when I was a young child, I had a series of books called (from memory) What, Where, Why, Who, How (I think!). Each book answered a series of questions beginning with the word.
They were very, very loved. Can anyone else remember them; ISTR several friends had them, so they might have been a late-1970s thing?
I suppose the other answer to 'why?' is because it is written in the treaties.
This is not a repeat of your first answer but a simple practical point.
What the EU (and we) want is to reach a new settlement without a fundamental rewriting of the treaties - and of the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties in particular. If those cans of worms were to be reopened, and they would have to be to allow for membership of the single market without freedom of movement, then there are lots of countries that would also like to see other bits re-written or simply expunged. There is really no way the EU can afford to have that happen.
So what they will want is a solution which allows for a limited new treaty on the UK:EU relationship which deals with trade etc but which does not reopen the basic questions about how the EU is constructed and run.
You make the assumption that citizens in the EU object to other EU citizens circulating freely within their home countries.
I would challenge that assumption. In fact I don't think there is a mass rejection of freedom of movement in principle. The issue in the EU is migration from outside.
WRT last thread of course the pensioners are going to say better off as they're feather-bedded by the Tories ludicrous triple lock and will do rather well out of the rampant inflation.
You make the assumption that citizens in the EU object to other EU citizens circulating freely within their home countries.
I would challenge that assumption. In fact I don't think there is a mass rejection of freedom of movement in principle. The issue in the EU is migration from outside.
That's why Germany just put in massive benefits restrictions on EU migrants. Your view is in the minority.
Why wouldn't the rest of the EU go for this? Because this would be a European version of NAFTA, which would be even more unpopular than what's in place now?
when I was a young child, I had a series of books called (from memory) What, Where, Why, Who, How (I think!). Each book answered a series of questions beginning with the word.
They were very, very loved. Can anyone else remember them; ISTR several friends had them, so they might have been a late-1970s thing?
Was that "Tell me Why?" I had that. Indeed I think I probably still have it.
Cyclefree. The third is only a necessity because of another choice made be the EU, or more particularly made by Germany, namely not to consider fiscal transfers to ensure equity across the EU.
But no policy of any kind should be left standing for any length of time without those questions being asked, whether or not it is enshrined in a treaty or a constitution. Why? What is the impact? Who benefits and loses? What are the alternatives? Is this still the best option?
The more frequently these questions are asked, the smoother evolution can be, the fewer seismic readjustments required.
PS The corollary of this is that, by making the four freedoms sacrosanct and unquestionable, the EU keeps on adding weights to the pressure cooker.
On topic, if the UK had secured an opt-out from free movement of people - as well as Schengen - we would still be in the EU.
But the whole political narrative of the last 10-15 years would have been very different as well.
The time to have negotiated an associate membership with the EU - or a special deal for the UK - was at the time of the Maastricht Treaty, but that ship sailed a long time ago.
I also think a strong strand of the UK civil service and some politicians, including Clarke and Heseltine, were very much in favour of political union because they thought the UK would be running it and it could parry, on that basis, on an equal status with the US, Russia and China.
when I was a young child, I had a series of books called (from memory) What, Where, Why, Who, How (I think!). Each book answered a series of questions beginning with the word.
They were very, very loved. Can anyone else remember them; ISTR several friends had them, so they might have been a late-1970s thing?
Was that "Tell me Why?" I had that. Indeed I think I probably still have it.
There were also "The how and why wonder books of ....."
"This delightful book is the latest in the series of Ladybird books which have been specially planned to help grown-ups with the world about them.
The large clear script, the careful choice of words, the frequent repetition and the thoughtful matching of text with pictures all enable grown-ups to think they have taught themselves to cope. Featuring original Ladybird artwork alongside brilliantly funny, brand new text. "
On topic, if the UK had secured an opt-out from free movement of people - as well as Schengen - we would still be in the EU.
But the whole political narrative of the last 10-15 years would have been very different as well.
We did have a 7 year opt-out but it was stupidly squandered by the anti-statesman Tony Blair. With hindsight this decision was up there with his worst mistakes.
On topic, if the UK had secured an opt-out from free movement of people - as well as Schengen - we would still be in the EU.
But the whole political narrative of the last 10-15 years would have been very different as well.
The time to have negotiated an associate membership with the EU - or a special deal for the UK - was at the time of the Maastricht Treaty, but that ship sailed a long time ago.
I also think a strong strand of the UK civil service and some politicians, including Clarke and Heseltine, were very much in favour of political union because they thought the UK would be running it and it could parry, on that basis, on an equal status with the US, Russia and China.
