Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Voters want May to negotiate Brexit and not Corbyn and that’s

1235

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/grudging-public-support-for-euro-could-hold-it-together-1493557200

    The euro survived the financial crisis and a lost decade for the European economy. Now its test is political, and it is likely to survive it—battered as ever and still getting the blame for Europe’s problems.

    In your view, William, has the Euro been on balance a good thing or a bad thing for Europe?

    Genuine question and not trying to make any point.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    So would any of those Leavers who a year ago were raucously arguing that a Brexit deal would be negotiated speedily and painlessly like to reconsider this morning?

    What we are surely looking at now is endless years of transitional arrangements. The cliff-edge is one that all sides will want to avoid, even if it will hurt us a whole lot more than it hurts them.

    I think you are far too optimistic. This has the feel of July 1914, where everyone knew that a complete breakdown was in no one's interests but no one wanted to avoid it enough to stop it.

    I continue to believe (hope) that there are some rational players in all of this. Merkel is rational, Macron looks like he probably is, Rajoy in Spain is. We can probably also count on the Northern European bloc, too. The Italians probably have enough of their own worries not to take much notice of Brexit. The issue will boil down to just how afraid of the right wing Brexit press May is. Will she put the fear of bad headlines ahead of what is undoubtedly the national interest?

    My sense from reading the Continental press is that:

    1. Brexit isn't the dominant issue that it is for us. It's a serious concern among a bunch of concerns, which people think about from time to time. On many days, there is nothing whatsoever about Brexit in serious European papers. There is no popular pressure on the Continent for any particular outcome - it's seen as a technical problem to be resolved by the professionals.

    2. Goodwill for Britain in the sense of "Let's cut them a generous deal" is largely exhausted. The division is now between pragmatist governments who want to make the best of it and governments who have been alienated by May's (and Cameron's) perceived indifference. Merkel and Macron are pragmatists, as you say, and that side is still dominant, though not enough to push through a deal seen as "too generous".

    3. The pragmatists feel that this will need to be a much slower process than Britain realises, with lengthy transitional arrangements, An attempt to rush it so we're "entirely free" by 2020 or indeed next election in 2022 will help the hardliners who want a hard Brexit uncomfortable for Britain.

    4. The view that the 27 need to hang together is almost universal. A British strategy of picking off allies on individual issues, as Juncker feared, will fail.

    Totally agree. The EU27 are helped by the fact that the Brexit vote seems to have made populations much less EU-hostile than they might have been. That probably explains Le Pen's recent 180 degree turns on European issues.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Ishmael_Z said:

    I agree. The incomprehension is evenly shared between Leave/Remain. There's those that do boring middle-class jobs which are essentially about advising on/negotiating deals (claims for damages, price of a house, airbnb's forthcoming takeover of NewsCorp. etc) and those that don't.

    The problem seems to be more that some people in the former group think they're Henry Kissinger. Theresa May will have a country of Brexiteers behaving like football fans telling the manager she's doing it all wrong and thinking they could do better.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    ***NOT ABOUT E**OPE ALERT***


    1983

    Local election: Con 39%, Lab 36%, Lib/SDP 20%
    General election: Con 44%, Lab 28%, Lib/SDP 26%

    1987

    Local election: Con 38%, Lab 32%, Lib/SDP 27%
    General election: Con 43%, Lab 32%, Lib/SDP 23%

    "The shares of the vote were, once again, radically different. In 1983 the Tories squeaked a three point lead in the local elections, but crushed Labour by sixteen points in the general election four weeks later. The eleven point Tory lead in the 1987 general election was almost double the six point lead they got in the locals just a month before.

    "All of this isn’t to say that the local elections won't give us anything useful. They will provide some vital information about the pattern of support and where parties are performing particularly strongly or weakly. In particular I'll be looking to see if there is a bigger swing between Labour and the Conservatives in areas that voted Leave at the EU referendum and to what degree the Liberal Democrat recovery is concentrated in Remain areas and in areas of previous Lib Dem strength.

    "However, don’t just assume that the projected overall shares of the vote at this week’s votes are going to be repeated in next month’s election: people vote differently for different reasons at different sorts of election."

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/01/why-local-elections-are-not-useful-indicators-nati/


    FWIW, one would imagine that the Conservatives will be very pleased if Labour avoids a calamity on Thursday. Even though local elections clearly aren't an accurate predictor of the General Election result, the media will go for the big headlines and a lower than expected gap between the Tories and Labour is bound to be interpreted as evidence that the General Election race is a lot more competitive than had previously been assumed, This should assist the Tory GOTV drive next month.

    I posted these figures on here several days ago . In addition I posted the opinion poll averages at the time of the Local and general elections in both 1983 and 1987.
    When you take these into account it is clear that in 1983
    1) The Conservatives were overestimated in the opinion polls by around 4% throughout the whole campaign
    2) The GE campaign saw a clear swing from Labour to the Alliance after the local elections of around 5%

    In both 1983 and 1987 the Conservatives did perform worse in the local elections by around 4% compared to the GE and opinion poll figures but other differences were down to movements in opinion between the 2 elections .
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.

    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.

    Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:

    He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.

    He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?

    He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!

    So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?

    EU citizens came to live and work in this country under a set of rules that clearly and explicitly allowed them to do so. Of course their position is different to the citizens of other third-party countries. In fact, it is worse, because many will not qualify for permanent residency because their status has been different to other third-party nationals up to this point. What's more, securing permanent residency is infinitely harder and more complex to do in the UK than it is in most other EU member states. Given that, it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.

    UK citizens have the same rights and exercised them too. Our government rightly wants to protect our own citizens too. We offered to resolve this dilemma before Article 50 was even invoked so that people weren't used as pawns. The EU were the ones who rejected that.

    Why you blame the UK for the EU's intransigence is beyond me.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited May 2017

    4. The view that the 27 need to hang together is almost universal. A British strategy of picking off allies on individual issues, as Juncker feared, will fail.

    This will materialise naturally within the EU as their respective losses come into sight.

    Even at their 'unity' statement, the Austrians were saying 'not a penny more' to make up the contributions gap.

    Verhofstadt was berating the Hungarians about 'wanting their money, but not their ideals' at around the same time.

    It is worth analysing the 27 for their respective positions in relation to the UK on trade, migration, defence and contributions. It is also worth analysing their influence under QMV.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited May 2017

    If other countries wish to treat British citizens disgracefully, then we have the means to deal with that.

