remainers May and Robbins stupidly not planning for no deal, not bringing the country along with them for this deal and not negotiating a better deal.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
Right ok, so what does a "bare bones" deal look like?
Covers the basics like transport, planes flying, legal contracts, etc. It can then be built on in the coming years to form a more complete agreement. It will stop Barnier and his the clock is tocking stuff. Which will happen again in 2020, with the currently proposed May WA.
Can't see any incentive for the EU to help us out with that tbh.
Their flights use our aerospace etc, etc - they need a deal too. Maybe less than us, but they need a barebones one just as we do. Fudge will be the order of the day if it has to be, there will never be a no deal. It will just be a deal minimus.
Although if even a minimal aviation deal fails to be achieved, it'll be a lot easier for EU airlines to fly around the UK than vice versa.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
Right ok, so what does a "bare bones" deal look like?
Covers the basics like transport, planes flying, legal contracts, etc. It can then be built on in the coming years to form a more complete agreement. It will stop Barnier and his the clock is tocking stuff. Which will happen again in 2020, with the currently proposed May WA.
Can't see any incentive for the EU to help us out with that tbh.
Their flights use our aerospace etc, etc - they need a deal too. Maybe less than us, but they need a barebones one just as we do. Fudge will be the order of the day if it has to be, there will never be a no deal. It will just be a deal minimus.
Although if even a minimal aviation deal fails to be achieved, it'll be a lot easier for EU airlines to fly around the UK than vice versa.
Good look seeing the Irish get to Europe smoothly. Or the continentals getting to the USA. The chaos would not be worth it, not with a minimus deal and a stonking big cheque available.
No you're wrong. And if there's damage it is from Remainers May and Robbins stupidly not planning for no deal, not bringing the country along with them for this deal and not negotiating a better deal.
So they should have sent in the diggers to start building new infrastructure while telling the public, "Don't worry, this is just for show to intimidate the EU into giving us a better deal?"
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
Right ok, so what does a "bare bones" deal look like?
Covers the basics like transport, planes flying, legal contracts, etc. It can then be built on in the coming years to form a more complete agreement. It will stop Barnier and his the clock is tocking stuff. Which will happen again in 2020, with the currently proposed May WA.
Can't see any incentive for the EU to help us out with that tbh.
Their flights use our aerospace etc, etc - they need a deal too. Maybe less than us, but they need a barebones one just as we do. Fudge will be the order of the day if it has to be, there will never be a no deal. It will just be a deal minimus.
Although if even a minimal aviation deal fails to be achieved, it'll be a lot easier for EU airlines to fly around the UK than vice versa.
Good look seeing the Irish get to Europe smoothly. Or the continentals getting to the USA. The chaos would not be worth it, not with a minimus deal and a stonking big cheque available.
The Irish Govt did an analysis. 34% from Ireland land in the UK. 26% of Cyprus and Maltese flights, 17% of Spanish, Portuguese and Greek flights. I never knew how popular we are.
No, Barnier and the EU will say 'sod off', No Deal screws you more than us given 16% of our exports go to you but 44% of your exports go to us. Let that be a lesson to others trying to leave the EU and dictate terms to the Commission
So we sod off then, at which point they fail to erect the hard border and their sham is shown to have been bullshit all along.
Under WTO rules there has to be a border without a FTA and goods checks, meanwhile the UK economy collapses
Alternatively Chicken Little the sky doesn't collapse, the economy doesn't collapse and that WTO claim is a total myth.
We crash out of the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake
We crash out of leave the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the lives and jobs and wages at stake.
Your arguments now are no different to those of the Chicken Little's who said the sky would fall if we voted Leave in the first place.
We are still in the EU, the single market and customs union, not crashing out of all of them without an agreed trade deal or transition period, a totally different scenario if it came to fruition next March from in 2016
We voted to leave them all and we were assured that would result in an immediate downturn, which didn't happen. Maybe the CBI, City and Governor of the Bank of England are led by fallible humans who can make mistakes.