I have long said that people like Heseltine and Clarke are the old Imperialists with all the arrogance that entails. Having lost an Empire they thought the UK were the natural choice to lead in Europe. Arrogant, patronising and basically wrong.
You make the assumption that citizens in the EU object to other EU citizens circulating freely within their home countries.
I would challenge that assumption. In fact I don't think there is a mass rejection of freedom of movement in principle. The issue in the EU is migration from outside.
That's why Germany just put in massive benefits restrictions on EU migrants. Your view is in the minority.
Not so sure. The tensions within the rest of the EU are more due to the pressures of people trying (and succeeding) to enter Europe from outside, than intra-EU migration which is the principal concern for the UK.
I am often struck by how easily we try and project our UK-attitudes onto the other nations of the EU. I suggest things look rather different on the other side of the Channel.
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
The EU27 and the central institutions don't want to offer Britain a good deal, because if they create something that looks very much like the single market but with the unloved parts surgically removed then it's likely that (at the very least) the Visegrad bloc, Sweden, Denmark and the EFTA states will all want to have similar deals, perhaps crafted to their own individual circumstances in a series of a la carte arrangements. The resultant structure - a core European Union interested in federalisation, and a wider, looser European Community that continues to consist of sovereign states, sounds eminently sensible, but sadly the EU isn't really into sensible, which is where the very notion of separating one of the four freedoms from single market access comes a cropper.
The EU27 will do their best to pull together, and the heads of the EU institutions and at least some of the heads of government have made it quite clear that they want something akin to a hard/clean Brexit, pour decourager les autres. Regardless of the fact that it may not be working all that well, the integrity of the bloc and the uniformity of its rules have to be defended, because without them the political project of ever closer union - the sole, overarching aim and entire raison d'etre of the organisation - is a dead duck. Or, to put it more precisely, it might still apply to maybe 8, 10 or 12 states, but that isn't good enough for its proponents. Taking a charitable view you could say that they don't want some of the peripheral member states, who lack long-established democratic cultures, from lapsing back into old ways (although the EU seems gradually to be failing on that front anyway,) or looking at it more cynically you could accuse them of wanting to hold on to every scrap of "their" remaining territory at almost any price.
Such pig-headedness may prove ultimately self-defeating - they risk ending up with no EU at all, rather than a smaller but still very substantial (and more unified and harmonious) Eurocore - but it must nonetheless be recognised. It's no use complaining that the rules are dogmatic and inflexible, because nobody is listening. The federalist elites will continue to carry on regardless.
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
The way for Brexit to result in Mr Meeks' worst nightmares is for it not to be implemented. That would result in considerable outrage, a more militant movement to seek implementation of the referendum, political destruction within both the Tory and Labour parties, and a decade of more political and hence economic uncertainty for the UK with all the downsides and none of the potential upsides of even a hard Brexit.
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
After A50 is served we are leaving and if the MP's reject the deal we will leave on WTO rules. End of story
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
The way for Brexit to result in Mr Meeks' worst nightmares is for it not to be implemented. That would result in considerable outrage, a more militant movement to seek implementation of the referendum, political destruction within both the Tory and Labour parties, and a decade of more political and hence economic uncertainty for the UK with all the downsides and none of the potential upsides of even a hard Brexit.
This scenario only works if the UK reaches the point where economic meltdown is clearly imminent - for example if the £ is worth more than the $, and other economic indicators are all turning worse. Otherwise people would, rightly, never stand for it.
Leadsom lovers will also enjoy the fact she led the renegotiation wargame.
Leadsom will be the key figure as the Tory Brexit wars develop. She's not going to be tainted by the cock-ups of the three stooges and through her timely withdrawal from the leadership race was able to keep most of the political capital she acquired during the referendum campaign. Her early commitment not to use EU citizens' residency rights as a bargaining chip also gives her some moral authority when it all goes sour.
Without free movement of labour, the single market isn't the single market any more. You might as well ask why the single market must mean that you can't put protectionist barriers against german cars or british banks
Free movement is the cuckoo in the EU nest - and the more the current EU establishment dig in, the more likely it is that either a) the project fails or b) the establishment is replaced. Those waiting in the wings in many countries are not pro free movement.
If the tide turns at the right time, we're looking at an amicable EEA style divorce which does not affect either ours or Europes economies to any great extent.
Oh, and Tories in power for two decades for arranging it.
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
After A50 is served we are leaving and if the MP's reject the deal we will leave on WTO rules. End of story
For someone who voted Remain you are showing the zealotry of the convert.
Free movement is the cuckoo in the EU nest - and the more the current EU establishment dig in, the more likely it is that either a) the project fails or b) the establishment is replaced. Those waiting in the wings in many countries are not pro free movement.
