Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the EU has bungled Brexit

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 7 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the EU has bungled Brexit

As Britain is going through the final stages of a psychiatric breakdown over Brexit, not much attention is being given to our surroundings. Time to take some slow shallow breaths and look around. How does the world look like from the EU?

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    Uno!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,267
    In any other organisation/country Juncker would have resigned office following the 2016 referendum defeat. The fact he didn't go supported the charges of a lack of accountability at the EU.

    Barnier is a good replacement.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 37,914
    Interesting. Important to not get carried away, or avoid responsibility, but still.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 9,287
    At least Labour's Brexit policy has been good for something...
    "Home furnishings group Dunelm has beaten City forecasts, partly thanks to demand for Unicorn-themed items...."
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,973
    Compared to the UK government their response looks professional and co-ordinated.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 47,008
    Good article, Mr. Meeks.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 37,914
    IanB2 said:

    Compared to the UK government their response looks professional and co-ordinated.

    Yes. But since they too want a deal they may have miscalculated things too.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 20,380
    Good article fairly put
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 37,914

    I like this:



    Technically, there is nothing to stop May doing that. She could reasonably claim that the HoC rejection of her Deal constitutes approval for revocation 'via democratic process' as required by the ECJ.

    She should announce ahead of the vote that that is what she will do if she loses - that will concentrate the ERG's (and indeed Labour leadership's|) minds. Sure her position as leader of the Conservative party will become untenable but wtf - at least No Deal is avoided.

    If parliament wants to remain it should just do it. Refusing to approve anything doesn't actually make a referendum necessary. Indeed, if we are revoking first there's no point in a vote at all, since if people want to approve no deal it's then too late.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 387
    All true, but I think there is something I would add. The EU's mindless obsession with the Irish border has made a mutually damaging, chaotic no deal much more likely. It has allowed the Irish tail to wag the European dog.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    This article highlights the biggest reason why I voted Remain in the referendum. Namely, that without the UK there is a greater chance of the EU one day collapsing, and then instead of an essentially benign and progressive project to achieve peaceful co-operation and common civilized standards, we get a return to aggressively competing nation states, many of whom will be hell bent on 'making themselves great'. No thank you. Read the books. Seen the films.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 20,716
    edited January 7
    Alastair is right, the EU have really screwed this up badly (starting with the failure to help Cameron sufficiently in 2015). I'm not sure that blaming Jean-Claude Juncker personally is quite right, though - the failure goes much deeper than the foibles of one man. By far the biggest errors have been:

    1. The insistence on negotiating backwards. Any fool should have been able to see that you had to work out where we were jointly heading first, and then set up transition arrangements to get there second, rather than vice versa as the EU insisted.

    2. Allowing the Irish backstop to become an entirely artificial front-stop, making agreement politically near-impossible (or completely impossible) for the UK. This error of course follows on from the first.

    So, yes, the EU and especially the Irish have probably screwed themselves on this. That however is of little consolation for the fact that we will be screwed too.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 47,008
    Mr. Fishing, I wonder about that.

    As mentioned on the previous thread, co-operation between the UK and Ireland was underway when Kenny was PM. When he got replaced by Varadkar that stopped.

    Is it the EU, or Varadkar? And/or May prioritising a soft Irish border over a customs barrier annexing UK territory?

    Not an EU fan, but the change happened when Varadkar came in.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,973
    Fishing said:

    All true, but I think there is something I would add. The EU's mindless obsession with the Irish border has made a mutually damaging, chaotic no deal much more likely. It has allowed the Irish tail to wag the European dog.

    Or it demonstrates the extra power and sovereignty you gain by having over twenty allies prepared to stand behind your interests?
  • kinabalu said:

    This article highlights the biggest reason why I voted Remain in the referendum. Namely, that without the UK there is a greater chance of the EU one day collapsing, and then instead of an essentially benign and progressive project to achieve peaceful co-operation and common civilized standards, we get a return to aggressively competing nation states, many of whom will be hell bent on 'making themselves great'. No thank you. Read the books. Seen the films.

    Yes, I think Brexit will figure prominently in the history books of the future as a key moment in the decline of the West into parochial infighting in the face of a resurgent East.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,357
    TOPPING said:



    Quoting. John. Redwood.

    Having. The. Temerity. To. Challenge. Your. Views.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,147

    1. The insistence on negotiating backwards. Any fool should have been able to see that you had to work out where we were jointly heading first, and then set up transition arrangements to get there second, rather than vice versa as the EU insisted.

    The UK set the timetable, and the UK still hasn't decided where it wants to get to. How you can blame this on the EU is a mystery.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,668
    Afternoon all :)

    Thanks for the contribution, Antifrank.

    The main reason I came to support LEAVE, apart from the impact of immigration on services and housing in my part of London, was the Single Market. I came to regard it as a pernicious mechanism.

    There was a time when the EU stood for improving the economic lot of Europeans by ensuring all parts of Europe were supported so in the day the UK got Objective One funding to improve the road network to areas like Cornwall, South Wales and the Highlands to allow industries to establish in these remote and often deprived areas and bring employment to these areas.

    Outlying and deprived areas of Europe benefitted from investment and infrastructural spending but somewhere along the way the EU changed and became all about business and from that came the pro-business Single Market.

    Who could be opposed to the Four Freedoms? The problem was we came down to the old adage - money talks, people walk. To paraphrase Tebbit, people got on trains, buses, coaches and vans to come to richer western Europe and look for work. Western Europe got economic growth predicated not on capital spending on technology and improving business processes but on a supply of cheap labour and the creation of a new generation of slum.

    As for the peripheries, they got depopulation and stagnation. For the young in Greece and Spain and for both young and old elsewhere, the choice was staying in home with no work and no hope or uprooting to the UK, Germany or the Low Countries, getting a menial job which still paid a fortune and living far from home but earning.

    To be fair, it's the same model as when the farm workers came to the factories or people from Scotland and the North of England came to London. I'd hoped we'd moved on.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,614

    Alastair is right, the EU have really screwed this up badly (starting with the failure to help Cameron sufficiently in 2015). I'm not sure that blaming Jean-Claude Juncker personally is quite right, though - the failure goes much deeper than the foibles of one man. By far the biggest errors have been:

    1. The insistence on negotiating backwards. Any fool should have been able to see that you had to work out where we were jointly heading first, and then set up transition arrangements to get there second, rather than vice versa as the EU insisted.