Not necessarily, a number of Leavers wanted to Leave the EU but stay in the single market via EFTA or the customs union, the vast majority of the country do not want Brexit to take place without at the bare minimum a trade deal agreed with the EU or on the way to being agreed.
Crash out Brexit ends up with only one result, Remain most likely after EUref2, or full single market membership, it would just be a matter of if not when. Through their stupidity and refusal to compromise the economic damage they would have caused with No Deal would mean Brexiteers would have destroyed for ever voters confidence in a sustainable permanent Brexit outside the EU or EEA
No you're wrong. And if there's damage it is from Remainers May and Robbins stupidly not planning for no deal, not bringing the country along with them for this deal and not negotiating a better deal.
There was no better deal available and all 'planning for no deal' can do is try and manage the economic devastation it will cause, that still does not stop it being economically devastating
No, Barnier and the EU will say 'sod off', No Deal screws you more than us given 16% of our exports go to you but 44% of your exports go to us. Let that be a lesson to others trying to leave the EU and dictate terms to the Commission
So we sod off then, at which point they fail to erect the hard border and their sham is shown to have been bullshit all along.
Under WTO rules there has to be a border without a FTA and goods checks, meanwhile the UK economy collapses
Define collapses
Exodus of manufacturing jobs and financial institutions from the city, a stock market and sterling crash and the loss of nearly 10% of UK gdp
No you're wrong. And if there's damage it is from Remainers May and Robbins stupidly not planning for no deal, not bringing the country along with them for this deal and not negotiating a better deal.
So they should have sent in the diggers to start building new infrastructure while telling the public, "Don't worry, this is just for show to intimidate the EU into giving us a better deal?"
They did not need to build any infrastructure, they could have done some capacity planning at Dover and said "It can only handle x%tage of current traffic with new customs rules so that means we can not accept any Irish lorries using the land bridge unless a solution is found to minimise the customs procedures."
Alternatively Chicken Little the sky doesn't collapse, the economy doesn't collapse and that WTO claim is a total myth.
We crash out of the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake
We crash out of leave the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the lives and jobs and wages at stake.
Your arguments now are no different to those of the Chicken Little's who said the sky would fall if we voted Leave in the first place.
We are still in the EU, the single market and customs union, not crashing out of all of them without an agreed trade deal or transition period, a totally different scenario if it came to fruition next March from in 2016
We voted to leave them all and we were assured that would result in an immediate downturn, which didn't happen. Maybe the CBI, City and Governor of the Bank of England are led by fallible humans who can make mistakes.
Not necessarily, a number of Leavers wanted to Leave the EU but stay in the single market via EFTA or the customs union, the vast majority of the country do not want Brexit to take place without at the bare minimum a trade deal agreed with the EU or on the way to being agreed.
Crash out Brexit ends up with only one result, Remain most likely after EUref2, or full single market membership, it would just be a matter of if not when. Through their stupidity and refusal to compromise the economic damage they would have caused with No Deal would mean Brexiteers would have destroyed for ever voters confidence in a sustainable permanent Brexit outside the EU or EEA
No you're wrong. And if there's damage it is from Remainers May and Robbins stupidly not planning for no deal, not bringing the country along with them for this deal and not negotiating a better deal.
There was no better deal available and all 'planning for no deal' can do is try and manage the economic devastation it will cause, that still does not stop it being economically devastating
When you reach apocalyptic economic destruction of a truly biblical scale. I will know you really have run out of road.
Have completed my retreat and find @williamglenn and @HYUFD are in agreement. Maybe we all live happily ever after?
Uniting against the leave ultra tag team partnership of ralphmalph and Philip_Thompson !
Let's get ready to rumble!!! Never met them. But not sure the spandex would flatter... Edit. @Floater just came into the ring brandishing a metal chair.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
Right ok, so what does a "bare bones" deal look like?