If the tide turns at the right time, we're looking at an amicable EEA style divorce which does not affect either ours or Europes economies to any great extent.
Oh, and Tories in power for two decades for arranging it.
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
In that case we would just crash out as Article 50 times out with no deal.
It's much more likely that many europhile MPs simply abstain on the basis they hate the deal, and the alternative of no deal is even worse, but it's not their fight.
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
After A50 is served we are leaving and if the MP's reject the deal we will leave on WTO rules. End of story
If the rest of the EU is fed up with us, and wants us to go, then yes. Otherwise no.
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
I think you misunderstand the process. Once Article 50 is triggered it doesn't matter if Parliament votes against the terms of the separation. That does not mean the separation will not happen, only that it will happen without a formal agreement in place. That is the whole point of the 2 year time limit in the treaty. Once that is up we leave whether there is an agreement or not (unless we get the agreement of all 27 countries plus our own Goverment to extend the process)
Without free movement of labour, the single market isn't the single market any more. You might as well ask why the single market must mean that you can't put protectionist barriers against german cars or british banks
I think Cyclefree is suggesting that you should ask those questions, too. And if the answers to those are because barriers do x, y and z damage for no concomitant gain, so we don't want them, good.
But there is no particular reason why the four freedoms need to come as a quantum package, unless you can answer the question why they must, which you haven't. Merely stating it to be true is not an argument as to why it is true.
Leadsom lovers will also enjoy the fact she led the renegotiation wargame.
Leadsom will be the key figure as the Tory Brexit wars develop. She's not going to be tainted by the cock-ups of the three stooges and through her timely withdrawal from the leadership race was able to keep most of the political capital she acquired during the referendum campaign. Her early commitment not to use EU citizens' residency rights as a bargaining chip also gives her some moral authority when it all goes sour.
I still rate, and like, Leadsom, even though she clearly wasn't cut out to be leader.
I found some of the abuse thrown in her direction during the Tory leadership race disgusting.
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
The way for Brexit to result in Mr Meeks' worst nightmares is for it not to be implemented. That would result in considerable outrage, a more militant movement to seek implementation of the referendum, political destruction within both the Tory and Labour parties, and a decade of more political and hence economic uncertainty for the UK with all the downsides and none of the potential upsides of even a hard Brexit.
This scenario only works if the UK reaches the point where economic meltdown is clearly imminent - for example if the £ is worth more than the $, and other economic indicators are all turning worse. Otherwise people would, rightly, never stand for it.
You make the assumption that citizens in the EU object to other EU citizens circulating freely within their home countries.
I would challenge that assumption. In fact I don't think there is a mass rejection of freedom of movement in principle. The issue in the EU is migration from outside.
That's why Germany just put in massive benefits restrictions on EU migrants. Your view is in the minority.
Not so sure. The tensions within the rest of the EU are more due to the pressures of people trying (and succeeding) to enter Europe from outside, than intra-EU migration which is the principal concern for the UK.
I am often struck by how easily we try and project our UK-attitudes onto the other nations of the EU. I suggest things look rather different on the other side of the Channel.
The new German law is specifically targeted at EU migrants. They are trying to restrict the numbers just as we were before we voted to leave. As I said earlier, with migration the issue is that we let unsuitable members into the club, we should have waited until they reached a level of economic development which was 60-70% of the EU average, not the 25% it was when they joined.
On topic, if the UK had secured an opt-out from free movement of people - as well as Schengen - we would still be in the EU.
But the whole political narrative of the last 10-15 years would have been very different as well.
We did have a 7 year opt-out but it was stupidly squandered by the anti-statesman Tony Blair. With hindsight this decision was up there with his worst mistakes.
Interesting, as an ardent Remainer.
Were you disappointed by Cameron's renegotiation? And, if so, why?
I'm staying in one of the most beautiful hotel rooms ever, in Thornbury Castle, near Bristol.
And off to dinner shortly, so I'm afraid I won't be able to give Ms Cyclefree's thread the thoughtful response it so richly deserves. Please all do that for me!
I think we're looking at a regular flow of such allegations, some more credible than others. The "Washington Post" story appears to have legs .... so to speak.
Leadsom lovers will also enjoy the fact she led the renegotiation wargame.
Leadsom will be the key figure as the Tory Brexit wars develop. She's not going to be tainted by the cock-ups of the three stooges and through her timely withdrawal from the leadership race was able to keep most of the political capital she acquired during the referendum campaign. Her early commitment not to use EU citizens' residency rights as a bargaining chip also gives her some moral authority when it all goes sour.
I still rate, and like, Leadsom, even though she clearly wasn't cut out to be leader.
