Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
After the triggering of Article 50 "our Brexiters" looks even more petulant than it would have done this time last week. It was our (your) Prime Minister who signed and sent that letter: you are now a Brexiter. If you don't like it the only ways of ceasing to be one are 1. build a time machine and teleport back to a year ago with some fellow remainers, and this time try not to miss the most wide open goal in the history of democracy, or 2. emigrate.
I will not be a Brexiter in a hundred years because I will never be a racist.
How can you bear to continue to live in a country where 51. odd of the voting population are morally deformed racist scum? Go on, emigrate.
Hungary's nice...
Yeah, but it's only 25% of the actual population and 38% of the electorate, so fuck 'em.
Someone's been taking inspiration from A C Grayling.
In a previous referendum in 2014, 38% of the eligible electorate (representing just 30% of the total population) voted Yes, so fuck 'em :-)
Somebody has to do it since May was found sleeping. She completely forgot Gibraltar.
She probably thought the EU wouldn't stoop so low as to play games with the citizens of Gibraltar.
Having put the future security of both EU citizens and British citizens on the table, Britain is in no position to accuse the EU of stooping low.
The EU's position is in any case logical. After Brexit, the dispute between Britain and Spain over Gibraltar will involve only one EU country. It would be quite wrong for the rest of the EU to start from a position of forcing its member to make concessions on such a dispute against its will. I thought Leavers liked the idea of bilateral negotiations?
Except Spain has zero legal basis for the claim. Or is that not an issue because they are now on the side of the EU?
Gibraltar is British when it wants to be. It is nothing more than a low tax, no duties smugglers den. Who is the MP for Gibraltar in the HoC ?
Fair point, we should offer the people of Gibraltar the option of becoming part of the UK. Then we can tell the Spanish to fuck off forever.
They seem to be content with their current constitutional settlement. Not sure what difference having an MP would have.
British when they need to be. Bloody leeches.
A little like non-resident property owners perhaps. Parasitic, exploitative,verminous leeches, ring any bells?
Shouldn't credible evidence move the threat level to critical?
Good God man, you have just provided a link to a report which alleges the existence of a Muslim Conspiracy. Please apologise to messrs surbiton and Palmer and then ritually disembowel yourself.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
After the triggering of Article 50 "our Brexiters" looks even more petulant than it would have done this time last week. It was our (your) Prime Minister who signed and sent that letter: you are now a Brexiter. If you don't like it the only ways of ceasing to be one are 1. build a time machine and teleport back to a year ago with some fellow remainers, and this time try not to miss the most wide open goal in the history of democracy, or 2. emigrate.
I will not be a Brexiter in a hundred years because I will never be a racist.
How can you bear to continue to live in a country where 51. odd of the voting population are morally deformed racist scum? Go on, emigrate.
Hungary's nice...
Yeah, but it's only 25% of the actual population and 38% of the electorate, so fuck 'em.
Someone's been taking inspiration from A C Grayling.
In a previous referendum in 2014, 38% of the eligible electorate (representing just 30% of the total population) voted Yes, so fuck 'em :-)
As it happens (even discounting the 'my nan's not racist but says the FUNNIEST things' vote) I think it was only a small percentage of Leavers that were yer actual racists. Still enough to just get you over the line though. Suck it up.
Shouldn't credible evidence move the threat level to critical?
Christ. They're gonna end up bannng all laptops and iPads, even phones, aren't they?
I can see how you could get inside a laptop and make a small bomb? But an iPad??
The issue is around an explosion which, if the iPad/bomb can be specifically placed next to the fuselage exterior , is sufficient to cause a rapid explosive decompression. That doesn't have to be huge (see shoe bomber, passim). I'd suggest that critical judgments are made on
If memory serves, the UK founded EFTA, and did so to compete with the then-EC. Are you getting it mixed up with EEA
Entirely possible. Am I wrong in thinking that you still have to sign up to the four freedoms, and supremacy of the ECJ?
Thirty years ago this would be easy to answer. Now...not so much.
It is possible to be a member of EFTA and not a member of the EEA and not subject to ECJ. The example is Switzerland.
The problem arises when you join the EFTA and the EEA. The example is Norway. In this event you would be subject to the EFTA Court, which is not the ECJ but doesn't disagree much.
As for the four freedoms, I think the answer is "no, provided you don't join the EEA as well". Apols if wrong
Shouldn't credible evidence move the threat level to critical?
Good God man, you have just provided a link to a report which alleges the existence of a Muslim Conspiracy. Please apologise to messrs surbiton and Palmer and then ritually disembowel yourself.
Shouldn't credible evidence move the threat level to critical?
Christ. They're gonna end up bannng all laptops and iPads, even phones, aren't they?
I can see how you could get inside a laptop and make a small bomb? But an iPad??
The issue is around an explosion which, if the iPad/bomb can be specifically placed next to the fuselage exterior , is sufficient to cause a rapid explosive decompression. That doesn't have to be huge (see shoe bomber, passim). I'd suggest that critical judgments are made on
Sure. But the report claims that jihadis are managing to insert bombs in devices without preventing the devices from working as normal.
That's pretty impressive, and chilling, when you're talking about an iPad. Because unlike laptops iPads are not designed to be openable, and don't have any moving parts like DVD drives, etc.
I look forward to the days where we have scanners that can automatically detect anything explosive. Sadly we aren't there yet...
SeanT - as you know from our conversations about Boringdon Manor, I can be a picky bugger when it comes to restaurants and hotels. But Castell Son Claret tonight - faultless. Not the tiniest little thing did they get wrong.
Find a quote from me, at the time, when I talked about "Muslim conspiracy" "after the initial detentions". Go on, find it.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Apart from using the words Muslim conspiracy you wrote everything about it. Even during the Norwegian massacre you were hoping that it was done by Islamist terrorists before news came out about the extreme right madman.
You must be so disappointed that the Westminster terrorist wasn't a Brexiteer!
Shouldn't credible evidence move the threat level to critical?
Good God man, you have just provided a link to a report which alleges the existence of a Muslim Conspiracy. Please apologise to messrs surbiton and Palmer and then ritually disembowel yourself.
Shouldn't credible evidence move the threat level to critical?
Christ. They're gonna end up bannng all laptops and iPads, even phones, aren't they?
I can see how you could get inside a laptop and make a small bomb? But an iPad??
I've always thought it's just a matter of time before nearly all electronic devices are banned on flights, apart from those handed out by the airlines as people board.
Shouldn't credible evidence move the threat level to critical?
Good God man, you have just provided a link to a report which alleges the existence of a Muslim Conspiracy. Please apologise to messrs surbiton and Palmer and then ritually disembowel yourself.
Dammit, I forgot to add *innocent face*...
We'll be waiting at least as long as for us to rejoin the EU as Sean T to apologise.
Find a quote from me, at the time, when I talked about "Muslim conspiracy" "after the initial detentions". Go on, find it.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Apart from using the words Muslim conspiracy you wrote everything about it. Even during the Norwegian massacre you were hoping that it was done by Islamist terrorists before news came out about the extreme right madman.
You must be so disappointed that the Westminster terrorist wasn't a Brexiteer!
How do you know he wasn't?
How do you know he was?
I wasn't claiming to be able to read the mind of some dead bloke.
Still..
'Isis praises Brexit for destabilising 'crusader Europe' in propaganda newspaper'
Shouldn't credible evidence move the threat level to critical?
Good God man, you have just provided a link to a report which alleges the existence of a Muslim Conspiracy. Please apologise to messrs surbiton and Palmer and then ritually disembowel yourself.
Dammit, I forgot to add *innocent face*...
We'll be waiting at least as long as for us to rejoin the EU as Sean T to apologise.
Gibraltarians want British protection for free. Before the EU, Brits could not even work there without a work permit and I think British visitors needed visas. So much for being British.
Why can't they be independent ? After all, they exist for low tax and smuggling.
I think you will find what the UK gets in exchange is a hugely important military base. It is no exaggeration to say that without Gibraltar WW2 would have turned out very differently for the British.
And of course your comments about the place are both offensive and wrong.
The Spanish Costas are full of Brits whose Britishness is not threatened one bit by living in sovereign Spain.
There are good reasons for holding onto Gibraltar, but this isn't one of the best.
And again William shows his arrogant disregard for basic principles of self determination. The people living in Spain chose to live there. No one forces them to. They always have the opportunity to return to the UK as British citizens if they want. You want to deprive the Gibraltese of that choice. I believe in self determination. Clearly you do not as you make obvious time and time again on here.
I would think that the Isle of Man is fairly safe and I doubt there is much dispute with France about the Channel Islands, but I find it odd that Spain criticises the UK for exactly the same behaviour is does twice over in Africa. I find it even odder than no one points out the obvious to the Spanish.