Covers the basics like transport, planes flying, legal contracts, etc. It can then be built on in the coming years to form a more complete agreement. It will stop Barnier and his the clock is tocking stuff. Which will happen again in 2020, with the currently proposed May WA.
Can't see any incentive for the EU to help us out with that tbh.
Their flights use our aerospace etc, etc - they need a deal too. Maybe less than us, but they need a barebones one just as we do. Fudge will be the order of the day if it has to be, there will never be a no deal. It will just be a deal minimus.
I think you underestimate the size of a minimum-size deal: in fact, it would look very much like the deal on offer (which is effectively a holding action designed to minimise disruption).
In a few minutes it will be 125 days to Brexit. If you'll forgive me, I don't see your minimum size deal (Deal Minus?) being achievable in time.
No you're wrong. And if there's damage it is from Remainers May and Robbins stupidly not planning for no deal, not bringing the country along with them for this deal and not negotiating a better deal.
So they should have sent in the diggers to start building new infrastructure while telling the public, "Don't worry, this is just for show to intimidate the EU into giving us a better deal?"
No. The EU haven't sent diggers in but have made better preparations than we have.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
Right ok, so what does a "bare bones" deal look like?
Covers the basics like transport, planes flying, legal contracts, etc. It can then be built on in the coming years to form a more complete agreement. It will stop Barnier and his the clock is tocking stuff. Which will happen again in 2020, with the currently proposed May WA.
Can't see any incentive for the EU to help us out with that tbh.
Their flights use our aerospace etc, etc - they need a deal too. Maybe less than us, but they need a barebones one just as we do. Fudge will be the order of the day if it has to be, there will never be a no deal. It will just be a deal minimus.
I think you underestimate the size of a minimum-size deal: in fact, it would look very much like the deal on offer (which is effectively a holding action designed to minimise disruption).
In a few minutes it will be 125 days to Brexit. If you forgive me, I don't see your minimum size deal (Deal Minus?) being achievable in time.
There's a lot in May's deal that doesn't have to be, like the backstop which deals with after the transition and not what happens during it.
If the civil servants put their heads to it they could iron out a minimal deal in less than 4 months. They could do so in less than 1 month if they needed to.
No, Barnier and the EU will say 'sod off', No Deal screws you more than us given 16% of our exports go to you but 44% of your exports go to us. Let that be a lesson to others trying to leave the EU and dictate terms to the Commission
So we sod off then, at which point they fail to erect the hard border and their sham is shown to have been bullshit all along.
Under WTO rules there has to be a border without a FTA and goods checks, meanwhile the UK economy collapses
Define collapses
Exodus of manufacturing jobs and financial institutions from the city, a stock market and sterling crash and the loss of nearly 10% of UK gdp
OT. See the ERG/DUP have forced a backtrack on .50 calibre weapons. (I have been busy). Are they in favour of law and order? Or personal freedom? Or anarchy? Do they support and respect the opinion of law enforcement agencies? These are questions for the Tory Party beyond Brexit.
Good look seeing the Irish get to Europe smoothly. Or the continentals getting to the USA. The chaos would not be worth it, not with a minimus deal and a stonking big cheque available.
I believe that ferries from Cork to Spain already exist. I was one of the ones who pointed out that Irish threats to close down UK airspace were ludicrous, and similar arguments pertain here. Spanish flights to USA would be uninterrupted, and French flights would have to go via Scandinavia/Iceland/Greenland/Canada/USA, which is hardly unprecedented.
Just looking at the polling it seems like the British voters strongly oppose: * The deal * Leaving without taking the deal * Reversing the result without a referendum * Holding another referendum
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
Right ok, so what does a "bare bones" deal look like?
Covers the basics like transport, planes flying, legal contracts, etc. It can then be built on in the coming years to form a more complete agreement. It will stop Barnier and his the clock is tocking stuff. Which will happen again in 2020, with the currently proposed May WA.
Can't see any incentive for the EU to help us out with that tbh.