    Be careful how you phrase such things! The EU might think you meant to send the SAS in backed up by a nuclear submarine (with or without weapons) and even worse, the Daily Mail might print a front page saying you were a great example of strong, stable British spirit.

    Sadly I am only exaggerating for comic effect very slightly. The atmosphere has become far too febrile.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    edited May 2017

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.

    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.

    Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:

    He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.

    He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?

    He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!

    So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?

    EU , it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.

    UK citizens have the same rights and exercised them too. Our government rightly wants to protect our own citizens too. We offered to resolve this dilemma before Article 50 was even invoked so that people weren't used as pawns. The EU were the ones who rejected that.

    Why you blame the UK for the EU's intransigence is beyond me.

    What did we offer? Why would the EU accept a deal that puts EU citizens in a worse position than they are now?

    Yes, by voting to Leave we did indeed vote to make life much more uncertain for Brits living in the other EU member states. But no-one mentioned doing the same for EU nationals living here. In fact, we were told by the Leave side that their rights should be protected.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    Morning all :)

    A most coherent post from ph47bridge who is demonstrating once again the Golden Rule that the quality of one's posts is inversely proportional to their quantity.

    The only reservation I have is this is not individuals or companies negotiating but Governments and the rules are slightly different. There's what Theresa May would accept and what she thinks (or is told) the country would accept.

    I can see the rationale for the GE now since those around Mrs May have come to the conclusion that a large majority in Parliament acts as a shield if or when she is forced to concede in some areas to gain advantage in others.

    We cannot go into A50 expecting to get everything we want - nor of course can the EU. At the moment, whether you support her or not (I don't), May has the full gamut of expectations on her shoulders and she will not please everyone.

    This then becomes the question of who she can afford politically to disappoint and whether in gaining the best overall deal for the country, she will be prepared to sacrifice much if not all of her popularity and credibility. It's entirely possible she will get a very good deal which a lot of people will hate because she will have been forced to compromise on their area of interest or canard if you prefer.

    Sometimes in politics doing the right thing can cost you votes and trash your reputation (ask Nick Clegg and David Cameron) but at what point does a political leader recognise their popularity is subsidiary to what's best for the country ?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    ydoethur said:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/grudging-public-support-for-euro-could-hold-it-together-1493557200

    The euro survived the financial crisis and a lost decade for the European economy. Now its test is political, and it is likely to survive it—battered as ever and still getting the blame for Europe’s problems.

    In your view, William, has the Euro been on balance a good thing or a bad thing for Europe?

    Genuine question and not trying to make any point.
    On balance yes, although it goes without saying that mistakes were made (possibly one of which was granting the UK an opt-out).

    I'm biased towards thinking that strong currencies are a good thing and that the economy should have some flexibility, rather than using devaluation as a quick fix.
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    There was talk on here yesterday abt the prices on the Carshalton and Wallington constituency .
    The area voted leave by 56-44 and the LD mp Tom Brake only defending a 1500 maj.
    Not only that there is a 7000 UKIP vote to squeeze. Tories into 5/4 this morning.. thats still v good value
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited May 2017
    *** Betting Post ***

    Exciting though rehashing the EU Referendum arguments is, there is a more immediate matter to consider, with a payout in a week.

    The French polls are pretty consistently showing a result in the region of 60% Macron, 40% Le Pen:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017#Macron.E2.80.93Le_Pen

    Various bookies offer markets on the percentage vote shares (these don't seem to show up on Oddschecker, for some reason). Best odds seem to be:

    Le Pen 35% to 40%: Around 3.0 on Betfair Exchange, after commission
    Le Pen 40% to 45%: 3.75 from SkyBet, 3.5 from Ladbrokes/Coral

    Combining those two bands gives you a 5% margin either way from the polling, with compound odds of 1.6 or a bit more. I'm on!
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 1,112
    Scott_P said:

    tim80 said:

    It is the media's breathless reaction to every statement by each side, in what will inevitably become a tough negotiation, that helps explain why May needs a healthy majority.

    She needs a healthy majority to stop media scrutiny.

    That does seem to be her primary goal.
    She needs to articulate some policies beyond all else. Hopefully the manifesto will deliver something a little more concrete.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.

    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.
    Sure. But that doesn't mean a ludicrous exit bill or extraterritorial judicial oversight. It could mean that there is a deal which makes sense for both sides.

    Fundamentally the EU believes that political union and Free Movement are positives while the UK doesn't. Therefore a deal which kept everything else but those (not saying it is achievable) would be better for both sides
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    murali_s said:

    felix said:

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    At the least this dinner anecdote reinforces the impression of a government that is utterly disorganised in its approach to Brexit. Not so much "strong and stable". More "heedless and chaotic"

    Whatever you think of the EU demands, they are clear about what they want, focused on getting their goals and have planned for them rigourously

    What utter nonsense.
    The EU 'goals' for a deal are as delusional and unattainable as ours; and their rhetoric almost as disobliging.
    I have some hope that the temperature will cool a bit after the elections in France, here and Germany, but that seems far from certain.

    I think cool heads will prevail - what we see now is pre-election posturing all over the place - it's fun to watch how some of the 'remain' faction are sucking it up in the hope that the British public will, as a result, embrace Starmer/Corbyn and unite the nation around staying in the EU.
    That would be a good outcome for our country. Staying in the EU trumps all flavours of Brexit - that is palpably obvious.
    You lost that argument on June 23rd.
    surbiton said:

    HaroldO said:

    surbiton said:

    Roger said:





    Roger

    In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?


    I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
    Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.

    It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.

    Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
    Or, quite possibly, Sterling was over-valued at the start because people assumed the Euro would collapse within a year? Which, at the time, they did in spades.
    Go back another 40 years whether against the DEM, USD whatever. Sterling is always falling.
    So Sterling has always been falling since we joined the EEC?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    timmo said:

    There was talk on here yesterday abt the prices on the Carshalton and Wallington constituency .
    The area voted leave by 56-44 and the LD mp Tom Brake only defending a 1500 maj.
    Not only that there is a 7000 UKIP vote to squeeze. Tories into 5/4 this morning.. thats still v good value

    Why didn't the Conservatives win the seat in 2015 ?
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,225
    tim80 said:

    Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.

    When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:

    -
    I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.