But does Spain have an otherwise mainstream political party that occasionally toys with the idea of handing those enclaves over? That might be the difference.
Apparently the "rationale" (!) is that Spanish do not consider Melilla and Ceuta to be colonies but the UK does consider Gibraltar to be a colony.
Therefore the two situations are totally different. QED!
The rationale is that Melilla and Ceuta have been Spanish for longer than Morocco has existed. They have never been Moroccan territory so they could not be handed back. That doesn't explain why other enclaves were handed back, though. Of course it's hypocrisy.
All that matters in these cases is the wishes of the current population. Let them decide. Of course Spain won't like that one little bit.
I agree, but we do tend to espouse that selectively - Falklands and Gibraltar yes, Crimea no. And what about border areas that might like to switch, e.g. Nationalist counties in Northern Ireland?
But the fact that we're a bit inconsistent doesn't make it wrong. Of course we can't hand over Gibraltar against their wishes.
No Nick you are the one being inconsistent not me. I even addressed this yesterday when I commented on Churchill's deceit in ensuring the three predominantly Catholic counties of Ulster ended up on the wrong side of the border.
Gibraltarians want British protection for free. Before the EU, Brits could not even work there without a work permit and I think British visitors needed visas. So much for being British.
Why can't they be independent ? After all, they exist for low tax and smuggling.
So you don't like them, because they aren't British?
Gibraltarians want British protection for free. Before the EU, Brits could not even work there without a work permit and I think British visitors needed visas. So much for being British.
Why can't they be independent ? After all, they exist for low tax and smuggling.
I think you will find what the UK gets in exchange is a hugely important military base. It is no exaggeration to say that without Gibraltar WW2 would have turned out very differently for the British.
And of course your comments about the place are both offensive and wrong.
The military base is almost non-existent now, isn't it? Spanish membership of NATO means there is much less need for it.
Gibraltarians want British protection for free. Before the EU, Brits could not even work there without a work permit and I think British visitors needed visas. So much for being British.
Why can't they be independent ? After all, they exist for low tax and smuggling.
I think you will find what the UK gets in exchange is a hugely important military base. It is no exaggeration to say that without Gibraltar WW2 would have turned out very differently for the British.
And of course your comments about the place are both offensive and wrong.
The military base is almost non-existent now, isn't it? Spanish membership of NATO means there is much less need for it.
There's a GCHQ facility in Gibraltar. Spain is not in Five Eyes.
Shouldn't credible evidence move the threat level to critical?
Good God man, you have just provided a link to a report which alleges the existence of a Muslim Conspiracy. Please apologise to messrs surbiton and Palmer and then ritually disembowel yourself.
Dammit, I forgot to add *innocent face*...
We'll be waiting at least as long as for us to rejoin the EU as Sean T to apologise.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
You really think Spain would have kept quiet had she mentioned it? It was clearly going to be an issue in the negotiations.
If she'd used all her diplomatic capital on getting accepted as an EFTA member there wouldn't need to be a deal on the future relationship and it wouldn't be an issue.
She wouldn't do that because of free movement.
She chose to make that a priority. If she'd taken everything into account she might have calculated that it was worth taking a 5-10% hit in the polls and getting on with it.
Why even leave the EU if the destination is EFTA?
Because EFTA is exactly what is says on the tin. A free trade area. Nothing else. Plenty of us were and are arguing for that whilst remaining staunchly anti-EU.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
Indeed - what has happened is what voters were told would happen. A majority decided that was not a good enough reason to vote to remain in the EU. But there was a reason why Gibraltar itself voted 96% in favour of the status quo.
If memory serves, the UK founded EFTA, and did so to compete with the then-EC. Are you getting it mixed up with EEA
Entirely possible. Am I wrong in thinking that you still have to sign up to the four freedoms, and supremacy of the ECJ?
In EFTA you do not have to sign up to any of that. Only by joining the EEA do you have to agree to the four freedoms but even then not the supremacy of the ECJ.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
The only official correspondence from the UK government to the EU so far has been a six page letter. They did not find space in there to put in the word "Gibraltar". They found space for the border in Ireland, understandably. No one gave a fuck about smugglers.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
After the triggering of Article 50 "our Brexiters" looks even more petulant than it would have done this time last week. It was our (your) Prime Minister who signed and sent that letter: you are now a Brexiter. If you don't like it the only ways of ceasing to be one are 1. build a time machine and teleport back to a year ago with some fellow remainers, and this time try not to miss the most wide open goal in the history of democracy, or 2. emigrate.
I will not be a Brexiter in a hundred years because I will never be a racist.
If memory serves, the UK founded EFTA, and did so to compete with the then-EC. Are you getting it mixed up with EEA
Entirely possible. Am I wrong in thinking that you still have to sign up to the four freedoms, and supremacy of the ECJ?
Thirty years ago this would be easy to answer. Now...not so much.
It is possible to be a member of EFTA and not a member of the EEA and not subject to ECJ. The example is Switzerland.
The problem arises when you join the EFTA and the EEA. The example is Norway. In this event you would be subject to the EFTA Court, which is not the ECJ but doesn't disagree much.
As for the four freedoms, I think the answer is "no, provided you don't join the EEA as well". Apols if wrong
If memory serves, the UK founded EFTA, and did so to compete with the then-EC. Are you getting it mixed up with EEA
Entirely possible. Am I wrong in thinking that you still have to sign up to the four freedoms, and supremacy of the ECJ?
Thirty years ago this would be easy to answer. Now...not so much.
It is possible to be a member of EFTA and not a member of the EEA and not subject to ECJ. The example is Switzerland.
The problem arises when you join the EFTA and the EEA. The example is Norway. In this event you would be subject to the EFTA Court, which is not the ECJ but doesn't disagree much.
As for the four freedoms, I think the answer is "no, provided you don't join the EEA as well". Apols if wrong
EFTA was originally a free trade area that existed as an alternative to the EU. ie you could trade freely within EFTA and within the EU. It is almost irrelevant as such now because it only contains a couple of tiddlers as countries. The EEA is an expanded free trade area that EU members are automatically part of and which EFTA countries can individually apply to join. Only Switzerland opted not to join and instead arranged their own bilateral agreements with the EU. The first (IIRC) article of the EEA Agreement does require members to adhere to the "four freedoms".
The only real benefit for the UK joining EFTA, but not the EEA that I can see, is that the UK could potentially hook into existing preferential trade agreements set up with third countries, although these could baulk at agreements negotiated with Liechtenstein, Iceland etc automatically extending to the much important UK trade. It would also get a free trade agreement with Switzerland that could be useful.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
Indeed - what has happened is what voters were told would happen. A majority decided that was not a good enough reason to vote to remain in the EU. But there was a reason why Gibraltar itself voted 96% in favour of the status quo.
A credible theory floating around Twitter is that the Spanish know full well that Britain would never yield on Gibraltar, but they want to use it as leverage to get some ongoing access to UK fishing waters, post Brexit - which really DOES mean a lot to them, economically.
The current Spanish PP government is a nationalist one and is the successor to the party formed by Manuel Fraga, a minister in the later Franco government, after the restoration of democracy. Gibraltar is symbolically very important to right wing Spanish nationalists, so was always going to come into play on our EU departure. My understanding is that all the EU has given Spain is a veto on any Brexit deal applying automatically to Gibraltar. Instead, Spain needs to sign it off. Of course, that gives the Spanish some leverage in other areas - unless we decide to sell the Gibraltarians down the river - not by ceding sovereignty, but by not ensuring they get the Brexit deal the UK does.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
Indeed - what has happened is what voters were told would happen. A majority decided that was not a good enough reason to vote to remain in the EU. But there was a reason why Gibraltar itself voted 96% in favour of the status quo.
A credible theory floating around Twitter is that the Spanish know full well that Britain would never yield on Gibraltar, but they want to use it as leverage to get some ongoing access to UK fishing waters, post Brexit - which really DOES mean a lot to them, economically.
The current Spanish government is a nationalist one and is the successor to the Francoist successor part formed after the reinstatement of democracy. Gibraltar is symbolically very important, so was always going to come into play on our EU departure. My understanding is that all the EU has given Spain is a veto on any Brexit deal applying automatically to Gibraltar. Instead, Spain needs to sign it off. Of course, that gives the Spanish some leverage in other areas - unless we decide to sell the Gibraltarians down the river - not by ceding sovereignty, but by not ensuring they get the Brexit deal the UK does.
Meaningless as the Article 50 discussions are decided by QMV. Unless the EU wants to breach its own treaty there is no way Spain can block anything unless it gets the support of a majority of the rest of the EU members.
Shouldn't credible evidence move the threat level to critical?
Good God man, you have just provided a link to a report which alleges the existence of a Muslim Conspiracy. Please apologise to messrs surbiton and Palmer and then ritually disembowel yourself.