I found some of the abuse thrown in her direction during the Tory leadership race disgusting.
Not so sure. My feeling is that she was a useful idiot, who turned out to be not so useful, whilst still an idiot.
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
After A50 is served we are leaving and if the MP's reject the deal we will leave on WTO rules. End of story
If the rest of the EU is fed up with us, and wants us to go, then yes. Otherwise no.
Actually yes unless there is unanimous agreement by both all 27 members of the EU and by the UK to extend the talks.
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
The way for Brexit to result in Mr Meeks' worst nightmares is for it not to be implemented. That would result in considerable outrage, a more militant movement to seek implementation of the referendum, political destruction within both the Tory and Labour parties, and a decade of more political and hence economic uncertainty for the UK with all the downsides and none of the potential upsides of even a hard Brexit.
Meeks speaks for the angry Remain community - socially liberal, London-based, internationalist, city services focussed and high-earning - very well indeed.
In this sense, he is an informative poster on this site in gauging temperature and reaction, even if best not engaged on the subject himself.
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
I think you misunderstand the process. Once Article 50 is triggered it doesn't matter if Parliament votes against the terms of the separation. That does not mean the separation will not happen, only that it will happen without a formal agreement in place. That is the whole point of the 2 year time limit in the treaty. Once that is up we leave whether there is an agreement or not (unless we get the agreement of all 27 countries plus our own Goverment to extend the process)
As Cyclefree says, I question whether A50 will ever be invoked. I think we have only just seen the start of the efforts of Remainers to stop this, by hook or by crook. Maybe I don't understand the finer detailers of the process, but I certainly understand politics and cynicism.
Cyclefree "Might the EU’s insistence on it not risk sowing the seeds of its own destruction? Or, less dramatically, might it risk undermining the EU’s ability to achieve or maintain other equally desirable aims? "
There seems to be a sense of inevitability encompassing the choices that the EU makes. It chose to grant an inadequate deal with Cameron and then did not like the consequences. It will probably create a Hard Brexit and then watch the economic turmoil in the EU blow up the Eurozone. Stupid is as stupid does.
Cyclefree. The third is only a necessity because of another choice made be the EU, or more particularly made by Germany, namely not to consider fiscal transfers to ensure equity across the EU.
But no policy of any kind should be left standing for any length of time without those questions being asked, whether or not it is enshrined in a treaty or a constitution. Why? What is the impact? Who benefits and loses? What are the alternatives? Is this still the best option?
The more frequently these questions are asked, the smoother evolution can be, the fewer seismic readjustments required.
PS The corollary of this is that, by making the four freedoms sacrosanct and unquestionable, the EU keeps on adding weights to the pressure cooker.
Agree. The failure to adapt principles to the realities of today is a real problem within the EU. A shame. The EU could be so much better.
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
After A50 is served we are leaving and if the MP's reject the deal we will leave on WTO rules. End of story
For someone who voted Remain you are showing the zealotry of the convert.
I have seamlessly moved from eurosceptic remain to a fully committed eurosceptic leave
I wonder if hell admit to groping her because she looks good (for her age).
CNN indicating there is another Trump allegation coming from California later today.
And no doubt guilty by media until proved innocent (see page 27....) On the day of the Ched Evans verdict.....
Trump started this by making a thing, nay an entire press conference no less, out of the women accusing Bill.
He has been hoisted by his own petard. Not 3 days ago Trump surrogates were asking, nay demanding, that all women alleging sexual assault should and must be heard.
Its like they couldn't see the massively obvious trap they themselves were constructing.
Without free movement of labour, the single market isn't the single market any more. You might as well ask why the single market must mean that you can't put protectionist barriers against german cars or british banks
I think Cyclefree is suggesting that you should ask those questions, too. And if the answers to those are because barriers do x, y and z damage for no concomitant gain, so we don't want them, good.
But there is no particular reason why the four freedoms need to come as a quantum package, unless you can answer the question why they must, which you haven't. Merely stating it to be true is not an argument as to why it is true.
Exactly. You have summarised my point better than I have!
Leadsom lovers will also enjoy the fact she led the renegotiation wargame.
Leadsom will be the key figure as the Tory Brexit wars develop. She's not going to be tainted by the cock-ups of the three stooges and through her timely withdrawal from the leadership race was able to keep most of the political capital she acquired during the referendum campaign. Her early commitment not to use EU citizens' residency rights as a bargaining chip also gives her some moral authority when it all goes sour.
I still rate, and like, Leadsom, even though she clearly wasn't cut out to be leader.
I found some of the abuse thrown in her direction during the Tory leadership race disgusting.