    They want the rights of EU citizens in the UK guaranteed. We are happy to guarantee them provided the rights of UK citizens in the EU are similarly guaranteed. That should be easy.

    They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.

    They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.

    It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.

    This is an excellent post.

    It is the media's breathless reaction to every statement by each side, in what will inevitably become a tough negotiation, that helps explain why May needs a healthy majority.
    The pro-Brexit media will want to blame the nasty Europeans as the consequences of leaving the EU become increasingly apparent.

    But what's this nonsense about May needing a healthy majority? It desn't matter a jot to the other side what sort of a majority she has, be it 1 or 300; they will give us what they want to give us, no less and no more, because they have no reason to do otherwise and will be perfectly aware that the UK representatives are handcuffed by the referendum result.

    I note with thanks the excellent analysis in the thread header, but am struck by the naivity of those who perceive May as being more able to negotiate the best Brexit deal. Personally I would trust May more than Corbyn to perform any useful task, from Brexit to going down the High Street to get me a bag of chips. But it makes precious little difference who conducts the Brexit negotiations. We will get what we are given, regardless.

    And accept it, regardless.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    You lost that argument on June 23rd.

    We lost the vote, hampered by a disingenuous and passionless Remain campaign, but the argument goes on.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.

    When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:

    - Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.

    - Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.

    - Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.

    Right now all we have from either side is their starting positions and yet people are treating them, particularly the EU position, as if it is their minimum acceptable. If it is they are hopeless negotiators and it is they rather than May who should be branded hapless.


    They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.

    It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.

    TBH, this excellent post is very close to what I thought. Respecting and agreeing the rigfhts of those citizens already in place in other countries should surely be a given. They made a choice sometime ago and surely no civilised government would treat themn as bargaining chips! There has to be a question over holidaymakers health rights. of course; if we have two different countries, the EU and Britain, that’s unquestionably a question for negotiation.
    Again Ireland should be an area for relatively easy agreement.

    That just leaves the money!!!!!
    The EHIC is effective in the EEA, not just the EU. (And many people in Spain for example get ripped off as they are sent to private clinics - one of the reasons why travel insurance to the South of Europe is now more expensive than central/ northern.)

    The current problem with citizens is that the EU wants EU citizens to be subject to EU laws when they are in the UK - like they are in America - oh wait.
    Thanks for that about the EHIC; obviously therefore simply a matter of, on the UK side, sorting out a proper reimbursement system.
    And, IIRC citizens of one country, when in another, are subject to both sets of laws. The problem, again IIRC, revolves around getting them out of the other country to face trial or whatever in their howm country.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    If the story in the Frankfurter Allgemeine story is accurate, the EU has offered a deal on acquired rights for EU nationals and British citizens living in the EU which May has rejected.
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    stodge said:

    timmo said:

    There was talk on here yesterday abt the prices on the Carshalton and Wallington constituency .
    The area voted leave by 56-44 and the LD mp Tom Brake only defending a 1500 maj.
    Not only that there is a 7000 UKIP vote to squeeze. Tories into 5/4 this morning.. thats still v good value

    Why didn't the Conservatives win the seat in 2015 ?
    Quite simply UKIP
  • Arthur_PennyArthur_Penny Posts: 198

    Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.

    When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:

    - Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.

    - Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.

    - Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.

    Right now all we have from either side is their starting positions and yet people are treating them, particularly the EU position, as if it is their minimum acceptable. If it is they are hopeless negotiators and it is they rather than May who should be branded hapless.

    I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.

    They want the rights of EU citizens in the UK guaranteed. We are happy to guarantee them provided the rights of UK citizens in the EU are similarly guaranteed. That should be easy.

    They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.

    They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.

    It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.

    That's a decent exposition of a normal negotiation, Bridge, but overlooks one crucial aspect of this one.

    The EU knows what our minimum acceptable outcome is. Everybody knows it. We will leave, come what may.

    This strikes me as an extraordinarily weak negotiating position.
    Au contraire - they know we are leaving - it is up to them to try and get some benefits from us before we go. They can only get them by offering something in return. The current position of the UK is - "I lose - but you lose as well." - the optimum position will be "I don't lose as badly - and you don't lose as badly." This is a completely different position from last year when Cameron's position was "If nothing happens we will retain the status quo" - and the response was "Fine - see you later."
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Essexit said:

    glw said:

    I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.

    Maybe we can count Eurosceptic Farron as an entry for the Brass Neck award? To Labour's credit, they have released a 20-point plan with 18 points.
    Don't say that, @Pong will accuse you of posting fake news and then not apologise when proved wrong.
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    timmo said:

    stodge said:

    timmo said:

    There was talk on here yesterday abt the prices on the Carshalton and Wallington constituency .
    The area voted leave by 56-44 and the LD mp Tom Brake only defending a 1500 maj.
    Not only that there is a 7000 UKIP vote to squeeze. Tories into 5/4 this morning.. thats still v good value

    Why didn't the Conservatives win the seat in 2015 ?
    Quite simply UKIP
    And also all of the other LD/Tory seatsin london wete target seats with central office resource and outside mutual aid from the adjoining areas. C&W had none of that
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,225

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.

    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.

    Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:

    He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.

    He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?

    He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!

    So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?

    EU , it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.

    UK citizens have the same rights and exercised them too. Our government rightly wants to protect our own citizens too. We offered to resolve this dilemma before Article 50 was even invoked so that people weren't used as pawns. The EU were the ones who rejected that.

    Why you blame the UK for the EU's intransigence is beyond me.

    What did we offer? Why would the EU accept a deal that puts EU citizens in a worse position than they are now?

    Yes, by voting to Leave we did indeed vote to make life much more uncertain for Brits living in the other EU member states. But no-one mentioned doing the same for EU nationals living here. In fact, we were told by the Leave side that their rights should be protected.

    Yes, I thought we voted Leave without preconditions. Am I mistaken?
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    murali_s said:

    felix said:

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    At the least this dinner anecdote reinforces the impression of a government that is utterly disorganised in its approach to Brexit. Not so much "strong and stable". More "heedless and chaotic"

    Whatever you think of the EU demands, they are clear about what they want, focused on getting their goals and have planned for them rigourously

    What utter nonsense.
    The EU 'goals' for a deal are as delusional and unattainable as ours; and their rhetoric almost as disobliging.
    I have some hope that the temperature will cool a bit after the elections in France, here and Germany, but that seems far from certain.