Dammit, I forgot to add *innocent face*...
We'll be waiting at least as long as for us to rejoin the EU as Sean T to apologise.
Gibraltarians want British protection for free. Before the EU, Brits could not even work there without a work permit and I think British visitors needed visas. So much for being British.
Why can't they be independent ? After all, they exist for low tax and smuggling.
I think you will find what the UK gets in exchange is a hugely important military base. It is no exaggeration to say that without Gibraltar WW2 would have turned out very differently for the British.
And of course your comments about the place are both offensive and wrong.
The military base is almost non-existent now, isn't it? Spanish membership of NATO means there is much less need for it.
No it is still active. The Z-base dockyards provide secure docking for UK and US nuke subs.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
Indeed - what has happened is what voters were told would happen. A majority decided that was not a good enough reason to vote to remain in the EU. But there was a reason why Gibraltar itself voted 96% in favour of the status quo.
A credible theory floating around Twitter is that the Spanish know full well that Britain would never yield on Gibraltar, but they want to use it as leverage to get some ongoing access to UK fishing waters, post Brexit - which really DOES mean a lot to them, economically.
The current Spanish PP government is a nationalist one and is the successor to the party formed by Manuel Fraga, a minister in the later Franco government, after the restoration of democracy. Gibraltar is symbolically very important to right wing Spanish nationalists, so was always going to come into play on our EU departure. My understanding is that all the EU has given Spain is a veto on any Brexit deal applying automatically to Gibraltar. Instead, Spain needs to sign it off. Of course, that gives the Spanish some leverage in other areas - unless we decide to sell the Gibraltarians down the river - not by ceding sovereignty, but by not ensuring they get the Brexit deal the UK does.
I doubt they'll want the Brexit deal Britain gets: no free trade, no customs union.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
Indeed - what has happened is what voters were told would happen. A majority decided that was not a good enough reason to vote to remain in the EU. But there was a reason why Gibraltar itself voted 96% in favour of the status quo.
A credible theory floating around Twitter is that the Spanish know full well that Britain would never yield on Gibraltar, but they want to use it as leverage to get some ongoing access to UK fishing waters, post Brexit - which really DOES mean a lot to them, economically.
The current Spanish government is a nationalist one and is the successor to the Francoist successor part formed after the reinstatement of democracy. Gibraltar is symbolically very important, so was always going to come into play on our EU departure. My understanding is that all the EU has given Spain is a veto on any Brexit deal applying automatically to Gibraltar. Instead, Spain needs to sign it off. Of course, that gives the Spanish some leverage in other areas - unless we decide to sell the Gibraltarians down the river - not by ceding sovereignty, but by not ensuring they get the Brexit deal the UK does.
Meaningless as the Article 50 discussions are decided by QMV. Unless the EU wants to breach its own treaty there is no way Spain can block anything unless it gets the support of a majority of the rest of the EU members.
Spain has been given the ability to block a Brexit deal being applied to Gibraltar. It has not been given the right to block the Brexit deal. The EU member states have recognised that Gibraltar is a bilateral Spanish/UK issue that has nothing to do with them now that the UK is leaving the EU.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
Indeed - what has happened is what voters were told would happen. A majority decided that was not a good enough reason to vote to remain in the EU. But there was a reason why Gibraltar itself voted 96% in favour of the status quo.
A credible theory floating around Twitter is that the Spanish know full well that Britain would never yield on Gibraltar, but they want to use it as leverage to get some ongoing access to UK fishing waters, post Brexit - which really DOES mean a lot to them, economically.
The current Spanish PP government is a nationalist one and is the successor to the party formed by Manuel Fraga, a minister in the later Franco government, after the restoration of democracy. Gibraltar is symbolically very important to right wing Spanish nationalists, so was always going to come into play on our EU departure. My understanding is that all the EU has given Spain is a veto on any Brexit deal applying automatically to Gibraltar. Instead, Spain needs to sign it off. Of course, that gives the Spanish some leverage in other areas - unless we decide to sell the Gibraltarians down the river - not by ceding sovereignty, but by not ensuring they get the Brexit deal the UK does.
I doubt they'll want the Brexit deal Britain gets: no free trade, no customs union.
Gibraltar is not in the Customs Union now and the Spanish make sure trade is anything but free.
All that matters in these cases is the wishes of the current population. Let them decide. Of course Spain won't like that one little bit.
I agree, but we do tend to espouse that selectively - Falklands and Gibraltar yes, Crimea no. And what about border areas that might like to switch, e.g. Nationalist counties in Northern Ireland?
But the fact that we're a bit inconsistent doesn't make it wrong. Of course we can't hand over Gibraltar against their wishes.
TBH, it's hard to argue that the Crimea should not be part of Russia. It was, until 1957, and most inhabitants favour Russia.
Probably. The difference is of course that many might argue Crimea would likely have been and is happy now to be a part of Russia again and so do not object to the issue as such, but Putin sent in troops and lied about it, before they were ever asked. Admittedly its not like the Ukrainians would have been happy for that to happen, but it would still be possible to criticise the action to retake Crimea, even if one thinks that, when you get down to it, the people there are as a majority probably happy about it happening.
NI is a bit more of a complicated situation again - all borders are artificial when you get right down to it, and there will always be pockets of people within some, particularly in contested regions, who do not agree with the existing status quo, and so lines get drawn. How fiddly you can draw them is not simple.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
Indeed - what has happened is what voters were told would happen. A majority decided that was not a good enough reason to vote to remain in the EU. But there was a reason why Gibraltar itself voted 96% in favour of the status quo.
A credible theory floating around Twitter is that the Spanish know full well that Britain would never yield on Gibraltar, but they want to use it as leverage to get some ongoing access to UK fishing waters, post Brexit - which really DOES mean a lot to them, economically.
The current Spanish government is a nationalist one and is the successor to the Francoist successor part formed after the reinstatement of democracy. Gibraltar is symbolically very important, so was always going to come into play on our EU departure. My understanding is that all the EU has given Spain is a veto on any Brexit deal applying automatically to Gibraltar. Instead, Spain needs to sign it off. Of course, that gives the Spanish some leverage in other areas - unless we decide to sell the Gibraltarians down the river - not by ceding sovereignty, but by not ensuring they get the Brexit deal the UK does.
Meaningless as the Article 50 discussions are decided by QMV. Unless the EU wants to breach its own treaty there is no way Spain can block anything unless it gets the support of a majority of the rest of the EU members.
Spain has been given the ability to block a Brexit deal being applied to Gibraltar. It has not been given the right to block the Brexit deal. The EU member states have recognised that Gibraltar is a bilateral Spanish/UK issue that has nothing to do with them now that the UK is leaving the EU.
Yep that is as I read it as well. Thanks for being so level headed on this even though I know you are not a Brexit fan and I believe have a lot of ties to Spain.
I assume the cost (which seems very high, but what do I know about how much reissuing passports will cost) is down to the need to reissue, and not specifically the changing of the colour, which I would hope would not add to the cost at all.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
Indeed - what has happened is what voters were told would happen. A majority decided that was not a good enough reason to vote to remain in the EU. But there was a reason why Gibraltar itself voted 96% in favour of the status quo.
A credible theory floating around Twitter is that the Spanish know full well that Britain would never yield on Gibraltar, but they want to use it as leverage to get some ongoing access to UK fishing waters, post Brexit - which really DOES mean a lot to them, economically.
The current Spanish government is a nationalist one and is the successor to the Francoist successor part formed after the reinstatement of democracy. Gibraltar is symbolically very important, so was always going to come into play on our EU departure. My understanding is that all the EU has given Spain is a veto on any Brexit deal applying automatically to Gibraltar. Instead, Spain needs to sign it off. Of course, that gives the Spanish some leverage in other areas - unless we decide to sell the Gibraltarians down the river - not by ceding sovereignty, but by not ensuring they get the Brexit deal the UK does.
Meaningless as the Article 50 discussions are decided by QMV. Unless the EU wants to breach its own treaty there is no way Spain can block anything unless it gets the support of a majority of the rest of the EU members.
Spain has been given the ability to block a Brexit deal being applied to Gibraltar. It has not been given the right to block the Brexit deal. The EU member states have recognised that Gibraltar is a bilateral Spanish/UK issue that has nothing to do with them now that the UK is leaving the EU.
Surely as a signatory to any EU agreement with the UK, Spain was entitled to block any arrangement re Gibralter without the need for any specila reference in the EU's negotiating letter?
It still surprises me that we're treating the EU as a friendly power, to be negotiated with, as friends, as if we both want to reach a mutually acceptable accomodation.
All the mood music so far has been screw or get screwed.