    2. Allowing the Irish backstop to become an entirely artificial front-stop, making agreement politically near-impossible (or completely impossible) for the UK. This error of course follows on from the first.

    So, yes, the EU and especially the Irish have probably screwed themselves on this. That however is of little consolation for the fact that we will be screwed too.

    Badly negotiated deals never hold eventually they get changed
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,088
    Good article.

    The central problem is that Eurocrats need to grasp hold of The Project a little more loosely and listen to the people (and their governments) and their grievances a little more. Who knows - by being more responsive, they might just become a bit more popular. After all, in most countries, it's not the concept of an integrated Europe that's in doubt; it's its application.

    There also needs to be an end to (more) institutional white elephant-building in favour of sorting out existing problems. For example, Schengen is wonderful when all is working well but in times of difficulty, having only one external border puts huge pressure on the state/s facing the crisis. It's unreasonable to expect that state to cope alone in both manning and patrolling the border. A single travel entity, with no internal borders really means you need an arrangement for some kind of joint contributions to the external border (not least because you otherwise get free riders). That doesn't necessarily mean a single border force but at the least it should mean a common fund to support the costs to those countries most affected.

    Likewise, the EU army is an even more unwise move. Not just because it plays to every Eurosceptic fear but because - though linked to those fears - it would be incapable of being used without an effective management and control mechanism, which either means some cumbersome committee structure, which would by its nature enfeeble Europe's defences still further, or a single line of command to a commanding general, minister and head of government - which really would be the makings of a state. Unless these things are understood and agreed to, building the force is a dangerous and expensive exercise in playing gesture politics.

    The EEC was designed to be both a noble ideal and of significant practical benefit. It needs to start delivering on those benefits a bit more.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,147
    edited January 7
    stodge said:

    As for the peripheries, they got depopulation and stagnation. For the young in Greece and Spain and for both young and old elsewhere, the choice was staying in home with no work and no hope or uprooting to the UK, Germany or the Low Countries, getting a menial job which still paid a fortune and living far from home but earning.

    Spain's population has grown by more than the UK's in absolute terms in the last 20 years, and its GDP has grown by more in percentage terms.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 20,716

    1. The insistence on negotiating backwards. Any fool should have been able to see that you had to work out where we were jointly heading first, and then set up transition arrangements to get there second, rather than vice versa as the EU insisted.

    The UK set the timetable, and the UK still hasn't decided where it wants to get to. How you can blame this on the EU is a mystery.
    No, the UK wanted to negotiate the final destination at the start, and the UK government had a reasonably clear vision for what they wanted. OK, not all of it would have been acceptable to the EU, but that was why the substantive negotiation on the end point should have started back in 2016, so that we could jointly work out a mutually acceptable new relationship. We could then have negotiated the transition to it, which would have been fairly straightforward if we had each known what we were transitioning to.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 248
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Compared to the UK government their response looks professional and co-ordinated.

    Yes. But since they too want a deal they may have miscalculated things too.
    My assumption had always been that there was a bit of a gallic shrug as to whether we left and on what terms, and therefore they could afford to sit there with their arms folded chuntering about indivisible freedoms and wait to see where on the scale from BINO to No Deal we jumped off. It seemed to me that the "they need us more than we need them" line was Brexiter fantasy.

    If it is as Alistair has said, and the potential damage to the EU is "substantial", I'd agree they've been a bit inflexible. Or maybe that strategy was the only way to keep such a united line among the EU27?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 387
    IanB2 said:

    Fishing said:

    All true, but I think there is something I would add. The EU's mindless obsession with the Irish border has made a mutually damaging, chaotic no deal much more likely. It has allowed the Irish tail to wag the European dog.

    Or it demonstrates the extra power and sovereignty you gain by having over twenty allies prepared to stand behind your interests?
    Except that No Deal isn't in Ireland's interests.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,147

    1. The insistence on negotiating backwards. Any fool should have been able to see that you had to work out where we were jointly heading first, and then set up transition arrangements to get there second, rather than vice versa as the EU insisted.

    The UK set the timetable, and the UK still hasn't decided where it wants to get to. How you can blame this on the EU is a mystery.
    No, the UK wanted to negotiate the final destination at the start, and the UK government had a reasonably clear vision for what they wanted. OK, not all of it would have been acceptable to the EU, but that was why the substantive negotiation on the end point should have started back in 2016, so that we could jointly work out a mutually acceptable new relationship. We could then have negotiated the transition to it, which would have been fairly straightforward if we had each known what we were transitioning to.
    The UK was told it couldn't have what it wanted, so it invited the EU to play chicken by invoking Article 50 with predictable results.

    The Brexiteers still don't have a mutually coherent position themselves, never mind a position mutually acceptable to the rest of the EU.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 387
    kinabalu said:

    This article highlights the biggest reason why I voted Remain in the referendum. Namely, that without the UK there is a greater chance of the EU one day collapsing, and then instead of an essentially benign and progressive project to achieve peaceful co-operation and common civilized standards, we get a return to aggressively competing nation states, many of whom will be hell bent on 'making themselves great'. No thank you. Read the books. Seen the films.

    "Benign and progressive"? Tell that to the Greeks.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,035
    edited January 7
    Fishing said:

    All true, but I think there is something I would add. The EU's mindless obsession with the Irish border has made a mutually damaging, chaotic no deal much more likely. It has allowed the Irish tail to wag the European dog.

    It's not mindless. It is central to the whole Brexit debate. Not the EU's fault that the UK govt and many MPs have no idea not only of how Nationalists vote in elections, but the entire dynamic of the island of Ireland.

    And that goes for you too @Richard_Nabavi.

    The backstop, the dear backstop, continues to be misunderstood by those who should know better albeit PB-ers have limited ability actually to do damage to the geopolitical situation on Ireland.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 20,380
    DUP are content to remain
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 981
    There is a rather sensible article but I am not convinced the EU would agree that they bungled Brexit. Whilst May was trying to pursue her dream of a special relationship with the EU, the EU were not interested. They were much more concerned about using Brexit to deter others from leaving. That is why they were so indifferent to trade talks, so obsessive about the NI border and so petty about issues such as Galileo.