    I think cool heads will prevail - what we see now is pre-election posturing all over the place - it's fun to watch how some of the 'remain' faction are sucking it up in the hope that the British public will, as a result, embrace Starmer/Corbyn and unite the nation around staying in the EU.
    That would be a good outcome for our country. Staying in the EU trumps all flavours of Brexit - that is palpably obvious.
    You lost that argument on June 23rd.

    Essexit said:

    glw said:

    I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.

    Maybe we can count Eurosceptic Farron as an entry for the Brass Neck award? To Labour's credit, they have released a 20-point plan with 18 points.
    He can join Macron as a Eurosceptic! The LDs have always supported reforming the EU, but with the constructive critical approach of a friend.
    Cameron's negotiations proved that reform of the EU is impossible...
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    midwinter said:

    Scott_P said:

    tim80 said:

    It is the media's breathless reaction to every statement by each side, in what will inevitably become a tough negotiation, that helps explain why May needs a healthy majority.

    She needs a healthy majority to stop media scrutiny.

    That does seem to be her primary goal.
    She needs to articulate some policies beyond all else. Hopefully the manifesto will deliver something a little more concrete.
    I doubt it.

    Yesterday's interview with Marr was embarrassing - forced to defend the fact she wasn't "robotic" and instead of concrete responses a combination of platitudes, soundbites and "let's see what's in the manifesto".

    I thought Corbyn's interview the previous week was much better but of course you imagine him trying to take forward A50 negotiations and you see why May is in a such a strong position.

    As Keiran points out, the domestic agenda is being forgotten - Brexit is everything and everything is Brexit.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Observer, if indeed. That's either damned silly or inevitable, depending whether the chat around the EU wanting their nationals living here to be under EU law is accurate.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    Panelbase apparently have a poll showing 55/45 opposing Scottish independence. Hopefully, there'll be a voting intention.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited May 2017
    chestnut said:

    4. The view that the 27 need to hang together is almost universal. A British strategy of picking off allies on individual issues, as Juncker feared, will fail.

    This will materialise naturally within the EU as their respective losses come into sight.

    Even at their 'unity' statement, the Austrians were saying 'not a penny more' to make up the contributions gap.

    Verhofstadt was berating the Hungarians about 'wanting their money, but not their ideals' at around the same time.

    It is worth analysing the 27 for their respective positions in relation to the UK on trade, migration, defence and contributions. It is also worth analysing their influence under QMV.
    The EU has a simple fix to the net £9bn [ €11bn ] gap. Let's say tariffs upto 3% of imports from the UK goes into this fund.

    There is a certain simplicity to it. Basically, the UK is paying for it, indirectly.

    The UK can do similar to fund Agri-subsidies and other EU funded projects.

    This could run for the entire transitional period. I don't think it will be less than 5 years anyway.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    edited May 2017

    Cameron's negotiations proved that reform of the EU is impossible...

    Sturgeon's negotiations over 'Scotland's place in Europe' proved that reform of the UK is impossible. Discuss.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    timmo said:

    timmo said:

    stodge said:

    timmo said:

    There was talk on here yesterday abt the prices on the Carshalton and Wallington constituency .
    The area voted leave by 56-44 and the LD mp Tom Brake only defending a 1500 maj.
    Not only that there is a 7000 UKIP vote to squeeze. Tories into 5/4 this morning.. thats still v good value

    Why didn't the Conservatives win the seat in 2015 ?
    Quite simply UKIP
    And also all of the other LD/Tory seatsin london wete target seats with central office resource and outside mutual aid from the adjoining areas. C&W had none of that
    Did you tell us that two years ago ?

    No - we could have all lumped on the LDs holding C&W and the Conservatives winning S&C and all made money.

    If you wouldn't mind telling us the Conservative targeting plans and resourcing now, we would all make a lot of money and be very grateful.

  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,225

    Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.

    When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:

    - Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.

    - Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.

    - Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.

    Right now all we have from either side is their starting positions and yet people are treating them, particularly the EU position, as if it is their minimum acceptable. If it is they are hopeless negotiators and it is they rather than May who should be branded hapless.

    I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.

    They want the rights of EU citizens in the UK guaranteed. We are happy to guarantee them provided the rights of UK citizens in the EU are similarly guaranteed. That should be easy.

    They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.

    Th
    It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.

    That's a decent exposition of a normal negotiation, Bridge, but overlooks one crucial aspect of this one.

    The EU knows what our minimum acceptable outcome is. Everybody knows it. We will leave, come what may.

    This strikes me as an extraordinarily weak negotiating position.
    Au contraire - they know we are leaving - it is up to them to try and get some benefits from us before we go. They can only get them by offering something in return. The current position of the UK is - "I lose - but you lose as well." - the optimum position will be "I don't lose as badly - and you don't lose as badly." This is a completely different position from last year when Cameron's position was "If nothing happens we will retain the status quo" - and the response was "Fine - see you later."
    Sure. They can be flexible, if they like. They can be accommodating, conciliatory, enlightened, and kind, if they wish. Or they can say 'eff you'. In short, they can play it whatever way they please.

    We can't. We leave, whatever way they they play.

    I don't expect them to spite their own faces. We will. We voted to do so.
  • walterwwalterw Posts: 71
    'If the story in the Frankfurter Allgemeine story is accurate, the EU has offered a deal on acquired rights for EU nationals and British citizens living in the EU which May has rejected. '

    If that is true then it will be the ECJ jurisdiction that will have been the deal breaker, two classes of citizens in one country would never be acceptable.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.

    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.

    Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:

    He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.

    He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?

    He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!

    So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?

    EU citizens came to live and work in this country under a set of rules that clearly and explicitly allowed them to do so. Of course their position is different to the citizens of other third-party countries. In fact, it is worse, because many will not qualify for permanent residency because their status has been different to other third-party nationals up to this point. What's more, securing permanent residency is infinitely harder and more complex to do in the UK than it is in most other EU member states. Given that, it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.

    UK citizens have the same rights and exercised them too. Our government rightly wants to protect our own citizens too. We offered to resolve this dilemma before Article 50 was even invoked so that people weren't used as pawns. The EU were the ones who rejected that.

    Why you blame the UK for the EU's intransigence is beyond me.
    Are you re-writing history ? What did we say about the EU nationals and when ? What was exactly our offer ?
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.

    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.

    Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:

    He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.

    He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?

    He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!

    So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?