Can anyone more politically tuned in tell me why we aren't, for example, using our superior intelligence gathering powers to eavesdrop on EU leaders, our ability to sow dischord between founder members and new members in the East who rely on our army and nuclear deterrent? And so on.
It seems to me as if we have this the wrong way round - we are approaching the EU as friends hoping for a friendly accord, when our best bet is to approach them as enemies and reach an accommdation.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
Indeed - what has happened is what voters were told would happen. A majority decided that was not a good enough reason to vote to remain in the EU. But there was a reason why Gibraltar itself voted 96% in favour of the status quo.
A credible theory floating around Twitter is that the Spanish know full well that Britain would never yield on Gibraltar, but they want to use it as leverage to get some ongoing access to UK fishing waters, post Brexit - which really DOES mean a lot to them, economically.
The current Spanish government is a nationalist one and is the successor to the Francoist successor part formed after the reinstatement of democracy. Gibraltar is symbolically very important, so was always going to come into play on our EU departure. My understanding is that all the EU has given Spain is a veto on any Brexit deal applying automatically to Gibraltar. Instead, Spain needs to sign it off. Of course, that gives the Spanish some leverage in other areas - unless we decide to sell the Gibraltarians down the river - not by ceding sovereignty, but by not ensuring they get the Brexit deal the UK does.
Meaningless as the Article 50 discussions are decided by QMV. Unless the EU wants to breach its own treaty there is no way Spain can block anything unless it gets the support of a majority of the rest of the EU members.
Spain has been given the ability to block a Brexit deal being applied to Gibraltar. It has not been given the right to block the Brexit deal. The EU member states have recognised that Gibraltar is a bilateral Spanish/UK issue that has nothing to do with them now that the UK is leaving the EU.
Yep that is as I read it as well. Thanks for being so level headed on this even though I know you are not a Brexit fan and I believe have a lot of ties to Spain.
Probably makes it easier vs easily triggered Brexiteers on the lookout for a betrayal, and easily triggered remainers on the lookout for areas the UK will get stuffed and overreacting.
I think the Gibraltar thing is a nonsense. By leaving the EU we traded real influence for notional sovereignty. So that's what's happened. Spain is now the sole EU member with an interest in this issue and so they, the UK and Gibraltar will have to sort things our as best they can. I would feel more sympathetic to the Gibraltarians on the other hand, except I don't think it's very wise to insult the people that hold your destiny in their hands. It is possible for microstates to survive in Europe. Monaco for example. But don't believe that they act on anything without checking with Paris first.
Gibraltarians want British protection for free. Before the EU, Brits could not even work there without a work permit and I think British visitors needed visas. So much for being British.
Why can't they be independent ? After all, they exist for low tax and smuggling.
I think you will find what the UK gets in exchange is a hugely important military base. It is no exaggeration to say that without Gibraltar WW2 would have turned out very differently for the British.
And of course your comments about the place are both offensive and wrong.
The military base is almost non-existent now, isn't it? Spanish membership of NATO means there is much less need for it.
There's a GCHQ facility in Gibraltar. Spain is not in Five Eyes.
GCHQ spying on Spain. Not wishing to pass such intelligence to Spain.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
Indeed - what has happened is what voters were told would happen. A majority decided that was not a good enough reason to vote to remain in the EU. But there was a reason why Gibraltar itself voted 96% in favour of the status quo.
A credible theory floating around Twitter is that the Spanish know full well that Britain would never yield on Gibraltar, but they want to use it as leverage to get some ongoing access to UK fishing waters, post Brexit - which really DOES mean a lot to them, economically.
The current Spanish government is a nationalist one and is the successor to the Francoist successor part formed after the reinstatement of democracy. Gibraltar is symbolically very important, so was always going to come into play on our EU departure. My understanding is that all the EU has given Spain is a veto on any Brexit deal applying automatically to Gibraltar. Instead, Spain needs to sign it off. Of course, that gives the Spanish some leverage in other areas - unless we decide to sell the Gibraltarians down the river - not by ceding sovereignty, but by not ensuring they get the Brexit deal the UK does.
Meaningless as the Article 50 discussions are decided by QMV. Unless the EU wants to breach its own treaty there is no way Spain can block anything unless it gets the support of a majority of the rest of the EU members.
Spain has been given the ability to block a Brexit deal being applied to Gibraltar. It has not been given the right to block the Brexit deal. The EU member states have recognised that Gibraltar is a bilateral Spanish/UK issue that has nothing to do with them now that the UK is leaving the EU.
Surely as a signatory to any EU agreement with the UK, Spain was entitled to block any arrangement re Gibralter without the need for any specila reference in the EU's negotiating letter?
Or just as the country the other side of the border?
I think the Gibraltar thing is a nonsense. By leaving the EU we traded real influence for notional sovereignty. So that's what's happened. Spain is now the sole EU member with an interest in this issue and so they, the UK and Gibraltar will have to sort things our as best they can. I would feel more sympathetic to the Gibraltarians on the other hand, except I don't think it's very wise to insult the people that hold your destiny in their hands. It is possible for microstates to survive in Europe. Monaco for example. But don't believe that they act on anything without checking with Paris first.
The other EU countries will put pressure on Spain not to block agreement with the UK because of Gibraltar.
I assume the cost (which seems very high, but what do I know about how much reissuing passports will cost) is down to the need to reissue, and not specifically the changing of the colour, which I would hope would not add to the cost at all.
The cost ofe new passports will be born by the applicants as usual.
All that matters in these cases is the wishes of the current population. Let them decide. Of course Spain won't like that one little bit.
I agree, but we do tend to espouse that selectively - Falklands and Gibraltar yes, Crimea no. And what about border areas that might like to switch, e.g. Nationalist counties in Northern Ireland?
But the fact that we're a bit inconsistent doesn't make it wrong. Of course we can't hand over Gibraltar against their wishes.
TBH, it's hard to argue that the Crimea should not be part of Russia. It was, until 1957, and most inhabitants favour Russia.
Probably. The difference is of course that many might argue Crimea would likely have been and is happy now to be a part of Russia again and so do not object to the issue as such, but Putin sent in troops and lied about it, before they were ever asked. Admittedly its not like the Ukrainians would have been happy for that to happen, but it would still be possible to criticise the action to retake Crimea, even if one thinks that, when you get down to it, the people there are as a majority probably happy about it happening.
NI is a bit more of a complicated situation again - all borders are artificial when you get right down to it, and there will always be pockets of people within some, particularly in contested regions, who do not agree with the existing status quo, and so lines get drawn. How fiddly you can draw them is not simple.
The problem is that there was a clear principle set during the 1921 negotiations that the dominant religion of each county should be a major factor in deciding where the border ran. Only 3 of the 6 counties of Ulster were predominantly Protestant with 3 being predominantly Catholic. As a result a Border Commission was supposed to be established to determine whether those three counties or parts of them should be in NI or the Irish Free State. In the end it was suppressed and the existing provisional border from 1920 was used. Hence we have the 3 predominantly Catholic counties stuck in NI. The report was finally released in 1969.
Spain has been given the ability to block a Brexit deal being applied to Gibraltar. It has not been given the right to block the Brexit deal. The EU member states have recognised that Gibraltar is a bilateral Spanish/UK issue that has nothing to do with them now that the UK is leaving the EU.
Which is almost certainly why that clause was included in the draft framework. No-one else in the EU wants Spain to derail the Brexit deal by throwing Gibraltar into the mix later on. This sanitises the main deal. I am pretty sure the UK governments is OK with that too and won't care enough about the Gibraltarians to walk away.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
Indeed - what has happened is what voters were told would happen. A majority decided that was not a good enough reason to vote to remain in the EU. But there was a reason why Gibraltar itself voted 96% in favour of the status quo.
A credible theory floating around Twitter is that the Spanish know full well that Britain would never yield on Gibraltar, but they want to use it as leverage to get some ongoing access to UK fishing waters, post Brexit - which really DOES mean a lot to them, economically.
The current Spanish government is a nationalist one and is the successor
Meaningless as the Article 50 discussions are decided by QMV. Unless the EU wants to breach its own treaty there is no way Spain can block anything unless it gets the support of a majority of the rest of the EU members.
Spain has been given the ability to block a Brexit deal being applied to Gibraltar. It has not been given the right to block the Brexit deal. The EU member states have recognised that Gibraltar is a bilateral Spanish/UK issue that has nothing to do with them now that the UK is leaving the EU.
Surely as a signatory to any EU agreement with the UK, Spain was entitled to block any arrangement re Gibralter without the need for any specila reference in the EU's negotiating letter?
Spain does not have a veto on the Brexit arrangement (that is QMV) but does have a veto (as do all EU27 countries) over any post Brexit trade deal. A lot depends on whether that is part of the deal or considered as seperate.