Not so sure. My feeling is that she was a useful idiot, who turned out to be not so useful, whilst still an idiot.
I don't think she was an idiot at all, as her performance in the ITV debate, and parliamentary select committees showed. Nor would she have been selected to lead the Fresh Start group of MPs on EU reform if she had been.
Of course, that doesn't mean she was the finished article - and she wasn't - but too often the idiot label gets attached to someone you vehemently disagree with when they slip up.
On topic, if the UK had secured an opt-out from free movement of people - as well as Schengen - we would still be in the EU.
But the whole political narrative of the last 10-15 years would have been very different as well.
We did have a 7 year opt-out but it was stupidly squandered by the anti-statesman Tony Blair. With hindsight this decision was up there with his worst mistakes.
Interesting, as an ardent Remainer.
Were you disappointed by Cameron's renegotiation? And, if so, why?
I was disappointed by the sham nature of it which created the impression that the EU had told us to foxtrot oscar. He should have either just called the referendum on the status quo as is or if it was a serious exercise he should shown some commitment and been ready for a multi-year negotiation.
If the latter approach had led to something like a formalised associate membership status then despite personally being disappointed that we wouldn't be in the central core, I would see this as a welcome clarification and something that could be a model for countries like Norway to join. (The downside is that the FCO would also start saying it could be a model for Turkey which I wouldn't support.)
I'm staying in one of the most beautiful hotel rooms ever, in Thornbury Castle, near Bristol.
And off to dinner shortly, so I'm afraid I won't be able to give Ms Cyclefree's thread the thoughtful response it so richly deserves. Please all do that for me!
Mr Dancer: my father took me for a wonderful dinner there (and stay) shortly before I went to Bristol University. It was one of the few times we spent together, just me and him, after I left school as he died not long after. I treasure the memory.
On topic, if the UK had secured an opt-out from free movement of people - as well as Schengen - we would still be in the EU.
But the whole political narrative of the last 10-15 years would have been very different as well.
We did have a 7 year opt-out but it was stupidly squandered by the anti-statesman Tony Blair. With hindsight this decision was up there with his worst mistakes.
Interesting, as an ardent Remainer.
Were you disappointed by Cameron's renegotiation? And, if so, why?
I was disappointed by the sham nature of it which created the impression that the EU had told us to foxtrot oscar. He should have either just called the referendum on the status quo as is or if it was a serious exercise he should shown some commitment and been ready for a multi-year negotiation.
If the latter approach had led to something like a formalised associate membership status then despite personally being disappointed that we wouldn't be in the central core, I would see this as a welcome clarification and something that could be a model for countries like Norway to join. (The downside is that the FCO would also start saying it could be a model for Turkey which I wouldn't support.)
Interesting, thanks. Is your objection to Turkey on immigration grounds?
Trudeau said the other day: “If in a week or two we see that Europe is unable to sign a progressive trade agreement with a country like Canada, well, then with whom will Europe think that it can do business in the years to come?”
Leadsom lovers will also enjoy the fact she led the renegotiation wargame.
Leadsom will be the key figure as the Tory Brexit wars develop. She's not going to be tainted by the cock-ups of the three stooges and through her timely withdrawal from the leadership race was able to keep most of the political capital she acquired during the referendum campaign. Her early commitment not to use EU citizens' residency rights as a bargaining chip also gives her some moral authority when it all goes sour.
I still rate, and like, Leadsom, even though she clearly wasn't cut out to be leader.
I found some of the abuse thrown in her direction during the Tory leadership race disgusting.
Not so sure. My feeling is that she was a useful idiot, who turned out to be not so useful, whilst still an idiot.
I don't think she was an idiot at all, as her performance in the ITV debate, and parliamentary select committees showed. Nor would she have been selected to lead the Fresh Start group of MPs on EU reform if she had been.
Of course, that doesn't mean she was the finished article - and she wasn't - but too often the idiot label gets attached to someone you vehemently disagree with when they slip up.
She was less than entirely truthful about her City career and even the truth of it was less impressive than claimed (and hardly justified the claim made about her that she was a financial expert). I'm afraid I take a very dim view of City fantasists with a tenuous grasp of the truth. I have seen too many of them and too much of the harm they do.
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
I think you misunderstand the process. Once Article 50 is triggered it doesn't matter if Parliament votes against the terms of the separation. That does not mean the separation will not happen, only that it will happen without a formal agreement in place. That is the whole point of the 2 year time limit in the treaty. Once that is up we leave whether there is an agreement or not (unless we get the agreement of all 27 countries plus our own Goverment to extend the process)
As Cyclefree says, I question whether A50 will ever be invoked. I think we have only just seen the start of the efforts of Remainers to stop this, by hook or by crook. Maybe I don't understand the finer detailers of the process, but I certainly understand politics and cynicism.