    EU citizens came to live and work in this country under a set of rules that clearly and explicitly allowed them to do so. Of course their position is different to the citizens of other third-party countries. In fact, it is worse, because many will not qualify for permanent residency because their status has been different to other third-party nationals up to this point. What's more, securing permanent residency is infinitely harder and more complex to do in the UK than it is in most other EU member states. Given that, it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.

    Yes, we could hang out to dry British citizens living in the EU27.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    ydoethur said:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/grudging-public-support-for-euro-could-hold-it-together-1493557200

    The euro survived the financial crisis and a lost decade for the European economy. Now its test is political, and it is likely to survive it—battered as ever and still getting the blame for Europe’s problems.

    In your view, William, has the Euro been on balance a good thing or a bad thing for Europe?

    Genuine question and not trying to make any point.
    On balance yes, although it goes without saying that mistakes were made (possibly one of which was granting the UK an opt-out).

    I'm biased towards thinking that strong currencies are a good thing and that the economy should have some flexibility, rather than using devaluation as a quick fix.
    Thank you. I can certainly see the logic to strong and stable currencies.

    However, I must admit I find it hard to see how a currency that barely survived the collapse of AIB, Bank of Ireland et al would have coped with the simultaneous failure of RBS.

    Arguably the great mistake of the Euro was not to make its adoption conditional on full political union - which is incidentally something I expect to see in Europe in the near future now.
  • llefllef Posts: 298
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    Roger said:





    Roger

    In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?


    I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
    Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.

    It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.

    Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
    But isn't that precisely the point the "swivel-eyed anti EU people" are making? That the Euro is a strong currency to match a strong German economy, but what weaker economies like Greece badly need is devaluation.

    Yes, such devaluation would hit Greek pensioners rather badly... but it's Greek 18-40 year olds who are really suffering just now (in large part because of political decisions made to lavish benefits on their parents and grandparents).

    Of course, many of the anti-EU folk fail to move on to say that the post-Brexit vote devaluation of the pound is an important reason why the economy has been surprisingly resilient since June (although it does now look to be dipping a little). But it has indeed made savers less well off, and is feeding through into inflation.
    And yet Germany is the world's largest exporter.
    the eur/dem rate was fixed at 1.95.
    so using the dem as a proxy for the euro before 1999,

    in nov 1996 eur/gbp was 0.875
    today its 0.842

    so the pound has appreciated vs the euro since nov 1996.

    http://fxtop.com/en/historical-exchange-rates.php?YA=1&C1=EUR&C2=GBP&A=1&YYYY1=1990&MM1=01&DD1=01&YYYY2=2017&MM2=05&DD2=01&LANG=en
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.

    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.

    Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:

    He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.

    He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?

    He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!

    So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?

    EU citizens came to live and work in this country under a set of rules that clearly and explicitly allowed them to do so. Of course their position is different to the citizens of other third-party countries. In fact, it is worse, because many will not qualify for permanent residency because their status has been different to other third-party nationals up to this point. What's more, securing permanent residency is infinitely harder and more complex to do in the UK than it is in most other EU member states. Given that, it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.

    Yes, we could hang out to dry British citizens living in the EU27.

    That's what we voted to do last June.

  • Arthur_PennyArthur_Penny Posts: 198

    Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.

    When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:

    - Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.

    - Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.

    - Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.

    Right now all we have from either side is their starting positions and yet people are treating them, particularly the EU position, as if it is their minimum acceptable. If it is they are hopeless negotiators and it is they rather than May who should be branded hapless.


    They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.

    It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.



    That just leaves the money!!!!!
    The EHIC is effective in the EEA, not just the EU. (And many people in Spain for example get ripped off as they are sent to private clinics - one of the reasons why travel insurance to the South of Europe is now more expensive than central/ northern.)

    The current problem with citizens is that the EU wants EU citizens to be subject to EU laws when they are in the UK - like they are in America - oh wait.
    Thanks for that about the EHIC; obviously therefore simply a matter of, on the UK side, sorting out a proper reimbursement system.
    And, IIRC citizens of one country, when in another, are subject to both sets of laws. The problem, again IIRC, revolves around getting them out of the other country to face trial or whatever in their howm country.
    Well we have extradition agreements with many countries - and IIRC one of the major problems about getting people out of this country when they have committed crimes is the EU-based Human Rights Act.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    stodge said:

    midwinter said:

    Scott_P said:

    tim80 said:

    It is the media's breathless reaction to every statement by each side, in what will inevitably become a tough negotiation, that helps explain why May needs a healthy majority.

    She needs a healthy majority to stop media scrutiny.

    That does seem to be her primary goal.
    She needs to articulate some policies beyond all else. Hopefully the manifesto will deliver something a little more concrete.
    I doubt it.

    Yesterday's interview with Marr was embarrassing - forced to defend the fact she wasn't "robotic" and instead of concrete responses a combination of platitudes, soundbites and "let's see what's in the manifesto".

    I thought Corbyn's interview the previous week was much better but of course you imagine him trying to take forward A50 negotiations and you see why May is in a such a strong position.

    As Keiran points out, the domestic agenda is being forgotten - Brexit is everything and everything is Brexit.
    "As Keiran points out, the domestic agenda is being forgotten - Brexit is everything and everything is Brexit."

    I am not sure this would last 6 weeks. I also thought today's Private Rental policy will stir the pot. Good or bad, it doesn't matter. It shifts attention from Brexit.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    llef said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    Roger said:





    Roger

    In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?


    I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
    Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.

    It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.

    Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
    But isn't that precisely the point the "swivel-eyed anti EU people" are making? That the Euro is a strong currency to match a strong German economy, but what weaker economies like Greece badly need is devaluation.

    Yes, such devaluation would hit Greek pensioners rather badly... but it's Greek 18-40 year olds who are really suffering just now (in large part because of political decisions made to lavish benefits on their parents and grandparents).