Of course anyone wanting to be a Senior Policy Advisor to David Davis's department still has a day to apply. Tis no wonder that we have only a plan on a napkin, when even these posts have not been filled 9 months after the vote. It seems to confirm that we really do not have a plan.
It still surprises me that we're treating the EU as a friendly power, to be negotiated with, as friends, as if we both want to reach a mutually acceptable accomodation.
All the mood music so far has been screw or get screwed.
Can anyone more politically tuned in tell me why we aren't, for example, using our superior intelligence gathering powers to eavesdrop on EU leaders, our ability to sow dischord between founder members and new members in the East who rely on our army and nuclear deterrent? And so on.
It seems to me as if we have this the wrong way round - we are approaching the EU as friends hoping for a friendly accord, when our best bet is to approach them as enemies and reach an accommdation.
Well, not all the mood music has been hostile, and even that which is is an opening position. The following months will indicate how serious both sides are about truly reaching accommodation, requiring compromise. Immediately going overtly hostile would seem counterproductive - they are not our enemies, and we don't want to become enemies.
As for eavesdropping, we may well be, how would we know? And sowing discord, well, again, we might be, not from the context of being enemies, but as a negotiating strategy we know some of them are more inclined to treat with us than others, and its in our interests that they have a strong voice (and talk of being overtly hostile does not aid that either).
Bottom line, I'm just a lay person like everyone else, I don't know jack squat about complex international negotiations, but for all there are times we will need to be firm, perhaps even a little ruthless, in order to secure as good a deal as we can get, we do really want a deal (even if we think we can get by without one), we have been clear on that, which means even if they are opening by being hostile, its in our interests to attempt to work with them harmoniously.
If your opposite refuses your offer of a handshake, its still not a good idea to follow up with a punch to the kidneys. Things could still work out ok if you avoid that.
All that matters in these cases is the wishes of the current population. Let them decide. Of course Spain won't like that one little bit.
I agree, but we do tend to espouse that selectively - Falklands and Gibraltar yes, Crimea no. And what about border areas that might like to switch, e.g. Nationalist counties in Northern Ireland?
But the fact that we're a bit inconsistent doesn't make it wrong. Of course we can't hand over Gibraltar against their wishes.
No Nick you are the one being inconsistent not me. I even addressed this yesterday when I commented on Churchill's deceit in ensuring the three predominantly Catholic counties of Ulster ended up on the wrong side of the border.
Two: Fermanagh and Tyrone. But that was 100 years ago - nowadays it's four majority Catholic counties.
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
Indeed - what has happened is what voters were told would happen. A majority decided that was not a good enough reason to vote to remain in the EU. But there was a reason why Gibraltar itself voted 96% in favour of the status quo.
A credible theory floating around Twitter is that the Spanish know full well that Britain would never yield on Gibraltar, but they want to use it as leverage to get some ongoing access to UK fishing waters, post Brexit - which really DOES mean a lot to them, economically.
The current Spanish government is a nationalist one and is the successor to the Francoist successor part formed after the reinstatement of democracy. Gibraltar is symbolically very important, so was always going to come into play on our EU departure. My understanding is that all the EU has given Spain is a veto on any Brexit deal applying automatically to Gibraltar. Instead, Spain needs to sign it off. Of course, that gives the Spanish some leverage in other areas - unless we decide to sell the Gibraltarians down the river - not by ceding sovereignty, but by not ensuring they get the Brexit deal the UK does.
Meaningless as the Article 50 discussions are decided by QMV. Unless the EU wants to breach its own treaty there is no way Spain can block anything unless it gets the support of a majority of the rest of the EU members.
Spain has been given the ability to block a Brexit deal being applied to Gibraltar. It has not been given the right to block the Brexit deal. The EU member states have recognised that Gibraltar is a bilateral Spanish/UK issue that has nothing to do with them now that the UK is leaving the EU.
Surely as a signatory to any EU agreement with the UK, Spain was entitled to block any arrangement re Gibralter without the need for any specila reference in the EU's negotiating letter?
No country on the EU side can block an agreement under Article 50 without support as the decision is by QMV. That said I am sure the EU Parliament can make some mischief.
It still surprises me that we're treating the EU as a friendly power, to be negotiated with, as friends, as if we both want to reach a mutually acceptable accomodation.
All the mood music so far has been screw or get screwed.
Can anyone more politically tuned in tell me why we aren't, for example, using our superior intelligence gathering powers to eavesdrop on EU leaders, our ability to sow dischord between founder members and new members in the East who rely on our army and nuclear deterrent? And so on.
Or what about discord between France and Germany? But don't expect a declaration by MI6 saying they're building up Macron for a fall and have agreed to cooperate with the Russian FSB on causing it.
I think the Gibraltar thing is a nonsense. By leaving the EU we traded real influence for notional sovereignty. So that's what's happened. Spain is now the sole EU member with an interest in this issue and so they, the UK and Gibraltar will have to sort things our as best they can. I would feel more sympathetic to the Gibraltarians on the other hand, except I don't think it's very wise to insult the people that hold your destiny in their hands. It is possible for microstates to survive in Europe. Monaco for example. But don't believe that they act on anything without checking with Paris first.
The other EU countries will put pressure on Spain not to block agreement with the UK because of Gibraltar.
This particular clause in the Draft Framework deals with that issue. That's the whole point of it as far as the rest of the EU is concerned. And the UK government probably doesn't mind too much either. It's got enough on its plate without having to accommodate Gibraltarians and at the same time satisfy Spain to get the main deal through. This lets them off the hook.
Find a quote from me, at the time, when I talked about "Muslim conspiracy" "after the initial detentions". Go on, find it.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Apart from using the words Muslim conspiracy you wrote everything about it. Even during the Norwegian massacre you were hoping that it was done by Islamist terrorists before news came out about the extreme right madman.
You must be so disappointed that the Westminster terrorist wasn't a Brexiteer!
How do you know he wasn't?
How do you know he was?
I wasn't claiming to be able to read the mind of some dead bloke.
Still..
'Isis praises Brexit for destabilising 'crusader Europe' in propaganda newspaper'
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
Indeed - what has happened is what voters were told would happen. A majority decided that was not a good enough reason to vote to remain in the EU. But there was a reason why Gibraltar itself voted 96% in favour of the status quo.
A credible theory floating around Twitter is that the Spanish know full well that Britain would never yield on Gibraltar, but they want to use it as leverage to get some ongoing access to UK fishing waters, post Brexit - which really DOES mean a lot to them, economically.
The current Spanish government is a nationalist one and is the successor
Meaningless as the Article 50 discussions are decided by QMV. Unless the EU wants to breach its own treaty there is no way Spain can block anything unless it gets the support of a majority of the rest of the EU members.
Spain has been given the ability to block a Brexit deal being applied to Gibraltar. It has not been given the right to block the Brexit deal. The EU member states have recognised that Gibraltar is a bilateral Spanish/UK issue that has nothing to do with them now that the UK is leaving the EU.
Surely as a signatory to any EU agreement with the UK, Spain was entitled to block any arrangement re Gibralter without the need for any specila reference in the EU's negotiating letter?
Spain does not have a veto on the Brexit arrangement (that is QMV) but does have a veto (as do all EU27 countries) over any post Brexit trade deal. A lot depends on whether that is part of the deal or considered as seperate.
Of course anyone wanting to be a Senior Policy Advisor to David Davis's department still has a day to apply. Tis no wonder that we have only a plan on a napkin, when even these posts have not been filled 9 months after the vote. It seems to confirm that we really do not have a plan.
Trade deals are also decided by QMV so again Spain would not have a veto. The CETA and TTIP deals were by unanimity because they contained elements that went beyond a basic trade deal. By separating out the Article 50 stuff from Trade the EU has actually made it harder for countries to veto things.
It still surprises me that we're treating the EU as a friendly power, to be negotiated with, as friends, as if we both want to reach a mutually acceptable accomodation.
All the mood music so far has been screw or get screwed.
Can anyone more politically tuned in tell me why we aren't, for example, using our superior intelligence gathering powers to eavesdrop on EU leaders, our ability to sow dischord between founder members and new members in the East who rely on our army and nuclear deterrent? And so on.
It seems to me as if we have this the wrong way round - we are approaching the EU as friends hoping for a friendly accord, when our best bet is to approach them as enemies and reach an accommdation.
Well, not all the mood music has been hostile, and even that which is is an opening position. The following months will indicate how serious both sides are about truly reaching accommodation, requiring compromise. Immediately going overtly hostile would seem counterproductive - they are not our enemies, and we don't want to become enemies.
As for eavesdropping, we may well be, how would we know? And sowing discord, well, again, we might be, not from the context of being enemies, but as a negotiating strategy we know some of them are more inclined to treat with us than others, and its in our interests that they have a strong voice (and talk of being overtly hostile does not aid that either).