Remainers who are seriously trying to sabotage Brexit need to think carefully. Civil wars have been fought over lesser matters.
On topic, if the UK had secured an opt-out from free movement of people - as well as Schengen - we would still be in the EU.
But the whole political narrative of the last 10-15 years would have been very different as well.
We did have a 7 year opt-out but it was stupidly squandered by the anti-statesman Tony Blair. With hindsight this decision was up there with his worst mistakes.
Interesting, as an ardent Remainer.
Were you disappointed by Cameron's renegotiation? And, if so, why?
I was disappointed by the sham nature of it which created the impression that the EU had told us to foxtrot oscar. He should have either just called the referendum on the status quo as is or if it was a serious exercise he should shown some commitment and been ready for a multi-year negotiation.
If the latter approach had led to something like a formalised associate membership status then despite personally being disappointed that we wouldn't be in the central core, I would see this as a welcome clarification and something that could be a model for countries like Norway to join. (The downside is that the FCO would also start saying it could be a model for Turkey which I wouldn't support.)
Interesting, thanks. Is your objection to Turkey on immigration grounds?
Among others. Turkey's entire application has been an exercise in two-faced diplomacy and mutually assured obstruction. Some of the Turkish elite like the idea of membership but very few would be comfortable with the reality, and on the EU side there isn't any upside beyond a sentimental fantasy about anchoring democracy in a large islamic state.
Specifically regarding immigration I think this would also be a show-stopper for membership because it would create permanent, rather than temporary, pressures on the richer countries. When Spain/Portugal and the A8 joined, it was a reasonable assumption that their economies would become more competitive with the existing members over time and therefore freedom of movement would cease to be an issue.
And no doubt guilty by media until proved innocent (see page 27....) On the day of the Ched Evans verdict.....
Should these allegations be suppressed ?
They should be considered allegations made in a highly charged political setting.
Quite so. However that doesn't mean they shouldn't be reported, commented on and challenged as necessary.
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
I simply do not believe we will ever leave the EU, because there are enough MPs in the HoC to stop it. If they are given a vote to approve leaving terms, they will vote against it, doubly so if it affects the single market, and therefore FoM. Brexit is a fantasy, and Leavers (me included) are in for a shock when it is destroyed.
I think you misunderstand the process. Once Article 50 is triggered it doesn't matter if Parliament votes against the terms of the separation. That does not mean the separation will not happen, only that it will happen without a formal agreement in place. That is the whole point of the 2 year time limit in the treaty. Once that is up we leave whether there is an agreement or not (unless we get the agreement of all 27 countries plus our own Goverment to extend the process)
As Cyclefree says, I question whether A50 will ever be invoked. I think we have only just seen the start of the efforts of Remainers to stop this, by hook or by crook. Maybe I don't understand the finer detailers of the process, but I certainly understand politics and cynicism.
The reports of yesterday's Court case re the right for Theresa May to serve notice as she wishes seemed to imply the against argument is flawed. If this is confirmed and by the Supreme Court TM will serve A50 by the end of March 2017 - In view of her comments to date she would have no choice
You may not want to leave the EU, and I voted remain, but it is absolutely clear we are leaving, what is not clear are the leaving terms. However sovereignty of Parliament and the UK judiciary and control of free movement will be Theresa May's red lines
They need to be careful. It could result in sympathy for him if it was felt such vile claims were being fabricated for reasons of gaining a political advantage for the other candidate.
After "pussygate" I doubt Donald enjoys too much sympathy outside Trumpsters.
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
5 regional parliaments! Belgium never ceases to amaze me.
Oh if only it were that simple. They have three "community" governments, French-, Flemish- (Dutch) and German- speaking and three actual regional governments, Flanders, Walloonia and Brussels. The Flanders and Flemish-speaking governments have been merged, leaving five in total.
You make the assumption that citizens in the EU object to other EU citizens circulating freely within their home countries.
I would challenge that assumption. In fact I don't think there is a mass rejection of freedom of movement in principle. The issue in the EU is migration from outside.
That's why Germany just put in massive benefits restrictions on EU migrants. Your view is in the minority.
Not so sure. The tensions within the rest of the EU are more due to the pressures of people trying (and succeeding) to enter Europe from outside, than intra-EU migration which is the principal concern for the UK.
I am often struck by how easily we try and project our UK-attitudes onto the other nations of the EU. I suggest things look rather different on the other side of the Channel.