    There was simply lack of common ground between Britain and the EU. Both sides used inflammatory language - May’s “no deal is better than a bad deal” for which she negligently failed to prepare and the EU talking of punishing the EU and Selmayr eulogising that losing NI was the price Britain had to pay for Brexit.

    It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum. The bigger issue now is, as it has been since A50 was lodged, how best does Britain proceed.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 20,380

    There is a rather sensible article but I am not convinced the EU would agree that they bungled Brexit. Whilst May was trying to pursue her dream of a special relationship with the EU, the EU were not interested. They were much more concerned about using Brexit to deter others from leaving. That is why they were so indifferent to trade talks, so obsessive about the NI border and so petty about issues such as Galileo.

    There was simply lack of common ground between Britain and the EU. Both sides used inflammatory language - May’s “no deal is better than a bad deal” for which she negligently failed to prepare and the EU talking of punishing the EU and Selmayr eulogising that losing NI was the price Britain had to pay for Brexit.

    It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum. The bigger issue now is, as it has been since A50 was lodged, how best does Britain proceed.

    Junckers was responsible more than anyone for misreading Cameron and the UKs attitude to the EU
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,147

    It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum.

    This argument is unconvincing. There's nothing the EU could have offered that wouldn't have encouraged the momentum for a Leave vote so we could get even more. Appeasement doesn't work.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 47,008
    Mr. NorthWales, be fair. It's hard to be perceptive when you're ratted.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 20,380
    Listening to the debate over the urgent question from Corbyn when will mps realise that constant repetition of the same question makes them all look so foolish
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,088

    It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum.

    This argument is unconvincing. There's nothing the EU could have offered that wouldn't have encouraged the momentum for a Leave vote so we could get even more. Appeasement doesn't work.
    And therein lies the mindset that all criticism is illegitimate - which is the cancer that may yet destroy not just the EU but democracy in Europe.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 981

    There is a rather sensible article but I am not convinced the EU would agree that they bungled Brexit. Whilst May was trying to pursue her dream of a special relationship with the EU, the EU were not interested. They were much more concerned about using Brexit to deter others from leaving. That is why they were so indifferent to trade talks, so obsessive about the NI border and so petty about issues such as Galileo.

    There was simply lack of common ground between Britain and the EU. Both sides used inflammatory language - May’s “no deal is better than a bad deal” for which she negligently failed to prepare and the EU talking of punishing the EU and Selmayr eulogising that losing NI was the price Britain had to pay for Brexit.

    It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum. The bigger issue now is, as it has been since A50 was lodged, how best does Britain proceed.

    Junckers was responsible more than anyone for misreading Cameron and the UKs attitude to the EU
    No love lost between those 2 but Juncker would not have been able to act in the way he did had Merkel and Hollande (who was French President at the time) objected. The Spectator ran a very good blog the other week on why the U.K. and the EU member states had such different viewpoints.

    I think we were rightly perceived as the biggest obstacle to “ever closer union”. Hollande in particular was as pleased to see us go as 52% of us were to be going.
  • ConcanvasserConcanvasser Posts: 140
    Only 22 Conservative MPs ( and all the familiar suspects from previous rebellions) could be found to come out against a no deal Brexit and sign Spelman's letter.? Isn't that rather surprising?

    Not getting any sense that the prospect of leaving on a No deal basis is going to shift many votes on the blue side in favour of the PMs deal.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,035

    1. The insistence on negotiating backwards. Any fool should have been able to see that you had to work out where we were jointly heading first, and then set up transition arrangements to get there second, rather than vice versa as the EU insisted.

    The UK set the timetable, and the UK still hasn't decided where it wants to get to. How you can blame this on the EU is a mystery.
    No, the UK wanted to negotiate the final destination at the start, and the UK government had a reasonably clear vision for what they wanted. OK, not all of it would have been acceptable to the EU, but that was why the substantive negotiation on the end point should have started back in 2016, so that we could jointly work out a mutually acceptable new relationship. We could then have negotiated the transition to it, which would have been fairly straightforward if we had each known what we were transitioning to.
    What was that reasonably clear vision of the final destination? Mansion House? Already divisive. As has been well rehearsed on here, May's error was not to have erected a big tent at the outset which would have de-partisanised the negotiations and thereby made them more GE-proof. Trying to negotiate a multi-year deal when the "reasonably clear vision of the final destination" was not agreed either within or between parties was never going to work.

    Plus, of course, the backstopbackstopbackstopbackstop. The EU saw quickly, if the UK didn't, that there was the potential for a hugely problematic situation to arise if this wasn't nailed down as a matter of urgency. That alone drove the sequencing. As you say, the odd £40 billion is and was neither here nor there, while there was always going to be some kind of fudge on citizenship. But there is no fudging a hard border in NI. Either there is one or there is not one.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 20,380

    Only 22 Conservative MPs ( and all the familiar suspects from previous rebellions) could be found to come out against a no deal Brexit and sign Spelman's letter.? Isn't that rather surprising?

    Not getting any sense that the prospect of leaving on a No deal basis is going to shift many votes on the blue side in favour of the PMs deal.

    Many mps are playing their cards close to their chests at present.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 981
    edited January 7

    It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum.

    This argument is unconvincing. There's nothing the EU could have offered that wouldn't have encouraged the momentum for a Leave vote so we could get even more. Appeasement doesn't work.
    Appeasement certainly doesn’t work as May has found to her and the country’s cost in the Brexit negotiations.

    In the aftermath of the 2017 election, I think the offer of a trade deal would have obviated the need for the backstop and made other issues much easier to resolve.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,968

    The central problem is that Eurocrats need to grasp hold of The Project a little more loosely and listen to the people (and their governments) and their grievances a little more. Who knows - by being more responsive, they might just become a bit more popular. After all, in most countries, it's not the concept of an integrated Europe that's in doubt; it's its application.

    I'm not sure that's true. In the UK at least there has been a general political move to divest government of responsibility for many decades. We've seen services privatised and independent regulators established in order to create a responsibility barrier between ministers and the frustrations of voters.

    The EU has played its part in this. Successive British governments have outsourced unpopular law-making to the EU, so that the.necessary business of governance (or the interests of European big business) can continue without them taking responsibility for it.