Bottom line, I'm just a lay person like everyone else, I don't know jack squat about complex international negotiations, but for all there are times we will need to be firm, perhaps even a little ruthless, in order to secure as good a deal as we can get, we do really want a deal (even if we think we can get by without one), we have been clear on that, which means even if they are opening by being hostile, its in our interests to attempt to work with them harmoniously.
Interesting. You are right, of course we don't know what's going on behind the scenes - but my impression so far has been that Britain is the supplicant, seeking a friendly divorce.
As a 48 Laws of Power devotee, it strikes me that we are fighting a david vs goliath battle in terms of size and strength and our primary objective, in purely selfish terms of securing the best outcome for ourselves, should be to sow discord among rEU in order to break them down and prevent them acting as one. The EU's "thou shalt not negotiate bilaterally" commandment is entirely in accordance with this strategy.
My worry is that the UK is walking in to this very naively and assuming it's all going to be Queensbury rules when the fight is really going to be who can nut who the hardest the fastest.
All that matters in these cases is the wishes of the current population. Let them decide. Of course Spain won't like that one little bit.
I agree, but we do tend to espouse that selectively - Falklands and Gibraltar yes, Crimea no. And what about border areas that might like to switch, e.g. Nationalist counties in Northern Ireland?
But the fact that we're a bit inconsistent doesn't make it wrong. Of course we can't hand over Gibraltar against their wishes.
No Nick you are the one being inconsistent not me. I even addressed this yesterday when I commented on Churchill's deceit in ensuring the three predominantly Catholic counties of Ulster ended up on the wrong side of the border.
Two: Fermanagh and Tyrone. But that was 100 years ago - nowadays it's four majority Catholic counties.
Sorry, I was going from Pakenham's book on the negotiations and he said three. I thought Armagh was majority Catholic even back then?
EFTA will naturally reinvigorate itself as the EZ makes it ever more transparent that it is the real EU.
The halfway-8 EU states will have to make their minds up at some point in the next decade. Either join the currency or leave.
We had better do well then, that will help them make up their minds.
Although its possible the EU learns from its errors and loosens the rope a bit - even we, the most euroskeptic nation, was helped over the line by reluctant leavers who lost faith in the EU and almost pushed out by the path it was taken. With the others less skeptical, loosening the grip so they don't fight it as much should allow the slowly slowly approach to become, if it is not already, inexorable, given the EU was already more popular with them (and at the least during our period of chaos, skepticism will likely reduce)
Let's face it. We are talking about this rock because our Brexiters simply forgot they even existed.
Since it was mentioned time and time again in the referendum campaign I can only assume you are being dishonest.
Indeed - what has happened is what voters
A credible theory
The current Spanish government is a nationalist one and is the successor
Meaningless as the Article 50 discussions are decided by QMV. Unless the EU wants to breach its own treaty there is no way Spain can block anything unless it gets the support of a majority of the rest of the EU members.
Spain has been given the ability to block a Brexit deal being applied to Gibraltar. It has not been given the right to block the Brexit deal. The EU member states have recognised that Gibraltar is a bilateral Spanish/UK issue that has nothing to do with them now that the UK is leaving the EU.
Surely as a signatory to any EU agreement with the UK, Spain was entitled to block any arrangement re Gibralter without the need for any specila reference in the EU's negotiating letter?
Spain does not have a veto on the Brexit arrangement (that is QMV) but does have a veto (as do all EU27 countries) over any post Brexit trade deal. A lot depends on whether that is part of the deal or considered as seperate.
Of course anyone wanting to be a Senior Policy Advisor to David Davis's department still has a day to apply. Tis no wonder that we have only a plan on a napkin, when even these posts have not been filled 9 months after the vote. It seems to confirm that we really do not have a plan.
Trade deals are also decided by QMV so again Spain would not have a veto. The CETA and TTIP deals were by unanimity because they contained elements that went beyond a basic trade deal. By separating out the Article 50 stuff from Trade the EU has actually made it harder for countries to veto things.
Whether Spain has a veto depends on whether a trade deal is part of the Brexit package.
It seems like hard Brexit is nailed on when we are only just advertising these 20 Senior Policy Advisors posts now. Any one know how many other posts on our side of the table are also still unfilled? Anyone know what DD has been doing in the 9 months so far squandered?
It still surprises me that we're treating the EU as a friendly power, to be negotiated with, as friends, as if we both want to reach a mutually acceptable accomodation.
All the mood music so far has been screw or get screwed.
Can anyone more politically tuned in tell me why we aren't, for example, using our superior intelligence gathering powers to eavesdrop on EU leaders, our ability to sow dischord between founder members and new members in the East who rely on our army and nuclear deterrent? And so on.
It seems to me as if we have this the wrong way round - we are approaching the EU as friends hoping for a friendly accord, when our best bet is to approach them as enemies and reach an accommdation.
Because when this all blows over we still need to be friends with the rest of Europe. We are pulling out of one specific political construct. With the exception of a few headbangers no one is advocating cutting all ties with Europe. Most of the countries will still be our allies in NATO and in dozens of other non EU enterprises and agreements.
Now that is not to say we might not be spying on them. It has been known from recent history with both the UK and US intercepting the communications of our allies. But it is certainly not something that we would want to either advertise or make too overt. If it is going on then frankly we are the last people likely to know about it.
Find a quote from me, at the time, when I talked about "Muslim conspiracy" "after the initial detentions". Go on, find it.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Apart from using the words Muslim conspiracy you wrote everything about it. Even during the Norwegian massacre you were hoping that it was done by Islamist terrorists before news came out about the extreme right madman.
You must be so disappointed that the Westminster terrorist wasn't a Brexiteer!
How do you know he wasn't?
How do you know he was?
I wasn't claiming to be able to read the mind of some dead bloke.
Still..
'Isis praises Brexit for destabilising 'crusader Europe' in propaganda newspaper'
Whether Spain has a veto depends on whether a trade deal is part of the Brexit package.
It seems like hard Brexit is nailed on when we are only just advertising these 20 Senior Policy Advisors posts now. Any one know how many other posts on our side of the table are also still unfilled? Anyone know what DD has been doing in the 9 months so far squandered?
No it doesn't. Both the Brexit package under the Article 50 process and straight trade agreements are decided by QMV, not by unanimity. The exception would be if we were going for a more ambitious agreement which included elements over and above a straight FTA. In that case, as with TTIP and CETA, it would need unanimity.
All that matters in these cases is the wishes of the current population. Let them decide. Of course Spain won't like that one little bit.
I agree, but we do tend to espouse that selectively - Falklands and Gibraltar yes, Crimea no. And what about border areas that might like to switch, e.g. Nationalist counties in Northern Ireland?
But the fact that we're a bit inconsistent doesn't make it wrong. Of course we can't hand over Gibraltar against their wishes.
No Nick you are the one being inconsistent not me. I even addressed this yesterday when I commented on Churchill's deceit in ensuring the three predominantly Catholic counties of Ulster ended up on the wrong side of the border.
Two: Fermanagh and Tyrone. But that was 100 years ago - nowadays it's four majority Catholic counties.
Sorry, I was going from Pakenham's book on the negotiations and he said three. I thought Armagh was majority Catholic even back then?
Possibly a plurality of Catholics (v. C of I and Presbyterians), but not a majority
So our objective is to be as friendly with the EU as possible after we've left. I can get behind that.
As you say, only the most ardent headbangers want to see us cut all ties.
I do feel though that our best negotiating strategy is to a) play a little hardball and b) sow deliberate dischord between the nation states.
If we really are - which we probably are - peripheral to the EU, then it behooves those in charge of the EU right now to buy us off to get rid of the annoyance, particularly if we start making trouble, e.g. setting western states against eastern ones.
The EU's strategy is again entirely in accordance with this. Allowing Spain their rottweiler moment on Gibraltar is classic distraction/diversion tactic.
The EU are skilled political operators, I fear that our lords and masters aren't.
EFTA will naturally reinvigorate itself as the EZ makes it ever more transparent that it is the real EU.
The halfway-8 EU states will have to make their minds up at some point in the next decade. Either join the currency or leave.
We had better do well then, that will help them make up their minds.
Although its possible the EU learns from its errors and loosens the rope a bit - even we, the most euroskeptic nation, was helped over the line by reluctant leavers who lost faith in the EU and almost pushed out by the path it was taken. With the others less skeptical, loosening the grip so they don't fight it as much should allow the slowly slowly approach to become, if it is not already, inexorable, given the EU was already more popular with them (and at the least during our period of chaos, skepticism will likely reduce)
The dynamic will change for the eight with the loss of a large net contributor and trade partner.
The Danes and Swedes are net contributors, and they have individually signalled an unwillingness to up the ante.