Their flights use our aerospace etc, etc - they need a deal too. Maybe less than us, but they need a barebones one just as we do. Fudge will be the order of the day if it has to be, there will never be a no deal. It will just be a deal minimus.
I think you underestimate the size of a minimum-size deal: in fact, it would look very much like the deal on offer (which is effectively a holding action designed to minimise disruption).
In a few minutes it will be 125 days to Brexit. If you forgive me, I don't see your minimum size deal (Deal Minus?) being achievable in time.
There's a lot in May's deal that doesn't have to be, like the backstop which deals with after the transition and not what happens during it.
If the civil servants put their heads to it they could iron out a minimal deal in less than 4 months. They could do so in less than 1 month if they needed to.
Drawing up the agreement is not the problem. Getting Barnier to agree to it, European Council to sign off on it, and the European Parliament to sign off on it in time is the problem.
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
Right ok, so what does a "bare bones" deal look like?
Covers the basics like transport, planes flying, legal contracts, etc. It can then be built on in the coming years to form a more complete agreement. It will stop Barnier and his the clock is tocking stuff. Which will happen again in 2020, with the currently proposed May WA.
Can't see any incentive for the EU to help us out with that tbh.
Their flights use our aerospace etc, etc - they need a deal too. Maybe less than us, but they need a barebones one just as we do. Fudge will be the order of the day if it has to be, there will never be a no deal. It will just be a deal minimus.
I think you underestimate the size of a minimum-size deal: in fact, it would look very much like the deal on offer (which is effectively a holding action designed to minimise disruption).
In a few minutes it will be 125 days to Brexit. If you forgive me, I don't see your minimum size deal (Deal Minus?) being achievable in time.
There's a lot in May's deal that doesn't have to be, like the backstop which deals with after the transition and not what happens during it.
If the civil servants put their heads to it they could iron out a minimal deal in less than 4 months. They could do so in less than 1 month if they needed to.
Drawing up the agreement is not the problem. Getting Barnier to agree to it, European Council to sign off on it, and the European Parliament to sign off on it in time is the problem.
This. Events can run out of control. Good government consists of making sure the country doesn't even get close to something like a full-on no deal no "lifeboat" Brexit happening.
Drawing up the agreement is not the problem. Getting Barnier to agree to it, European Council to sign off on it, and the European Parliament to sign off on it in time is the problem.
The closer it gets to the deadline the easier it will be to get everyone to agree. Principles are a luxury you can afford when you can afford them.
As I said in my video, leaving with No Deal has a greater impact on the UK's trade with the rest of the world than with the EU.
The UK has replicated exactly one - that with South Africa - of the EU's existing agreements.
So, the question I have for Philip, Ralph and GIN, is how do you mitigate the effect to Britain of us falling out of existing trade agreements with the US, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway and the like?
Drawing up the agreement is not the problem. Getting Barnier to agree to it, European Council to sign off on it, and the European Parliament to sign off on it in time is the problem.
The closer it gets to the deadline the easier it will be to get everyone to agree. Principles are a luxury you can afford when you can afford them.
I'd argue that we are either at or near the deadline now. We are certainly past the original estimates.
As I said in my video, leaving with No Deal has a greater impact on the UK's trade with the rest of the world than with the EU.
The UK has replicated exactly one - that with South Africa - of the EU's existing agreements.
So, the question I have for Philip, Ralph and GIN, is how do you mitigate the effect to Britain of us falling out of existing trade agreements with the US, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway and the like?
The issue that I have with this is that as soon as May announced in Florence that the UK would be asking/negotiating with the EU for a transition period no country in the world would commit (apart from SA) to agreeing a grandfathered agreement with the UK to cover the period when a new FTA between both sides could be negotiated. All these countries need to know our end state before even entertaining talks.
As I said in my video, leaving with No Deal has a greater impact on the UK's trade with the rest of the world than with the EU.
The UK has replicated exactly one - that with South Africa - of the EU's existing agreements.