    It's this mode of decision-making that has created the people vs Eurocrats mindset (I believe across the EU), and it's only by changing the decision-making process that it can be solved. And this requires a decisive completion of the European Project to move decision-making power from the behind closed doors horse-trading of the Council of Ministers, to the open debating floor of the European Parliament. Only then could you create a Europe of the people, by the people, for the people.

    I fear that it is too late and that this will not happen. Sadly I cannot imagine an exhortation to the people of Europe to, "ask not what the EU can do for you, ask what you can do for the EU," to be met with anything but ridicule at best and fury or contempt at worst. And yet how else is the currency union to be maintained and the continent defended from Russia?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    Fishing said:

    "Benign and progressive"? Tell that to the Greeks.

    Greece was mad keen to join the Euro. They should not have been allowed to, they were unsuitable and suffered accordingly. Cruel to be kind, in that case, would have been better than the opposite. Still, hindsight often makes something appear obvious that at the time was anything but. Although I seem to remember Goldman Sachs being involved and that ought to have raised a flag.
  • ConcanvasserConcanvasser Posts: 140

    Only 22 Conservative MPs ( and all the familiar suspects from previous rebellions) could be found to come out against a no deal Brexit and sign Spelman's letter.? Isn't that rather surprising?

    Not getting any sense that the prospect of leaving on a No deal basis is going to shift many votes on the blue side in favour of the PMs deal.

    Many mps are playing their cards close to their chests at present.
    I'm sure you a right G but, to put it mildly , it's getting a bit late in the day for reticence IF they really believe No Deal would be as catastrophic as we are told by some it will. I increasingly wonder if No deal is now almost being priced in as likely by the Blues.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 9,199


    UKIP facing another leadership contest?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,147

    It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum.

    This argument is unconvincing. There's nothing the EU could have offered that wouldn't have encouraged the momentum for a Leave vote so we could get even more. Appeasement doesn't work.
    And therein lies the mindset that all criticism is illegitimate - which is the cancer that may yet destroy not just the EU but democracy in Europe.
    Criticism and general calls for reform are legitimate. Demands for special deals for "special countries" (to use Cameron's phrase) are not.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704
    The UK has 4 of the top 10 Universities in the world. After we leave the EU will have 1 in the top 50. In London we have the largest international financial centre in the world. The idea that the ECB has the skills or expertise to regulate financial services adequately without London involvement is a bit of a joke. In GCHQ the UK has by far the most sophisticated and capable intelligence gathering facility on the continent, essential for future security. We have been a major pressure valve for youth unemployment in many EU countries giving people who might well otherwise have been difficult at home a life and opportunities.

    All of this and more shows what the EU is losing with the UK's departure. It is looking increasingly likely that we will not be leaving on even particularly good terms. The future relationship looks far more problematic than it should have done. We may well end up building our own Galileo, for example. It is beyond childish, it is very detrimental to the continent.

    Nothing can excuse the incompetence and ineptitude of our political class over the last 3 years or so but Alastair is right to say that the EU has also contributed to the multiple failures that have occurred. I agree with Richard that the time tabling of the talks was small minded and foolish. But that is the nature of the beast we are leaving, I'm afraid.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,614

    It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum.

    This argument is unconvincing. There's nothing the EU could have offered that wouldn't have encouraged the momentum for a Leave vote so we could get even more. Appeasement doesn't work.
    And therein lies the mindset that all criticism is illegitimate - which is the cancer that may yet destroy not just the EU but democracy in Europe.
    Criticism and general calls for reform are legitimate. Demands for special deals for "special countries" (to use Cameron's phrase) are not.
    so whys nobody taking France to task for breaking budget rules. Why was Germany given a let when it rode a coach and horses through the rules in the mid 2000s ?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671

    Yes, I think Brexit will figure prominently in the history books of the future as a key moment in the decline of the West into parochial infighting in the face of a resurgent East.

    A gradual decline of the West relative to the East is perhaps inevitable, although it's a little above my pay grade, but what I would just hate to see is our corner of the West, Europe, embracing aggressive zero-sum nationalism in place of enlightened self-interest.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,147

    I fear that it is too late and that this will not happen. Sadly I cannot imagine an exhortation to the people of Europe to, "ask not what the EU can do for you, ask what you can do for the EU," to be met with anything but ridicule at best and fury or contempt at worst. And yet how else is the currency union to be maintained and the continent defended from Russia?

    I think the final part of that paragraph shows the biggest structural problem facing the European integration process at the moment: the fact that a major historic European power is outside the tent pissing in and trying to pull out the tent pegs. If it's not obvious what a constructive long-term relationship that isn't membership looks like for the UK, it's a lot harder to imagine what the goal should be for relations with Russia.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,035
    DavidL said:

    The UK has 4 of the top 10 Universities in the world. After we leave the EU will have 1 in the top 50. In London we have the largest international financial centre in the world. The idea that the ECB has the skills or expertise to regulate financial services adequately without London involvement is a bit of a joke. In GCHQ the UK has by far the most sophisticated and capable intelligence gathering facility on the continent, essential for future security. We have been a major pressure valve for youth unemployment in many EU countries giving people who might well otherwise have been difficult at home a life and opportunities.

    All of this and more shows what the EU is losing with the UK's departure. It is looking increasingly likely that we will not be leaving on even particularly good terms. The future relationship looks far more problematic than it should have done. We may well end up building our own Galileo, for example. It is beyond childish, it is very detrimental to the continent.

    Nothing can excuse the incompetence and ineptitude of our political class over the last 3 years or so but Alastair is right to say that the EU has also contributed to the multiple failures that have occurred. I agree with Richard that the time tabling of the talks was small minded and foolish. But that is the nature of the beast we are leaving, I'm afraid.

    Fog in channel, EU cut off.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,088
    The wording of the second one is not a surprise. The Withdrawal Act allows for flexibility and it's always been possible that if ratification goes down to the wire, a short extension might be needed to tidy up the loose ends.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704
    Perhaps the Permanent Secretary's garden needs substantially more work over the coming months.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 20,716
    edited January 7
    Meanwhile, just to show they can out-loony the ERG loons, Labour and a group of anti-no-deal MPs want to make sure that a no-deal Brexit would be even more massively damaging than it needs to be:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/07/labour-backs-cross-party-amendment-to-block-no-deal-brexit

    Yet another group want to start an entirely new negotiation in the hope of agreeing a status already and emphatically ruled out by the EU:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/06/former-tory-minister-launches-norway-style-brexit-plan-saying/

    Theresa May, for all her many faults, does seem to be one of the very few MPs with some vestige of sanity.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    edited January 7

    So, yes, the EU and especially the Irish have probably screwed themselves on this. That however is of little consolation for the fact that we will be screwed too.