    Of course, many of the anti-EU folk fail to move on to say that the post-Brexit vote devaluation of the pound is an important reason why the economy has been surprisingly resilient since June (although it does now look to be dipping a little). But it has indeed made savers less well off, and is feeding through into inflation.
    And yet Germany is the world's largest exporter.
    the eur/dem rate was fixed at 1.95.
    so using the dem as a proxy for the euro before 1999,

    in nov 1996 eur/gbp was 0.875
    today its 0.842

    so the pound has appreciated vs the euro since nov 1996.

    http://fxtop.com/en/historical-exchange-rates.php?YA=1&C1=EUR&C2=GBP&A=1&YYYY1=1990&MM1=01&DD1=01&YYYY2=2017&MM2=05&DD2=01&LANG=en
    As I recall the German economy went through a rough patch at that time with some post-reunification blues. Meanwhile, we were in the middle of something of a boomlet. At one point in the late 90s the mark hit three to the pound having been down to near 2 in 1995. So it's not a terribly helpful comparator.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    surbiton said:

    chestnut said:

    4. The view that the 27 need to hang together is almost universal. A British strategy of picking off allies on individual issues, as Juncker feared, will fail.

    This will materialise naturally within the EU as their respective losses come into sight.

    Even at their 'unity' statement, the Austrians were saying 'not a penny more' to make up the contributions gap.

    Verhofstadt was berating the Hungarians about 'wanting their money, but not their ideals' at around the same time.

    It is worth analysing the 27 for their respective positions in relation to the UK on trade, migration, defence and contributions. It is also worth analysing their influence under QMV.
    The EU has a simple fix to the net £9bn [ €11bn ] gap. Let's say tariffs upto 3% of imports from the UK goes into this fund.

    There is a certain simplicity to it. Basically, the UK is paying for it, indirectly.

    The UK can do similar to fund Agri-subsidies and other EU funded projects.

    This could run for the entire transitional period. I don't think it will be less than 5 years anyway.
    A targeted tariff would be contrary to WTO rules. The EU would get an almighty slapdown if they tried this. There is one tariff rate, if the EU wishes to increase it they will have to do it for everyone.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited May 2017

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.

    Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:

    He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.

    He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?

    He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!

    So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?

    EU , it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.

    UK citizens have the same rights and exercised them too. Our government rightly wants to protect our own citizens too. We offered to resolve this dilemma before Article 50 was even invoked so that people weren't used as pawns. The EU were the ones who rejected that.

    Why you blame the UK for the EU's intransigence is beyond me.

    What did we offer? Why would the EU accept a deal that puts EU citizens in a worse position than they are now?

    Yes, by voting to Leave we did indeed vote to make life much more uncertain for Brits living in the other EU member states. But no-one mentioned doing the same for EU nationals living here. In fact, we were told by the Leave side that their rights should be protected.

    Yes, I thought we voted Leave without preconditions. Am I mistaken?
    That's not what the Leavers said. They definitely said we would stay in the single market. Apparently, because of our massive trade deficit [ 3% of EU GDP ], the EU would beg us to stay in the single market.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    RobD said:

    notme said:

    CD13 said:

    Why are the EU briefing so heavily against Mrs May? Could it be that they don't want her to win the GE? Or at least, not to have a large majority?

    I'm sure Mr Starmer would be much more acceptable to them. Why do you think that is?

    Leavers should have no fear of Starmer in charge of the negotiations. The deal he is looking for matches the most popular outcome: immigration control with Single market membership.
    Didn't Corbyn say he wanted to leave the single market while maintaining free movement?
    The agreed policy at a Shadow Cabinet meeting (presumably with Jezza in the chair) was quite different. Restrictions on free movement, but trade and workers rights must be protected. Brexit, but not the immigration monomania of the Tories. It seems a balanced approach.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/24/labour-vows-to-rip-up-and-rethink-brexit-white-paper

    Agreeing to a Brexit bill, normalising the status of EU nationals and staying in the customs union would sort the Irish border. All this would address the 3 preconditions to trade talks set by the EU27 the other day. Starmers approach would get onto trade almost immediately. There would still be a risk of failure to get a suitable agreement, but that seems nailed on with May's approach.
    On "normalising the status of EU nationals". Would they roll over and just accept Brussel's demand for jurisdiction over EU citizens in the UK? If not, it would be a stumbling block.
    This is what May wanted to do last year but was blocked by Merkel?
    Starmer wants to do it unilaterally, not reciprocally, as a goodwill gesture.
    So he would roll over and hang out to dry British citizens living in the EU27.

    And you want this guy in charge of the negotiations???

    We voted to hang British citizens living in other EU member states out to dry on 23rd June last year.

    Nonsense.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.

    When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:

    - Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.

    - Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.

    - Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.

    Right hapless.

    I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.

    They be easy.

    They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.

    They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.

    It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.

    That's a decent exposition of a normal negotiation, Bridge, but overlooks one crucial aspect of this one.

    The EU knows what our minimum acceptable outcome is. Everybody knows it. We will leave, come what may.

    This strikes me as an extraordinarily weak negotiating position.
    Au contraire - they know we are leaving - it is up to them to try and get some benefits from us before we go. They can only get them by offering something in return. The current position of the UK is - "I lose - but you lose as well." - the optimum position will be "I don't lose as badly - and you don't lose as badly." This is a completely different position from last year when Cameron's position was "If nothing happens we will retain the status quo" - and the response was "Fine - see you later."

    The position is what it was always going to be: we take the Brexit deal the EU27 offers us or we don't and cause much more harm to ourselves than we do to them. The trick is to persuade the EU27 that it is in everyone's interests that the deal they dictate is a decent one for the UK, while accepting that it can never be as good as what we have now (in trade terms, at least). That will mean us being willing concede on a number of key issues; which, in turn, means Mrs May being willing to upset the right wing Brexit press.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    MaxPB said:

    surbiton said:

    chestnut said:

    4. The view that the 27 need to hang together is almost universal. A British strategy of picking off allies on individual issues, as Juncker feared, will fail.

    This will materialise naturally within the EU as their respective losses come into sight.

    Even at their 'unity' statement, the Austrians were saying 'not a penny more' to make up the contributions gap.

    Verhofstadt was berating the Hungarians about 'wanting their money, but not their ideals' at around the same time.

    It is worth analysing the 27 for their respective positions in relation to the UK on trade, migration, defence and contributions. It is also worth analysing their influence under QMV.
    The EU has a simple fix to the net £9bn [ €11bn ] gap. Let's say tariffs upto 3% of imports from the UK goes into this fund.

    There is a certain simplicity to it. Basically, the UK is paying for it, indirectly.

    The UK can do similar to fund Agri-subsidies and other EU funded projects.