So, the question I have for Philip, Ralph and GIN, is how do you mitigate the effect to Britain of us falling out of existing trade agreements with the US, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway and the like?
That's the sort of thing the government should be working 24/7 on preparing. Not fannying around pretending we'll have new deals with the USA before long. Get the basics sorted, then look for new opportunities.
Drawing up the agreement is not the problem. Getting Barnier to agree to it, European Council to sign off on it, and the European Parliament to sign off on it in time is the problem.
The closer it gets to the deadline the easier it will be to get everyone to agree. Principles are a luxury you can afford when you can afford them.
I'd argue that we are either at or near the deadline now. We are certainly past the original estimates.
As is always the case. So now is the time to be making compromises on all sides, but instead May has shown all the backbone of a jellyfish and has just unilaterally caved on everything. If Parliament shows more backbone than she did then maybe we can see where Barnier et al actually can compromise.
'... If not, we’re looking again at a no-deal Brexit that’s viewed universally as a probable catastrophe. It could have been worse, but not many bankers will be celebrating today...no amount of smooth talking will bring back the financial passport for British firms, nor deliver what the pro-Brexit crowd thought London would gain from quitting the EU: Greater market share, preserved access to EU markets and more lucrative business with other hubs around the world. If these draft deal terms fail to survive divisions within the U.K.’s government and parliament, the picture for the City will be even grimmer.'
Why oh why did Cameron call the EU referendum? It looks more and more stupid in hindsight. The worst decision in British politics since Chamberlain in 1938. And his campaign was dreadful as well. Maybe it was hubris following on from victory in the Scottish referendum.
Why oh why did Cameron call the EU referendum? It looks more and more stupid in hindsight. The worst decision in British politics since Chamberlain in 1938. And his campaign was dreadful as well. Maybe it was hubris following on from victory in the Scottish referendum.
Cameron almost lost the Scottish referendum with the unrelentingly negative too wee, too poor, too stupid campaign, yet he learned nothing and relied on the similarly negative Project Fear in the EU referendum. Some historians now credit Chamberlain with buying time for rearmament. It's hard to see what future revisionists will find to praise about Cameron and Europe.
Why oh why did Cameron call the EU referendum? It looks more and more stupid in hindsight. The worst decision in British politics since Chamberlain in 1938. And his campaign was dreadful as well. Maybe it was hubris following on from victory in the Scottish referendum.
Cameron almost lost the Scottish referendum with the unrelentingly negative too wee, too poor, too stupid campaign, yet he learned nothing and relied on the similarly negative Project Fear in the EU referendum. Some historians now credit Chamberlain with buying time for rearmament. It's hard to see what future revisionists will find to praise about Cameron and Europe.
Harming the Tories and possibly helping bring in a left wing government is a silver lining at least...
Nice to see this from the official momentum account, whilst there are those I feel who are like Woodcock before he left* there are those such as Yvette where they may be some political disagreements but are an important part of the Labour party.
People are quick to forget the DUP have been prepared to share power with Sinn Fein and Martin McGuinness. If it suits them they'll be prepared to see Corbyn in power.
I repeat that May should have delegated the backstop negotiations to the DUP. Lying through her teeth has worked with everyone else but lying to the DUP and betraying them won't be taken easily.
Why oh why did Cameron call the EU referendum? It looks more and more stupid in hindsight. The worst decision in British politics since Chamberlain in 1938. And his campaign was dreadful as well. Maybe it was hubris following on from victory in the Scottish referendum.
Cameron almost lost the Scottish referendum with the unrelentingly negative too wee, too poor, too stupid campaign, yet he learned nothing and relied on the similarly negative Project Fear in the EU referendum. Some historians now credit Chamberlain with buying time for rearmament. It's hard to see what future revisionists will find to praise about Cameron and Europe.
It's worse than that, the lesson from the Scottish referendum was that unrelentingly negative too wee, too poor, too stupid had worked instead of realising that it was because of that it was a close run thing in the first place.