    I suppose it depends on the outcome.

    If we leave under the Treaty and proceed to negotiate a trade deal that is pragmatic and suits both sides, then it's ah bisto. Ok, this looks unlikely right now, but it would be premature to dismiss the possibility.

    OTOH, a No Deal crash out, yes, both parties get screwed and therefore both parties have screwed up.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 47,008
    Mr. Topping, pithy, but doesn't dispute any of the facts Mr. L stated.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,913
    DavidL said:

    The UK has 4 of the top 10 Universities in the world. After we leave the EU will have 1 in the top 50. In London we have the largest international financial centre in the world. The idea that the ECB has the skills or expertise to regulate financial services adequately without London involvement is a bit of a joke. In GCHQ the UK has by far the most sophisticated and capable intelligence gathering facility on the continent, essential for future security. We have been a major pressure valve for youth unemployment in many EU countries giving people who might well otherwise have been difficult at home a life and opportunities.

    All of this and more shows what the EU is losing with the UK's departure. It is looking increasingly likely that we will not be leaving on even particularly good terms. The future relationship looks far more problematic than it should have done. We may well end up building our own Galileo, for example. It is beyond childish, it is very detrimental to the continent.

    Nothing can excuse the incompetence and ineptitude of our political class over the last 3 years or so but Alastair is right to say that the EU has also contributed to the multiple failures that have occurred. I agree with Richard that the time tabling of the talks was small minded and foolish. But that is the nature of the beast we are leaving, I'm afraid.

    So the beast we're stuck with is an incompetent and inept political class?
    Wunderbar.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704

    DavidL said:

    The UK has 4 of the top 10 Universities in the world. After we leave the EU will have 1 in the top 50. In London we have the largest international financial centre in the world. The idea that the ECB has the skills or expertise to regulate financial services adequately without London involvement is a bit of a joke. In GCHQ the UK has by far the most sophisticated and capable intelligence gathering facility on the continent, essential for future security. We have been a major pressure valve for youth unemployment in many EU countries giving people who might well otherwise have been difficult at home a life and opportunities.

    All of this and more shows what the EU is losing with the UK's departure. It is looking increasingly likely that we will not be leaving on even particularly good terms. The future relationship looks far more problematic than it should have done. We may well end up building our own Galileo, for example. It is beyond childish, it is very detrimental to the continent.

    Nothing can excuse the incompetence and ineptitude of our political class over the last 3 years or so but Alastair is right to say that the EU has also contributed to the multiple failures that have occurred. I agree with Richard that the time tabling of the talks was small minded and foolish. But that is the nature of the beast we are leaving, I'm afraid.

    So the beast we're stuck with is an incompetent and inept political class?
    Wunderbar.
    Yes, its sub-optimal I agree. But when you make politics a life that only a lunatic would want to lead its a bit rich to complain that they are all lunatics.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,088

    The central problem is that Eurocrats need to grasp hold of The Project a little more loosely and listen to the people (and their governments) and their grievances a little more. Who knows - by being more responsive, they might just become a bit more popular. After all, in most countries, it's not the concept of an integrated Europe that's in doubt; it's its application.

    I'm not sure that's true. In the UK at least there has been a general political move to divest government of responsibility for many decades. We've seen services privatised and independent regulators established in order to create a responsibility barrier between ministers and the frustrations of voters.

    The EU has played its part in this. Successive British governments have outsourced unpopular law-making to the EU, so that the.necessary business of governance (or the interests of European big business) can continue without them taking responsibility for it.

    It's this mode of decision-making that has created the people vs Eurocrats mindset (I believe across the EU), and it's only by changing the decision-making process that it can be solved. And this requires a decisive completion of the European Project to move decision-making power from the behind closed doors horse-trading of the Council of Ministers, to the open debating floor of the European Parliament. Only then could you create a Europe of the people, by the people, for the people.

    I fear that it is too late and that this will not happen. Sadly I cannot imagine an exhortation to the people of Europe to, "ask not what the EU can do for you, ask what you can do for the EU," to be met with anything but ridicule at best and fury or contempt at worst. And yet how else is the currency union to be maintained and the continent defended from Russia?
    Indeed.

    Every great empire in history from Rome to Pax Americana has been built by men who were willing to go out and die in order to build it, just for the glory of the ideal - and by women who were willing to see their men do so.

    That display of devotion might be outdated these days but the nature of it is still telling: that a whole citizenry felt that the ideal was of itself glorious (we do of course have to be careful here - it's but a small step from that to a very dark autocracy). For the EU to prosper, it does need to be something more than of transactional benefit: but it does *also* need to be of transactional benefit.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,167
    edited January 7
    kinabalu said:

    Yes, I think Brexit will figure prominently in the history books of the future as a key moment in the decline of the West into parochial infighting in the face of a resurgent East.

    A gradual decline of the West relative to the East is perhaps inevitable, although it's a little above my pay grade, but what I would just hate to see is our corner of the West, Europe, embracing aggressive zero-sum nationalism in place of enlightened self-interest.
    But don't you see the contradiction?

    Nationalism grows more strongly when it (a Nation or Culture) is subsumed into a larger body.

    Nationalism is rife in many EU Nations or parts of Nations. The larger body allows and encourages Nationalism to develop in safety.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704
    BTW, when was the last time we heard from Steve Barclay? Was it before Christmas? He's not exactly been high profile, has he?
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 473

    There is a rather sensible article but I am not convinced the EU would agree that they bungled Brexit. Whilst May was trying to pursue her dream of a special relationship with the EU, the EU were not interested. They were much more concerned about using Brexit to deter others from leaving. That is why they were so indifferent to trade talks, so obsessive about the NI border and so petty about issues such as Galileo.

    There was simply lack of common ground between Britain and the EU. Both sides used inflammatory language - May’s “no deal is better than a bad deal” for which she negligently failed to prepare and the EU talking of punishing the EU and Selmayr eulogising that losing NI was the price Britain had to pay for Brexit.