    This could run for the entire transitional period. I don't think it will be less than 5 years anyway.
    A targeted tariff would be contrary to WTO rules. The EU would get an almighty slapdown if they tried this. There is one tariff rate, if the EU wishes to increase it they will have to do it for everyone.
    No targeted tariff. Normal WTO tariffs. What the EU does with the tariffs will be the EU's business as it will be for us too.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 1,112
    stodge said:

    midwinter said:

    Scott_P said:

    tim80 said:

    It is the media's breathless reaction to every statement by each side, in what will inevitably become a tough negotiation, that helps explain why May needs a healthy majority.

    She needs a healthy majority to stop media scrutiny.

    That does seem to be her primary goal.
    She needs to articulate some policies beyond all else. Hopefully the manifesto will deliver something a little more concrete.
    I doubt it.

    Yesterday's interview with Marr was embarrassing - forced to defend the fact she wasn't "robotic" and instead of concrete responses a combination of platitudes, soundbites and "let's see what's in the manifesto".

    I thought Corbyn's interview the previous week was much better but of course you imagine him trying to take forward A50 negotiations and you see why May is in a such a strong position.

    As Keiran points out, the domestic agenda is being forgotten - Brexit is everything and everything is Brexit.
    It's sad though isn't it. As a moderate Tory who was a reluctant Remainer because of economic concerns and out of loyalty to a PM who I thought did a fantastic job to win a majority I'm loath to vote Tory this time. Not so much because of Mrs May, although I'm unimpressed so far for a number of reasons, but mainly because I don't want to tacitly endorse the right of the party. The trouble is the alternatives appear at best irrelevent and at worst dire. Can't help thinking that in 5 or 10 years time the Tories are going to pay a huge price for this election.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.


    - Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.

    Right hapless.

    I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.

    They be easy.

    They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.

    They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.

    It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.

    That's a decent exposition of a normal negotiation, Bridge, but overlooks one crucial aspect of this one.

    The EU knows what our minimum acceptable outcome is. Everybody knows it. We will leave, come what may.

    This strikes me as an extraordinarily weak negotiating position.
    Au contraire - they know we are leaving - it is up to them to try and get some benefits from us before we go. They can only get them by offering something in return. The current position of the UK is - "I lose - but you lose as well." - the optimum position will be "I don't lose as badly - and you don't lose as badly." This is a completely different position from last year when Cameron's position was "If nothing happens we will retain the status quo" - and the response was "Fine - see you later."

    The position is what it was always going to be: we take the Brexit deal the EU27 offers us or we don't and cause much more harm to ourselves than we do to them. The trick is to persuade the EU27 that it is in everyone's interests that the deal they dictate is a decent one for the UK, while accepting that it can never be as good as what we have now (in trade terms, at least). That will mean us being willing concede on a number of key issues; which, in turn, means Mrs May being willing to upset the right wing Brexit press.

    And the alt-right MPs. That is why she needs a big majority so that she ignore the nutters. She knows too that she has to compromise big time.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,225
    surbiton said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.


    What did we offer? Why would the EU accept a deal that puts EU citizens in a worse position than they are now?

    Yes, by voting to Leave we did indeed vote to make life much more uncertain for Brits living in the other EU member states. But no-one mentioned doing the same for EU nationals living here. In fact, we were told by the Leave side that their rights should be protected.

    Yes, I thought we voted Leave without preconditions. Am I mistaken?
    That's not what the Leavers said. They definitely said we would stay in the single market. Apparently, because of our massive trade deficit [ 3% of EU GDP ], the EU would beg us to stay in the single market.
    To be fair, Surbiton, both sides voted 'without preconditions', but I suppose you'd have to say Remainers had a better idea of what they were signing up for, if only because we were already in and it was therefore less of an unknown.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    Cameron's negotiations proved that reform of the EU is impossible...

    Sturgeon's negotiations over 'Scotland's place in Europe' proved that reform of the UK is impossible. Discuss.
    What negotiations?
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 885
    Helpful suggestions:

    My son-in law recently was at the British Society of Animal Science meeting in Chester.

    One session was entitled key factors for the future success of the UK's livestock industry post-Brexit.

    He proposed moving the HQ of the Society to Gibraltar.

    My son in law is Spanish (though known as El Ingles in his local bar)

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    surbiton said:

    MaxPB said:

    surbiton said:

    chestnut said:

    4. The view that the 27 need to hang together is almost universal. A British strategy of picking off allies on individual issues, as Juncker feared, will fail.

    This will materialise naturally within the EU as their respective losses come into sight.

    Even at their 'unity' statement, the Austrians were saying 'not a penny more' to make up the contributions gap.

    Verhofstadt was berating the Hungarians about 'wanting their money, but not their ideals' at around the same time.

    It is worth analysing the 27 for their respective positions in relation to the UK on trade, migration, defence and contributions. It is also worth analysing their influence under QMV.
    The EU has a simple fix to the net £9bn [ €11bn ] gap. Let's say tariffs upto 3% of imports from the UK goes into this fund.

    There is a certain simplicity to it. Basically, the UK is paying for it, indirectly.

    The UK can do similar to fund Agri-subsidies and other EU funded projects.

    This could run for the entire transitional period. I don't think it will be less than 5 years anyway.
    A targeted tariff would be contrary to WTO rules. The EU would get an almighty slapdown if they tried this. There is one tariff rate, if the EU wishes to increase it they will have to do it for everyone.
    No targeted tariff. Normal WTO tariffs. What the EU does with the tariffs will be the EU's business as it will be for us too.
    Yes, then they will have to raise them for the whole world. They can't impose a 13% tariff on the UK and a 10% tariff on everyone else. It doesn't work that way. It will have to be 13% for everyone or 10% for everyone. A targeted tariff will be seen hostile and they will get slapped down immediately.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.

    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.

    Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:

    He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.

    He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?

    He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!

    So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?

    EU citizens came to live and work in this country under a set of rules that clearly and explicitly allowed them to do so. Of course their position is different to the citizens of other third-party countries. In fact, it is worse, because many will not qualify for permanent residency because their status has been different to other third-party nationals up to this point. What's more, securing permanent residency is infinitely harder and more complex to do in the UK than it is in most other EU member states. Given that, it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.

    Yes, we could hang out to dry British citizens living in the EU27.

    That's what we voted to do last June.

    Still nonsense.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Cameron's negotiations proved that reform of the EU is impossible...