The Poles, Bulgarians etc receive nearly €40bn in gross expenditure.
The Poles' base handout is equivalent to about 3% of their GDP.
"Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America - and, I trust, Soviet Russia, for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live."
Whether Spain has a veto depends on whether a trade deal is part of the Brexit package.
It seems like hard Brexit is nailed on when we are only just advertising these 20 Senior Policy Advisors posts now. Any one know how many other posts on our side of the table are also still unfilled? Anyone know what DD has been doing in the 9 months so far squandered?
No it doesn't. Both the Brexit package under the Article 50 process and straight trade agreements are decided by QMV, not by unanimity. The exception would be if we were going for a more ambitious agreement which included elements over and above a straight FTA. In that case, as with TTIP and CETA, it would need unanimity.
I think then we are saying the same thing. It depends on the extent of what is covered in any post Brexit trade deal.
In practice I think this a moot point, as the EU27 will act and negotiate as one body, in line with the consensual nature of europolitics. A veto is simply not going to be nessecary.
I don't particularly take a view on Gibralter myself. We know that there are going to be major losers out of the Brexit process, but we don't know who yet. It could be the UK nationals in the EU, it could be the financiers of the City, it could be our farmers or our auto industry, it could be the Irish and Scots, it could even be all of the above and more.
We are all pawns in this game, and have little control over what our masters will do. Who will be cast away, and who will not is yet to be decided.
It does bring to mind a saying that an Iraqi friend passed on to me: "It is better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, as they buy their enemies and sell their friends". Unfortunately there is a bit too much truth in those words.
Well, not all the mood music has been hostile, and even that which is is an opening position. The following months will indicate how serious both sides are about truly reaching accommodation, requiring compromise. Immediately going overtly hostile would seem counterproductive - they are not our enemies, and we don't want to become enemies. ...
As far as I can see, the EU negotiators have played this superbly from their point of view. Unless the EU mucks up (which is possible) it will be in complete control of the process for the next decade or more:
1. Get the exit stuff agreed first, including the money, which is their immediate requirement.
2. Concede the UK's requirement of discussing the long term arrangement before the actual leave date. However this is contingent on the exit stuff making "sufficient progress" first. The EU has complete discretion over when "sufficient progress" has been made.
3. Discuss broad directions for the the long term arrangement, code name Canada Plus, but the actual negotiations take place after the exit.
4. Having spent time on the exit stuff and the directions discussions, they are coming up against the Brexit deadline and haven't discussed the transition arrangement yet. Yeah, well that's going be current system continuing - payments, ECJ, FoM etc. It's only interim and Britain wouldn't want to throw away the long term outcome it wants AND at the same time go over the cliff edge.
5. Britain has now formally exited. The EU can be very leisurely about Canada Plus. After all the original "Canada deal" has taken 14 years so far and still isn't fully ratified. The EU gets the continuity it wants through the "transition arrangements", while the uncertainty is all on the UK side. Do businesses plan for Canada Plus, continuing transition or cliff edge? They will decide it's easier to be based in the rEU. The UK will also find it difficult to get trade deals through because the counter-parties don't know what the UK-EU arrangement is.
Eventually, the EU will have to agree Canada Plus and the UK will get what it originally wanted. By then it will be a very ground-down country with the oxygen sucked out of Euroscepticism. And the EU will have made its point. The UK will never be less in control than during that long transition.
"Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America - and, I trust, Soviet Russia, for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live."
As Sir Humphrey said, you have to get behind someone before you stab them in the back...
I do feel though that our best negotiating strategy is to a) play a little hardball and b) sow deliberate dischord between the nation states.
If we really are - which we probably are - peripheral to the EU, then it behooves those in charge of the EU right now to buy us off to get rid of the annoyance, particularly if we start making trouble, e.g. setting western states against eastern ones.
We don't need to sow discord. In every european country there will be groups of people just like our Remainers and vested business interests just like ours telling their local government how terrible it will all be if they don't agree a deal. It's already happening with industrial groups, employers associations and national think-tanks.
Peripheral? Well, we are the EU's biggest trading partner in the world.
A top three bilateral partner to Germany, France, Ireland, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Cyprus.
Except that the EU has indicated the transitional deal must be three years MAX, and the UK/EU must agree the final terms before it even starts. So, no.
What sense would a time limited transition deal make if we haven't agreed our final arrangement (and we won't have and the EU side has no incentive to do so quickly anyway)? The transition will be grim from the UK's point of view, so the risk is that we walk away. But that means going over the cliff edge AND passing up the deal we actually want. As long as something is happening on Canada Plus, I don't think we will walk away.
Edit: the Draft Framework makes it clear the final deal will be AFTER exit (and therefore by definition after the transition has started)
Well, not all the mood music has been hostile, and even that which is is an opening position. The following months will indicate how serious both sides are about truly reaching accommodation, requiring compromise. Immediately going overtly hostile would seem counterproductive - they are not our enemies, and we don't want to become enemies. ...
As far as I can see, the EU negotiators have played this superbly from their point of view. Unless the EU mucks up (which is possible) it will be in complete control of the process for the next decade or more:
1. Get the exit stuff agreed first, including the money, which is their immediate requirement.
2. Concede the UK's requirement of discussing the long term arrangement before the actual leave date. However this is contingent on the exit stuff making "sufficient progress" first. The EU has complete discretion over when "sufficient progress" has been made.
3. Discuss broad directions for the the long term arrangement, code name Canada Plus, but the actual negotiations take place after the exit.
4. Having spent time on the exit stuff and the directions discussions, they are coming up against the Brexit deadline and haven't discussed the transition arrangement yet. Yeah, well that's going be current system continuing - payments, ECJ, FoM etc. It's only interim and Britain wouldn't want to throw away the long term outcome it wants AND at the same time go over the cliff edge.
5. Britain has now formally exited. The EU can be very leisurely about Canada Plus. After all the original "Canada deal" has taken 14 years so far and still isn't fully ratified. The EU gets the continuity it wants through the "transition arrangements", while the uncertainty is all on the UK side. Do businesses plan for Canada Plus, continuing transition or cliff edge? They will decide it's easier to be based in the rEU. The UK will also find it difficult to get trade deals through because the counter-parties don't know what the UK-EU arrangement is.
Eventually, the EU will have to agree Canada Plus and the UK will get what it originally wanted. By then it will be a very ground-down country with the oxygen sucked out of Euroscepticism. And the EU will have made its point. The UK will never be less in control than during that long transition.
Except that the EU has indicated the transitional deal must be three years MAX, and the UK/EU must agree the final terms before it even starts. So, no.
And the UK does not necessarily have to take it or leave it just because the EU says that is the way the negotiations must happen. The negotiations about the negotiating timetable and format have not yet started, so why FF43 thinks it's all over, I don't know.
And the UK does not necessarily have to take it or leave it just because the EU says that is the way the negotiations must happen. The negotiations about the negotiating timetable and format have not yet started, so why FF43 thinks it's all over, I don't know.
I didn't say it was all over. What I do think is that is a clever negotiating strategy because at every stage it is in Britain's interest to continue to the next step rather than walk away.
Except that the EU has indicated the transitional deal must be three years MAX, and the UK/EU must agree the final terms before it even starts. So, no.
What sense would a time limited transition deal make if we haven't agreed our final arrangement (and we won't have and the EU side has no incentive to do so quickly anyway)? The transition will be grim from the UK's point of view, so the risk is that we walk away. But that means going over the cliff edge AND passing up the deal we actually want. As long as something is happening on Canada Plus, I don't think we will walk away.
lol. I'm just quoting what the EU Parliament itself has said. Three years maximum. This must have escaped you.
"Exclusive: Leaked European parliament resolution puts three-year limit on transition arrangement and says no to free trade agreement in next two years"
I think if the EU tried to do what you say, we would indeed walk away. Take the hit. Countries can recover surprisingly quickly from apparently severe blows. Cf Iceland.
That means we're REALLY screwed because there would a long gap between end of the transition period and the implementation of the final arrangement. It doesn't affect anything else in the timetable that I set out, which does come from the Draft Framework. Anyway to bed.
Well, not all the mood music has been hostile, and even that which is is an opening position. The following months will indicate how serious both sides are about truly reaching accommodation, requiring compromise. Immediately going overtly hostile would seem counterproductive - they are not our enemies, and we don't want to become enemies. ...
As far as I can see, the EU negotiators have played this superbly from their point of view. Unless the EU mucks up (which is possible) it will be in complete control of the process for the next decade or more:
ontrol than during that long transition.
Except that the EU has indicated the transitional deal must be three years MAX, and the UK/EU must agree the final terms before it even starts. So, no.