    It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum. The bigger issue now is, as it has been since A50 was lodged, how best does Britain proceed.

    Junckers was responsible more than anyone for misreading Cameron and the UKs attitude to the EU
    So having conceded more to the UK than any other member state, the EU is criticised for not offering more?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,147
    What Anna Soubry has to put up with.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,656
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    The UK has 4 of the top 10 Universities in the world. After we leave the EU will have 1 in the top 50. In London we have the largest international financial centre in the world. The idea that the ECB has the skills or expertise to regulate financial services adequately without London involvement is a bit of a joke. In GCHQ the UK has by far the most sophisticated and capable intelligence gathering facility on the continent, essential for future security. We have been a major pressure valve for youth unemployment in many EU countries giving people who might well otherwise have been difficult at home a life and opportunities.

    All of this and more shows what the EU is losing with the UK's departure. It is looking increasingly likely that we will not be leaving on even particularly good terms. The future relationship looks far more problematic than it should have done. We may well end up building our own Galileo, for example. It is beyond childish, it is very detrimental to the continent.

    Nothing can excuse the incompetence and ineptitude of our political class over the last 3 years or so but Alastair is right to say that the EU has also contributed to the multiple failures that have occurred. I agree with Richard that the time tabling of the talks was small minded and foolish. But that is the nature of the beast we are leaving, I'm afraid.

    Fog in channel, EU cut off.
    More like fog in channel, world cut off, from the European side.

    The EU has this naive idea that together, even without us, they're some sort of superpower. They're not. Fortress Europe is a bit of a meaningless and increasingly irrelevant backwater.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,147

    More like fog in channel, world cut off, from the European side.

    The EU has this naive idea that together, even without us, they're some sort of superpower. They're not. Fortress Europe is a bit of a meaningless and increasingly irrelevant backwater.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 20,380
    DavidL said:

    BTW, when was the last time we heard from Steve Barclay? Was it before Christmas? He's not exactly been high profile, has he?

    You wouldn't have heard from him today if Bercow and Corbyn hadn't contrived to ask TM an urgent question when she was in Liverpool announcing her 10 year NHS plan
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 18,370
    Boris. Gove. Cummings. Stuart. This is what you have done to our country.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,913
    philiph said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yes, I think Brexit will figure prominently in the history books of the future as a key moment in the decline of the West into parochial infighting in the face of a resurgent East.

    A gradual decline of the West relative to the East is perhaps inevitable, although it's a little above my pay grade, but what I would just hate to see is our corner of the West, Europe, embracing aggressive zero-sum nationalism in place of enlightened self-interest.
    But don't you see the contradiction?

    Nationalism grows more strongly when it (a Nation or Culture) is subsumed into a larger body.

    Nationalism is rife in many EU Nations or parts of Nations. The larger body allows and encourages Nationalism to develop in safety.
    Nationalism seems to be rife in the larger bodies of the USA and Russia without the help of subsumed nations or cultures.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 20,716

    More like fog in channel, world cut off, from the European side.

    The EU has this naive idea that together, even without us, they're some sort of superpower. They're not. Fortress Europe is a bit of a meaningless and increasingly irrelevant backwater.

    The EU is a regulatory super-power, compensating for the regulatory over-reach of the US. In today's world, that's a really important consideration.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,088

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    The UK has 4 of the top 10 Universities in the world. After we leave the EU will have 1 in the top 50. In London we have the largest international financial centre in the world. The idea that the ECB has the skills or expertise to regulate financial services adequately without London involvement is a bit of a joke. In GCHQ the UK has by far the most sophisticated and capable intelligence gathering facility on the continent, essential for future security. We have been a major pressure valve for youth unemployment in many EU countries giving people who might well otherwise have been difficult at home a life and opportunities.

    All of this and more shows what the EU is losing with the UK's departure. It is looking increasingly likely that we will not be leaving on even particularly good terms. The future relationship looks far more problematic than it should have done. We may well end up building our own Galileo, for example. It is beyond childish, it is very detrimental to the continent.

    Nothing can excuse the incompetence and ineptitude of our political class over the last 3 years or so but Alastair is right to say that the EU has also contributed to the multiple failures that have occurred. I agree with Richard that the time tabling of the talks was small minded and foolish. But that is the nature of the beast we are leaving, I'm afraid.

    Fog in channel, EU cut off.
    More like fog in channel, world cut off, from the European side.

    The EU has this naive idea that together, even without us, they're some sort of superpower. They're not. Fortress Europe is a bit of a meaningless and increasingly irrelevant backwater.
    In trade terms, they are. The EU27 will still have a GDP that allows it to sit alongside the US and China.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,892

    More like fog in channel, world cut off, from the European side.

    The EU has this naive idea that together, even without us, they're some sort of superpower. They're not. Fortress Europe is a bit of a meaningless and increasingly irrelevant backwater.

    Bit like your mistress running off with your wife after you've filed for divorce.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,035

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    The UK has 4 of the top 10 Universities in the world. After we leave the EU will have 1 in the top 50. In London we have the largest international financial centre in the world. The idea that the ECB has the skills or expertise to regulate financial services adequately without London involvement is a bit of a joke. In GCHQ the UK has by far the most sophisticated and capable intelligence gathering facility on the continent, essential for future security. We have been a major pressure valve for youth unemployment in many EU countries giving people who might well otherwise have been difficult at home a life and opportunities.

    All of this and more shows what the EU is losing with the UK's departure. It is looking increasingly likely that we will not be leaving on even particularly good terms. The future relationship looks far more problematic than it should have done. We may well end up building our own Galileo, for example. It is beyond childish, it is very detrimental to the continent.

    Nothing can excuse the incompetence and ineptitude of our political class over the last 3 years or so but Alastair is right to say that the EU has also contributed to the multiple failures that have occurred. I agree with Richard that the time tabling of the talks was small minded and foolish. But that is the nature of the beast we are leaving, I'm afraid.

    Fog in channel, EU cut off.
    More like fog in channel, world cut off, from the European side.

    The EU has this naive idea that together, even without us, they're some sort of superpower. They're not. Fortress Europe is a bit of a meaningless and increasingly irrelevant backwater.
    Irrelevant backwater accounting for nearly half our exports.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 20,380
    sarissa said:

    There is a rather sensible article but I am not convinced the EU would agree that they bungled Brexit. Whilst May was trying to pursue her dream of a special relationship with the EU, the EU were not interested. They were much more concerned about using Brexit to deter others from leaving. That is why they were so indifferent to trade talks, so obsessive about the NI border and so petty about issues such as Galileo.