There is something in what you and FF43 say. But if Germany and France were not so concerned about free movement why then did they place restrictions on free movement from the Eastern European Accession states. The sacred principle was not so sacred then.
And this was done because the governments must have been concerned that their own people would not wear it. So I'm not sure that I agree that there aren't some of the same tensions in other EU states.
Second, migration into the EU is clearly an issue. But once in, those migrants can eventually freely move around and in practice already do so. So the two issues are inevitably connected.
Finally, a failure to rethink how the principle of free movement should apply in the world of today has, to an extent many in Britain and the EU never anticipated, resulted in the loss of one of its largest countries. A bit of flexibility would have been warranted I feel, not least because EU leaders and the EU itself are deluded if they think that migration/free movement concerns are not going to cause them political and other problems inside the EU in the years ahead.
Comments
when I was a young child, I had a series of books called (from memory) What, Where, Why, Who, How (I think!). Each book answered a series of questions beginning with the word.
They were very, very loved. Can anyone else remember them; ISTR several friends had them, so they might have been a late-1970s thing?
This is not a repeat of your first answer but a simple practical point.
What the EU (and we) want is to reach a new settlement without a fundamental rewriting of the treaties - and of the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties in particular. If those cans of worms were to be reopened, and they would have to be to allow for membership of the single market without freedom of movement, then there are lots of countries that would also like to see other bits re-written or simply expunged. There is really no way the EU can afford to have that happen.
So what they will want is a solution which allows for a limited new treaty on the UK:EU relationship which deals with trade etc but which does not reopen the basic questions about how the EU is constructed and run.
I would challenge that assumption. In fact I don't think there is a mass rejection of freedom of movement in principle. The issue in the EU is migration from outside.
On a visit to Germany, he said: "I don't know which party my wife belongs to, but she belongs to my kitchen and my living room and the other room."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-37659863
The Nigerian Godfrey Bloom...
Clinton 45 .. Trump 36
https://luc.id/2016-presidential-tracker/
Clinton 41 .. Trump 45
http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_IN_101416/
https://twitter.com/andrealeadsom/status/747346925586784256
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-says-trump-reached-under-her-skirt-and-groped-her-in-early-1990s/2016/10/14/67e8ff5e-917d-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name:homepage/story
But no policy of any kind should be left standing for any length of time without those questions being asked, whether or not it is enshrined in a treaty or a constitution. Why? What is the impact? Who benefits and loses? What are the alternatives? Is this still the best option?
The more frequently these questions are asked, the smoother evolution can be, the fewer seismic readjustments required.
PS The corollary of this is that, by making the four freedoms sacrosanct and unquestionable, the EU keeps on adding weights to the pressure cooker.
But the whole political narrative of the last 10-15 years would have been very different as well.
The time to have negotiated an associate membership with the EU - or a special deal for the UK - was at the time of the Maastricht Treaty, but that ship sailed a long time ago.
I also think a strong strand of the UK civil service and some politicians, including Clarke and Heseltine, were very much in favour of political union because they thought the UK would be running it and it could parry, on that basis, on an equal status with the US, Russia and China.
And the Ladybird books https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ZuqOCgAAQBAJ&source=productsearch&utm_source=HA_Desktop_US&utm_medium=SEM&utm_campaign=PLA&pcampaignid=MKTAD0930BO1&gclid=CKHtjOHt2s8CFdcPGQodtWUKOw&gclsrc=ds
"This delightful book is the latest in the series of Ladybird books which have been specially planned to help grown-ups with the world about them.
The large clear script, the careful choice of words, the frequent repetition and the thoughtful matching of text with pictures all enable grown-ups to think they have taught themselves to cope. Featuring original Ladybird artwork alongside brilliantly funny, brand new text. "
I am often struck by how easily we try and project our UK-attitudes onto the other nations of the EU. I suggest things look rather different on the other side of the Channel.
The EU27 will do their best to pull together, and the heads of the EU institutions and at least some of the heads of government have made it quite clear that they want something akin to a hard/clean Brexit, pour decourager les autres. Regardless of the fact that it may not be working all that well, the integrity of the bloc and the uniformity of its rules have to be defended, because without them the political project of ever closer union - the sole, overarching aim and entire raison d'etre of the organisation - is a dead duck. Or, to put it more precisely, it might still apply to maybe 8, 10 or 12 states, but that isn't good enough for its proponents. Taking a charitable view you could say that they don't want some of the peripheral member states, who lack long-established democratic cultures, from lapsing back into old ways (although the EU seems gradually to be failing on that front anyway,) or looking at it more cynically you could accuse them of wanting to hold on to every scrap of "their" remaining territory at almost any price.