And the UK does not necessarily have to take it or leave it just because the EU says that is the way the negotiations must happen. The negotiations about the negotiating timetable and format have not yet started, so why FF43 thinks it's all over, I don't know.
Because he is a morbidly pessimistic Remoaner who simply cannot conceive of a successful Brexit, because it offends his quasi-religious beliefs, so it's like asking a Spanish cardinal in about 1580 if we can have a successful Reformation.
Comments
In a previous referendum in 2014, 38% of the eligible electorate (representing just 30% of the total population) voted Yes, so fuck 'em :-)
Suck it up.
It is possible to be a member of EFTA and not a member of the EEA and not subject to ECJ. The example is Switzerland.
The problem arises when you join the EFTA and the EEA. The example is Norway. In this event you would be subject to the EFTA Court, which is not the ECJ but doesn't disagree much.
As for the four freedoms, I think the answer is "no, provided you don't join the EEA as well". Apols if wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFTA_Court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association
I can't recommend it highly enough.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/01/abu-hamzas-son-stripped-british-passport-waging-jihad-syria/
Still..
'Isis praises Brexit for destabilising 'crusader Europe' in propaganda newspaper'
http://tinyurl.com/h268954
Lab 39% (-28)
LD 19% (+15)
Green 14% (+4)
Con 13% (+3)
Galloway 7% (-)
UKIP 6% (-2)
Others 2% (+1)
https://twitter.com/patronsaintofca/status/848296331357691904
Not expecting a Green squeeze at all?
And of course your comments about the place are both offensive and wrong.
Priceless
https://twitter.com/laudecotte/status/848189092668080130n
https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/847883577266012161
The only real benefit for the UK joining EFTA, but not the EEA that I can see, is that the UK could potentially hook into existing preferential trade agreements set up with third countries, although these could baulk at agreements negotiated with Liechtenstein, Iceland etc automatically extending to the much important UK trade. It would also get a free trade agreement with Switzerland that could be useful.
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/848298149877862400
NI is a bit more of a complicated situation again - all borders are artificial when you get right down to it, and there will always be pockets of people within some, particularly in contested regions, who do not agree with the existing status quo, and so lines get drawn. How fiddly you can draw them is not simple.
All the mood music so far has been screw or get screwed.
Can anyone more politically tuned in tell me why we aren't, for example, using our superior intelligence gathering powers to eavesdrop on EU leaders, our ability to sow dischord between founder members and new members in the East who rely on our army and nuclear deterrent? And so on.
It seems to me as if we have this the wrong way round - we are approaching the EU as friends hoping for a friendly accord, when our best bet is to approach them as enemies and reach an accommdation.
GCHQ spying on Spain. Not wishing to pass such intelligence to Spain.
Five Eyes excludes the EU (and Spain) of course.
The cost ofe new passports will be born by the applicants as usual.
Of course anyone wanting to be a Senior Policy Advisor to David Davis's department still has a day to apply. Tis no wonder that we have only a plan on a napkin, when even these posts have not been filled 9 months after the vote. It seems to confirm that we really do not have a plan.
https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1533373
As for eavesdropping, we may well be, how would we know? And sowing discord, well, again, we might be, not from the context of being enemies, but as a negotiating strategy we know some of them are more inclined to treat with us than others, and its in our interests that they have a strong voice (and talk of being overtly hostile does not aid that either).
Bottom line, I'm just a lay person like everyone else, I don't know jack squat about complex international negotiations, but for all there are times we will need to be firm, perhaps even a little ruthless, in order to secure as good a deal as we can get, we do really want a deal (even if we think we can get by without one), we have been clear on that, which means even if they are opening by being hostile, its in our interests to attempt to work with them harmoniously.
If your opposite refuses your offer of a handshake, its still not a good idea to follow up with a punch to the kidneys. Things could still work out ok if you avoid that.
But that was 100 years ago - nowadays it's four majority Catholic counties.
As a 48 Laws of Power devotee, it strikes me that we are fighting a david vs goliath battle in terms of size and strength and our primary objective, in purely selfish terms of securing the best outcome for ourselves, should be to sow discord among rEU in order to break them down and prevent them acting as one. The EU's "thou shalt not negotiate bilaterally" commandment is entirely in accordance with this strategy.
My worry is that the UK is walking in to this very naively and assuming it's all going to be Queensbury rules when the fight is really going to be who can nut who the hardest the fastest.
The halfway-8 EU states will have to make their minds up at some point in the next decade. Either join the currency or leave.
Although its possible the EU learns from its errors and loosens the rope a bit - even we, the most euroskeptic nation, was helped over the line by reluctant leavers who lost faith in the EU and almost pushed out by the path it was taken. With the others less skeptical, loosening the grip so they don't fight it as much should allow the slowly slowly approach to become, if it is not already, inexorable, given the EU was already more popular with them (and at the least during our period of chaos, skepticism will likely reduce)
It seems like hard Brexit is nailed on when we are only just advertising these 20 Senior Policy Advisors posts now. Any one know how many other posts on our side of the table are also still unfilled? Anyone know what DD has been doing in the 9 months so far squandered?
Now that is not to say we might not be spying on them. It has been known from recent history with both the UK and US intercepting the communications of our allies. But it is certainly not something that we would want to either advertise or make too overt. If it is going on then frankly we are the last people likely to know about it.
Thank you, good answer.
So our objective is to be as friendly with the EU as possible after we've left. I can get behind that.
As you say, only the most ardent headbangers want to see us cut all ties.
I do feel though that our best negotiating strategy is to a) play a little hardball and b) sow deliberate dischord between the nation states.
If we really are - which we probably are - peripheral to the EU, then it behooves those in charge of the EU right now to buy us off to get rid of the annoyance, particularly if we start making trouble, e.g. setting western states against eastern ones.
The EU's strategy is again entirely in accordance with this. Allowing Spain their rottweiler moment on Gibraltar is classic distraction/diversion tactic.
The EU are skilled political operators, I fear that our lords and masters aren't.
The Danes and Swedes are net contributors, and they have individually signalled an unwillingness to up the ante.
The Poles, Bulgarians etc receive nearly €40bn in gross expenditure.
The Poles' base handout is equivalent to about 3% of their GDP.
http://www.cfr.org/europe/churchills-united-states-europe-speech-zurich/p32536
"Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America - and, I trust, Soviet Russia, for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live."
In practice I think this a moot point, as the EU27 will act and negotiate as one body, in line with the consensual nature of europolitics. A veto is simply not going to be nessecary.
I don't particularly take a view on Gibralter myself. We know that there are going to be major losers out of the Brexit process, but we don't know who yet. It could be the UK nationals in the EU, it could be the financiers of the City, it could be our farmers or our auto industry, it could be the Irish and Scots, it could even be all of the above and more.
We are all pawns in this game, and have little control over what our masters will do. Who will be cast away, and who will not is yet to be decided.
It does bring to mind a saying that an Iraqi friend passed on to me: "It is better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, as they buy their enemies and sell their friends". Unfortunately there is a bit too much truth in those words.
1. Get the exit stuff agreed first, including the money, which is their immediate requirement.
2. Concede the UK's requirement of discussing the long term arrangement before the actual leave date. However this is contingent on the exit stuff making "sufficient progress" first. The EU has complete discretion over when "sufficient progress" has been made.
3. Discuss broad directions for the the long term arrangement, code name Canada Plus, but the actual negotiations take place after the exit.
4. Having spent time on the exit stuff and the directions discussions, they are coming up against the Brexit deadline and haven't discussed the transition arrangement yet. Yeah, well that's going be current system continuing - payments, ECJ, FoM etc. It's only interim and Britain wouldn't want to throw away the long term outcome it wants AND at the same time go over the cliff edge.
5. Britain has now formally exited. The EU can be very leisurely about Canada Plus. After all the original "Canada deal" has taken 14 years so far and still isn't fully ratified. The EU gets the continuity it wants through the "transition arrangements", while the uncertainty is all on the UK side. Do businesses plan for Canada Plus, continuing transition or cliff edge? They will decide it's easier to be based in the rEU. The UK will also find it difficult to get trade deals through because the counter-parties don't know what the UK-EU arrangement is.
Eventually, the EU will have to agree Canada Plus and the UK will get what it originally wanted. By then it will be a very ground-down country with the oxygen sucked out of Euroscepticism. And the EU will have made its point. The UK will never be less in control than during that long transition.
Peripheral? Well, we are the EU's biggest trading partner in the world.
A top three bilateral partner to Germany, France, Ireland, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Cyprus.
Edit: the Draft Framework makes it clear the final deal will be AFTER exit (and therefore by definition after the transition has started)
The deal will be about the EU trying to cover the single market in a fig leaf of exclusivity.
There are no mutual gains in this deal, only mutual losses, with a negotiation focussed on building barriers rather than removing them.
It's a completely different dynamic to normal.