    There was simply lack of common ground between Britain and the EU. Both sides used inflammatory language - May’s “no deal is better than a bad deal” for which she negligently failed to prepare and the EU talking of punishing the EU and Selmayr eulogising that losing NI was the price Britain had to pay for Brexit.

    It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum. The bigger issue now is, as it has been since A50 was lodged, how best does Britain proceed.

    Junckers was responsible more than anyone for misreading Cameron and the UKs attitude to the EU
    So having conceded more to the UK than any other member state, the EU is criticised for not offering more?
    A concession at that time would have saved the chaos for both sides today
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,088
    sarissa said:

    There is a rather sensible article but I am not convinced the EU would agree that they bungled Brexit. Whilst May was trying to pursue her dream of a special relationship with the EU, the EU were not interested. They were much more concerned about using Brexit to deter others from leaving. That is why they were so indifferent to trade talks, so obsessive about the NI border and so petty about issues such as Galileo.

    There was simply lack of common ground between Britain and the EU. Both sides used inflammatory language - May’s “no deal is better than a bad deal” for which she negligently failed to prepare and the EU talking of punishing the EU and Selmayr eulogising that losing NI was the price Britain had to pay for Brexit.

    It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum. The bigger issue now is, as it has been since A50 was lodged, how best does Britain proceed.

    Junckers was responsible more than anyone for misreading Cameron and the UKs attitude to the EU
    So having conceded more to the UK than any other member state, the EU is criticised for not offering more?
    This is where the discussion went wrong. Cameron's Bloomberg Speech was not about demanding concessions from Europe as if it was a zero-sum game; it was about reforming the EU to work in everyone's interests, not just whether 'Inners' or 'Outers', or Eurozone members or not (i.e. national membership positions) but the public as well. That aspiration ended up being dropped, which is how it ended up turning into the kind of concessionfest that inevitably put the EU's backs up and delivered insubstantial benefits options.

    As soon as the debate became about 'exceptionalism', it headed down a wrong path.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704

    DavidL said:

    BTW, when was the last time we heard from Steve Barclay? Was it before Christmas? He's not exactly been high profile, has he?

    You wouldn't have heard from him today if Bercow and Corbyn hadn't contrived to ask TM an urgent question when she was in Liverpool announcing her 10 year NHS plan
    You begin to see why Gove didn't fancy the job.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,614
    ROFL

    10/10 for chutzpah

    Bercows record on women is hardly exemplary
  • Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.

    These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 918

    Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.

    These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
    + 1
    I think the Brexiteers are the real Nazis!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 18,370

    Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.

    These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
    OrderOrder saying these particular idiots are nothing to do with Brexit. Some kind of tiny, anti-muslim weird conspiracy cult.

    https://order-order.com/2019/01/07/far-right-yellow-vest-protesters-revealed/

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 31,788

    Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.

    These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
    It appears that when they aren’t complaining about brexit, they claim Number 10 host “satanic paedophiles” and all sorts of conspiracies about Muslims.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,383
    TOPPING said:

    Fishing said:

    All true, but I think there is something I would add. The EU's mindless obsession with the Irish border has made a mutually damaging, chaotic no deal much more likely. It has allowed the Irish tail to wag the European dog.

    It's not mindless. It is central to the whole Brexit debate. Not the EU's fault that the UK govt and many MPs have no idea not only of how Nationalists vote in elections, but the entire dynamic of the island of Ireland.

    And that goes for you too @Richard_Nabavi.

    The backstop, the dear backstop, continues to be misunderstood by those who should know better albeit PB-ers have limited ability actually to do damage to the geopolitical situation on Ireland.
    Many have little knowledge outside the M25 as we see here constantly
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,614

    Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.

    These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
    I doubt they live in Broxtowe

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704

    sarissa said:

    There is a rather sensible article but I am not convinced the EU would agree that they bungled Brexit. Whilst May was trying to pursue her dream of a special relationship with the EU, the EU were not interested. They were much more concerned about using Brexit to deter others from leaving. That is why they were so indifferent to trade talks, so obsessive about the NI border and so petty about issues such as Galileo.

    There was simply lack of common ground between Britain and the EU. Both sides used inflammatory language - May’s “no deal is better than a bad deal” for which she negligently failed to prepare and the EU talking of punishing the EU and Selmayr eulogising that losing NI was the price Britain had to pay for Brexit.

    It could all have been so different. Had the EU given Cameron more slack, Remain might well have won the referendum. The bigger issue now is, as it has been since A50 was lodged, how best does Britain proceed.

    Junckers was responsible more than anyone for misreading Cameron and the UKs attitude to the EU
    So having conceded more to the UK than any other member state, the EU is criticised for not offering more?
    This is where the discussion went wrong. Cameron's Bloomberg Speech was not about demanding concessions from Europe as if it was a zero-sum game; it was about reforming the EU to work in everyone's interests, not just whether 'Inners' or 'Outers', or Eurozone members or not (i.e. national membership positions) but the public as well. That aspiration ended up being dropped, which is how it ended up turning into the kind of concessionfest that inevitably put the EU's backs up and delivered insubstantial benefits options.

    As soon as the debate became about 'exceptionalism', it headed down a wrong path.
    The problem with that David is that there were conflicting views of the future of Europe. Cameron wanted a looser, more flexible Union where countries did more of their own thing. Not just the UK but all countries. Most other countries in the EU, perhaps focused on the consolidation that is still required to make the Euro work properly, didn't. So we get reduced to saying we want that flexibility for us, not everyone.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,614
    malcolmg said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fishing said:

    All true, but I think there is something I would add. The EU's mindless obsession with the Irish border has made a mutually damaging, chaotic no deal much more likely. It has allowed the Irish tail to wag the European dog.

    It's not mindless. It is central to the whole Brexit debate. Not the EU's fault that the UK govt and many MPs have no idea not only of how Nationalists vote in elections, but the entire dynamic of the island of Ireland.

    And that goes for you too @Richard_Nabavi.