As a result unrelentingly too wee, too poor, too stupid was put into overdrive for the EU referendum, resulting in defeat. The voters looked at that and determined they were confident enough that we were at least neither too wee nor too stupid. Some may have felt too poor but that's another story.
The good news is the leaked side declaration for tomorrow is an EU27 only document. So Theresa May doesn't need to sign it and indeed can slag it off giving both sides a win for the domestic audience.
The bad news is it's demands are for extending the transition even though the relate to end state. So not only does Brexit Day set off an ( at most ) 15 month count down to a Commons vote on using the extension mechanism that debate will be dominated by Fish and Level Playing field issues. It will be a low fat version of the debates that have raged since the referendum campaign started.
For May it may help persuade some rebels to vote for her deal knowing so much is still in play. For the domestic economy it's another dampner. 15 months of uncertainty not knowing what the end state is OR whether the transition will be extended.
What nobody knows is how the voters will react when the realise in mid April next year how little closure there has been.
The good news is the leaked side declaration for tomorrow is an EU27 only document. So Theresa May doesn't need to sign it and indeed can slag it off giving both sides a win for the domestic audience.
The bad news is it's demands are for extending the transition even though the relate to end state. So not only does Brexit Day set off an ( at most ) 15 month count down to a Commons vote on using the extension mechanism that debate will be dominated by Fish and Level Playing field issues. It will be a low fat version of the debates that have raged since the referendum campaign started.
For May it may help persuade some rebels to vote for her deal knowing so much is still in play. For the domestic economy it's another dampner. 15 months of uncertainty not knowing what the end state is OR whether the transition will be extended.
What nobody knows is how the voters will react when the realise in mid April next year how little closure there has been.
Procedurally, an I right in saying that whereas the withdrawal agreement was just QMV, this next stage that they've kicked everything difficult down the road into is going to require unanimity? And worse, ratification???
Arguably Arlene Foster is right of course. Governments come and go and a Corbyn Government would come and go. As the Anglo-Irish agreement and the GFA show international treaties backed up by demographic shifts come but don't go. The Backstop will just quietly join the corpus of legal devices by which Northern Ireland is ' different ' but this time it's backed up by a nascent superpower Vs the UK not the UK Vs the much smaller RoI. Now I don't mind that at all and of course this is all the DUPs own fault for backing Leave. They've made an intergenerational strategic mistake doing that. But if I were a DUP politician looking at the Chess Board I'd be as angry as they are. A Corbyn Government is indeed less worse than that Backstop.
The good news is the leaked side declaration for tomorrow is an EU27 only document. So Theresa May doesn't need to sign it and indeed can slag it off giving both sides a win for the domestic audience.
The bad news is it's demands are for extending the transition even though the relate to end state. So not only does Brexit Day set off an ( at most ) 15 month count down to a Commons vote on using the extension mechanism that debate will be dominated by Fish and Level Playing field issues. It will be a low fat version of the debates that have raged since the referendum campaign started.
For May it may help persuade some rebels to vote for her deal knowing so much is still in play. For the domestic economy it's another dampner. 15 months of uncertainty not knowing what the end state is OR whether the transition will be extended.
What nobody knows is how the voters will react when the realise in mid April next year how little closure there has been.
Procedurally, an I right in saying that whereas the withdrawal agreement was just QMV, this next stage that they've kicked everything difficult down the road into is going to require unanimity? And worse, ratification???
As things stand you are right. The Defence/Justice/Data transfer stuff is going into a separate Treaty will will need uninimty and ratification. And of course in some countries ratification could be by referendum. The Trade deal will almost certainly be by Treaty as it will be ' deep ' enough. A recent CJEU ruling means very bare bones FTAs can be done by EU competence and hence QMV but anything but the hardest of Brexiter will trigger a Treaty.