Such pig-headedness may prove ultimately self-defeating - they risk ending up with no EU at all, rather than a smaller but still very substantial (and more unified and harmonious) Eurocore - but it must nonetheless be recognised. It's no use complaining that the rules are dogmatic and inflexible, because nobody is listening. The federalist elites will continue to carry on regardless.
Free movement is the cuckoo in the EU nest - and the more the current EU establishment dig in, the more likely it is that either a) the project fails or b) the establishment is replaced. Those waiting in the wings in many countries are not pro free movement.
If the tide turns at the right time, we're looking at an amicable EEA style divorce which does not affect either ours or Europes economies to any great extent.
Oh, and Tories in power for two decades for arranging it.
https://youtu.be/ZYFoUhztDFw
It's much more likely that many europhile MPs simply abstain on the basis they hate the deal, and the alternative of no deal is even worse, but it's not their fight.
But there is no particular reason why the four freedoms need to come as a quantum package, unless you can answer the question why they must, which you haven't. Merely stating it to be true is not an argument as to why it is true.
Steve Kornacki – @SteveKornacki
Arizona (Data Orbital; 10/11-12)
Clinton 43%
Trump 42%
Johnson 5%
I found some of the abuse thrown in her direction during the Tory leadership race disgusting.
Were you disappointed by Cameron's renegotiation? And, if so, why?
And off to dinner shortly, so I'm afraid I won't be able to give Ms Cyclefree's thread the thoughtful response it so richly deserves. Please all do that for me!
I think we're looking at a regular flow of such allegations, some more credible than others. The "Washington Post" story appears to have legs .... so to speak.
Michael McDonald
Michael McDonald – @ElectProject
Situation not improving for Dems in Ohio. As of yesterday, ballot requests down from 2012 17.7% in Cuyahoga, was down 16.1% on Monday
That is a disaster if Dems, that is a big "run up the margin county" for Dems.
In this sense, he is an informative poster on this site in gauging temperature and reaction, even if best not engaged on the subject himself.
There seems to be a sense of inevitability encompassing the choices that the EU makes. It chose to grant an inadequate deal with Cameron and then did not like the consequences. It will probably create a Hard Brexit and then watch the economic turmoil in the EU blow up the Eurozone. Stupid is as stupid does.
He has been hoisted by his own petard. Not 3 days ago Trump surrogates were asking, nay demanding, that all women alleging sexual assault should and must be heard.
Its like they couldn't see the massively obvious trap they themselves were constructing.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/786989073470746624
And the state of the parties:
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/786990894595579905
Clinton 43 .. Trump 42
http://us12.campaign-archive2.com/?u=5a280d25318f2afe3f311adb6&id=287ad48d38
Of course, that doesn't mean she was the finished article - and she wasn't - but too often the idiot label gets attached to someone you vehemently disagree with when they slip up.
If the latter approach had led to something like a formalised associate membership status then despite personally being disappointed that we wouldn't be in the central core, I would see this as a welcome clarification and something that could be a model for countries like Norway to join. (The downside is that the FCO would also start saying it could be a model for Turkey which I wouldn't support.)
Enjoy your dinner!
Simon Nixon ✔ @Simon_Nixon
Deep gloom about this in Brussels today, a disaster for EU trade policy/credibility, say Commission officials https://twitter.com/wsjeurope/status/786979332795293700 …
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/mike-pence-polls-something-missing-229787
Specifically regarding immigration I think this would also be a show-stopper for membership because it would create permanent, rather than temporary, pressures on the richer countries. When Spain/Portugal and the A8 joined, it was a reasonable assumption that their economies would become more competitive with the existing members over time and therefore freedom of movement would cease to be an issue.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/301017-new-trump-accuser-to-come-forward-friday
You may not want to leave the EU, and I voted remain, but it is absolutely clear we are leaving, what is not clear are the leaving terms. However sovereignty of Parliament and the UK judiciary and control of free movement will be Theresa May's red lines
In the final analysis would a candidate prefer such allegations to be in the open so that they might possibly engender sympathy. I doubt it.
And this was done because the governments must have been concerned that their own people would not wear it. So I'm not sure that I agree that there aren't some of the same tensions in other EU states.
Second, migration into the EU is clearly an issue. But once in, those migrants can eventually freely move around and in practice already do so. So the two issues are inevitably connected.
Finally, a failure to rethink how the principle of free movement should apply in the world of today has, to an extent many in Britain and the EU never anticipated, resulted in the loss of one of its largest countries. A bit of flexibility would have been warranted I feel, not least because EU leaders and the EU itself are deluded if they think that migration/free movement concerns are not going to cause them political and other problems inside the EU in the years ahead.