    The backstop, the dear backstop, continues to be misunderstood by those who should know better albeit PB-ers have limited ability actually to do damage to the geopolitical situation on Ireland.
    Many have little knowledge outside the M25 as we see here constantly
    spot on malc
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 71,834
    edited January 7

    Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.

    These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
    I doubt they live in Broxtowe

    I know but helping to re-elect Anna Soubry is the ultimate goal.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,913

    Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.

    These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
    + 1
    I think the Brexiteers are the real Nazis!
    Careful, we now live in a world where calling people literally wearing swastika t-shirts Nazis means that we're the real Nazis.

    #veryfinepeopleonbothsides
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,614
    edited January 7

    Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.

    These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
    I doubt they live in Broxtowe

    I know but helping to re-elect Anna Soubry is the ultimate goal.
    will she stand again ? Shell be 65 at the next GE and may not want the hassle.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    edited January 7
    philiph said:

    But don't you see the contradiction?

    Nationalism grows more strongly when it (a Nation or Culture) is subsumed into a larger body.

    Nationalism is rife in many EU Nations or parts of Nations. The larger body allows and encourages Nationalism to develop in safety.

    We have a terminology difference.

    The nationalism that I am referring to is not the desire for full sovereign status of various entities who consider such to be their right (Scotland, Catelonia, Kurdistan etc).

    What I'm talking about (and am extremely wary of) is where a nation is captured by ideas of superiority and a need to demonstrate that to others. It tends to lead to closed borders, less tolerance, more racism, and more aggression, whether economic or military.

    Brexit weakens the EU and a weaker EU risks more of that.

    A circle of cause and effect, in fact, because Brexit causes more of that, and 'that' itself is one of the causes of Brexit.
  • Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.

    These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
    I doubt they live in Broxtowe

    I know but helping to re-elect Anna Soubry is the ultimate goal.
    will she stand again ? Shell be 65 at the next GE and may not want the hassle.
    I think she’s up for this.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,614

    Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.

    These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
    I doubt they live in Broxtowe

    I know but helping to re-elect Anna Soubry is the ultimate goal.
    will she stand again ? Shell be 65 at the next GE and may not want the hassle.
    I think she’s up for this.
    bonkers if she is.

    enjoy your time when youre still fit and able
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 20,380

    Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.

    These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
    I doubt they live in Broxtowe

    I know but helping to re-elect Anna Soubry is the ultimate goal.
    will she stand again ? Shell be 65 at the next GE and may not want the hassle.
    I think she’s up for this.
    bonkers if she is.

    enjoy your time when youre still fit and able
    Good advice
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 981

    ROFL

    10/10 for chutzpah

    Bercows record on women is hardly exemplary
    +1
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 37,914
    DavidL said:

    BTW, when was the last time we heard from Steve Barclay? Was it before Christmas? He's not exactly been high profile, has he?

    Well the role was downgraded wasn't it. Since he's still in charge of overseeing preparations we probably should have heard more from him, but he was never going to be prominent.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,614
    President of the Greens in Germany has made tit of himself on Twitter and offended voters in the state of Thuringen. He has closed all his social media accounts, it now remains to be seen who benefits.

    https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article186647840/Gruenen-Chef-Habeck-kuendigt-an-seinen-Account-auf-Twitter-und-Facebook-zu-loeschen.html
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 981

    Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.

    These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
    I doubt they live in Broxtowe

    I know but helping to re-elect Anna Soubry is the ultimate goal.
    will she stand again ? Shell be 65 at the next GE and may not want the hassle.
    I think she’s up for this.
    Difficult to see how she can win given the collapse of her majority last time.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 37,914

    Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.

    These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
    I doubt they live in Broxtowe

    I know but helping to re-elect Anna Soubry is the ultimate goal.
    will she stand again ? Shell be 65 at the next GE and may not want the hassle.
    I think she’s up for this.
    bonkers if she is.

    enjoy your time when youre still fit and able
    While I do not doubt the unpleasant aspects of being an MP, particularly when one is not wielding or likely to wield true national power, there have to be either positive aspects to it or simply that there are people out there who regard many of the aspects we would think as not worth it as, well, worth it, however strange that is. It's how people are content to skate along on the backbenches for 30 years for example. If serving her country in parliament is something she enjoys enough to keep doing it, then more power to Soubry.

    If we do have another election this year (which I am very confident we will) I wonder if Clarke will stand. Seems like he wants to see Brexit through at least, and he only needs 1 more year to make it 50 years.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 981
    edited January 7
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    BTW, when was the last time we heard from Steve Barclay? Was it before Christmas? He's not exactly been high profile, has he?

    Well the role was downgraded wasn't it. Since he's still in charge of overseeing preparations we probably should have heard more from him, but he was never going to be prominent.
    Barclay has Raab / Davis’ title but Baker’s job - without any funding.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 47,008
    Hey, kids. I actually just left, but upon signing out noticed there are three 'recent discussions' for this site (on Vanilla) in Russian, with no replies. Might want to take a look at that.

    Anyway, now I'm really off.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,614
    kle4 said:

    Am moving to Broxtowe for the next general election and campaign non stop for Anna.

    These yellow jacket Brexiteers are a cancer that needs to be cut out.
    I doubt they live in Broxtowe

    I know but helping to re-elect Anna Soubry is the ultimate goal.
    will she stand again ? Shell be 65 at the next GE and may not want the hassle.
    I think she’s up for this.
    bonkers if she is.

    enjoy your time when youre still fit and able
    While I do not doubt the unpleasant aspects of being an MP, particularly when one is not wielding or likely to wield true national power, there have to be either positive aspects to it or simply that there are people out there who regard many of the aspects we would think as not worth it as, well, worth it, however strange that is. It's how people are content to skate along on the backbenches for 30 years for example. If serving her country in parliament is something she enjoys enough to keep doing it, then more power to Soubry.

    If we do have another election this year (which I am very confident we will) I wonder if Clarke will stand. Seems like he wants to see Brexit through at least, and he only needs 1 more year to make it 50 years.
    each to their own natch

    but as I age and pick up more of the problems, watch my parents generation become bed bound, metally diminished and dead and as I see the first of my friends hit the diseases of age there comes a time when you want to just enjoy life.

    I suspect older men become grumpy old bastards because theyve seen it all before and literally dont have the time to spend arguing with people who are making all the same mistakes they made at a similar age.
This discussion has been closed.