The good news is the leaked side declaration for tomorrow is an EU27 only document. So Theresa May doesn't need to sign it and indeed can slag it off giving both sides a win for the domestic audience.
The bad news is it's demands are for extending the transition even though the relate to end state. So not only does Brexit Day set off an ( at most ) 15 month count down to a Commons vote on using the extension mechanism that debate will be dominated by Fish and Level Playing field issues. It will be a low fat version of the debates that have raged since the referendum campaign started.
For May it may help persuade some rebels to vote for her deal knowing so much is still in play. For the domestic economy it's another dampner. 15 months of uncertainty not knowing what the end state is OR whether the transition will be extended.
What nobody knows is how the voters will react when the realise in mid April next year how little closure there has been.
Procedurally, an I right in saying that whereas the withdrawal agreement was just QMV, this next stage that they've kicked everything difficult down the road into is going to require unanimity? And worse, ratification???
And you aren't just dealing with governments with ratification. We all know about Belgium's regional parliament's needing to sign off Treaties. Recently Czech and Austrian presidents have referred treaties for court rulings before ratifying. Previously Irish courts have ruled EU Treaties have constitutional implications and therefore need referendums. In the Netherland's voters can now trigger referendums via a petition threshold. They did on the EU/Ukraine association agreement and then voted No. None of these are insurmountable but to get an End State over the line will be very lengthy and involve serious Pork.
Comments
35 seconds in he says the EU and UK govt's will implement a barebones agreement in the case of no deal and he has seen it.
Between having a meltdown and no cash, or no meltdown and billions of sterling - the EU will plump for the latter. They're currently being greedy because they think they can get away with it, that's all.
I never knew how popular we are.
Would have gained some attention I am sure.
Edit. @Floater just came into the ring brandishing a metal chair.
In a few minutes it will be 125 days to Brexit. If you'll forgive me, I don't see your minimum size deal (Deal Minus?) being achievable in time.
If the civil servants put their heads to it they could iron out a minimal deal in less than 4 months. They could do so in less than 1 month if they needed to.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history
Are they in favour of law and order? Or personal freedom? Or anarchy? Do they support and respect the opinion of law enforcement agencies?
These are questions for the Tory Party beyond Brexit.
* The deal
* Leaving without taking the deal
* Reversing the result without a referendum
* Holding another referendum
The UK has replicated exactly one - that with South Africa - of the EU's existing agreements.
So, the question I have for Philip, Ralph and GIN, is how do you mitigate the effect to Britain of us falling out of existing trade agreements with the US, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway and the like?
All these countries need to know our end state before even entertaining talks.
Nice to see this from the official momentum account, whilst there are those I feel who are like Woodcock before he left* there are those such as Yvette where they may be some political disagreements but are an important part of the Labour party.
*Would actually prefer a Tory government.
I repeat that May should have delegated the backstop negotiations to the DUP. Lying through her teeth has worked with everyone else but lying to the DUP and betraying them won't be taken easily.
As a result unrelentingly too wee, too poor, too stupid was put into overdrive for the EU referendum, resulting in defeat. The voters looked at that and determined they were confident enough that we were at least neither too wee nor too stupid. Some may have felt too poor but that's another story.
The bad news is it's demands are for extending the transition even though the relate to end state. So not only does Brexit Day set off an ( at most ) 15 month count down to a Commons vote on using the extension mechanism that debate will be dominated by Fish and Level Playing field issues. It will be a low fat version of the debates that have raged since the referendum campaign started.
For May it may help persuade some rebels to vote for her deal knowing so much is still in play. For the domestic economy it's another dampner. 15 months of uncertainty not knowing what the end state is OR whether the transition will be extended.
What nobody knows is how the voters will react when the realise in mid April next year how little closure there has been.
Treaties have constitutional implications and therefore need referendums. In the Netherland's voters can now trigger referendums via a petition threshold. They did on the EU/Ukraine association agreement and then voted No. None of these are insurmountable but to get an End State over the line will be very lengthy and involve serious Pork.