    Sturgeon's negotiations over 'Scotland's place in Europe' proved that reform of the UK is impossible. Discuss.
    What negotiations?
    Precisely... :)
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 1,112
    timmo said:

    timmo said:

    stodge said:

    timmo said:

    There was talk on here yesterday abt the prices on the Carshalton and Wallington constituency .
    The area voted leave by 56-44 and the LD mp Tom Brake only defending a 1500 maj.
    Not only that there is a 7000 UKIP vote to squeeze. Tories into 5/4 this morning.. thats still v good value

    Why didn't the Conservatives win the seat in 2015 ?
    Quite simply UKIP
    And also all of the other LD/Tory seatsin london wete target seats with central office resource and outside mutual aid from the adjoining areas. C&W had none of that
    Is the 15 percent Labour vote squeezeable for the Lib Dems or is it more likely to be Brexit inclined?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    walterw said:

    'If the story in the Frankfurter Allgemeine story is accurate, the EU has offered a deal on acquired rights for EU nationals and British citizens living in the EU which May has rejected. '

    If that is true then it will be the ECJ jurisdiction that will have been the deal breaker, two classes of citizens in one country would never be acceptable.

    ECJ jurisdiction is a non-issue. It can be overcome with a choice of law provision. Alternatively, we could state that EU citizens resident in the UK as of a certain date will continue to have the same rights as they have now and that these rights cannot be changed except to the extent that they are also changed for UK citizens. This can easily be enshrined into UK law.

    We already have different classes of resident in the UK - there are at least five, as far as I can see: UK citizens, Irish citizens, other EU citizens, permanent residents and non-permanent residents.

  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    Cameron's negotiations proved that reform of the EU is impossible...

    Sturgeon's negotiations over 'Scotland's place in Europe' proved that reform of the UK is impossible. Discuss.
    What negotiations?
    Precisely... :)
    Then your analogy fails, as Cameron did have negotiations, and did fail completely.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.

    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.

    Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:

    He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.

    He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?

    He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!

    So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?

    EU citizens came to live and work in this country under a set of rules that clearly and explicitly allowed them to do so. Of course their position is different to the citizens of other third-party countries. In fact, it is worse, because many will not qualify for permanent residency because their status has been different to other third-party nationals up to this point. What's more, securing permanent residency is infinitely harder and more complex to do in the UK than it is in most other EU member states. Given that, it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.

    Yes, we could hang out to dry British citizens living in the EU27.

    That's what we voted to do last June.

    Still nonsense.

    So we did not vote to leave the Single Market then?

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    ydoethur said:

    llef said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    Roger said:





    Roger

    In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?


    I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
    Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.

    It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.

    Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
    But isn't that precisely the point the "swivel-eyed anti EU people" are making? That the Euro is a strong currency to match a strong German economy, but what weaker economies like Greece badly need is devaluation.

    Yes, such devaluation would hit Greek pensioners rather badly... but it's Greek 18-40 year olds who are really suffering just now (in large part because of political decisions made to lavish benefits on their parents and grandparents).

    Of course, many of the anti-EU folk fail to move on to say that the post-Brexit vote devaluation of the pound is an important reason why the economy has been surprisingly resilient since June (although it does now look to be dipping a little). But it has indeed made savers less well off, and is feeding through into inflation.
    And yet Germany is the world's largest exporter.
    the eur/dem rate was fixed at 1.95.
    so using the dem as a proxy for the euro before 1999,

    in nov 1996 eur/gbp was 0.875
    today its 0.842

    so the pound has appreciated vs the euro since nov 1996.

    http://fxtop.com/en/historical-exchange-rates.php?YA=1&C1=EUR&C2=GBP&A=1&YYYY1=1990&MM1=01&DD1=01&YYYY2=2017&MM2=05&DD2=01&LANG=en
    As I recall the German economy went through a rough patch at that time with some post-reunification blues. Meanwhile, we were in the middle of something of a boomlet. At one point in the late 90s the mark hit three to the pound having been down to near 2 in 1995. So it's not a terribly helpful comparator.
    1.1.1953 GBP = DEM 11.810
    Today GBP = DEM 2.31

    Which country has exported more in the last 60 years ? Which country's productivity has increased far faster than the other's ?
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.

    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.
    Sure. But that doesn't mean a ludicrous exit bill or extraterritorial judicial oversight. It could mean that there is a deal which makes sense for both sides.

    Fundamentally the EU believes that political union and Free Movement are positives while the UK doesn't. Therefore a deal which kept everything else but those (not saying it is achievable) would be better for both sides
    The UK obviously can't stay in the single market without free movement and some kind of political union. They don't want an a la carte EU so it won't happen.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Observer, choice of law provision? You mean, let EU citizens here choose whether they want UK or EU law?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    MaxPB said:

    surbiton said:

    MaxPB said:

    surbiton said:

    chestnut said:

    4. The view that the 27 need to hang together is almost universal. A British strategy of picking off allies on individual issues, as Juncker feared, will fail.

    This will materialise naturally within the EU as their respective losses come into sight.

    Even at their 'unity' statement, the Austrians were saying 'not a penny more' to make up the contributions gap.

    Verhofstadt was berating the Hungarians about 'wanting their money, but not their ideals' at around the same time.

    It is worth analysing the 27 for their respective positions in relation to the UK on trade, migration, defence and contributions. It is also worth analysing their influence under QMV.
    The EU has a simple fix to the net £9bn [ €11bn ] gap. Let's say tariffs upto 3% of imports from the UK goes into this fund.

    There is a certain simplicity to it. Basically, the UK is paying for it, indirectly.

    The UK can do similar to fund Agri-subsidies and other EU funded projects.

    This could run for the entire transitional period. I don't think it will be less than 5 years anyway.
    A targeted tariff would be contrary to WTO rules. The EU would get an almighty slapdown if they tried this. There is one tariff rate, if the EU wishes to increase it they will have to do it for everyone.
    No targeted tariff. Normal WTO tariffs. What the EU does with the tariffs will be the EU's business as it will be for us too.
    Yes, then they will have to raise them for the whole world. They can't impose a 13% tariff on the UK and a 10% tariff on everyone else. It doesn't work that way. It will have to be 13% for everyone or 10% for everyone. A targeted tariff will be seen hostile and they will get slapped down immediately.
    You are deliberately trying NOT to understand. The UK will have no different tariffs than any other country. How the EU uses this money is the EUs business just like they do with VAT , taxes etc.

    What's not to understand ?
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"

    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.

    Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:

    He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.

    He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?

    He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!

    So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?

    EU citizens came to live and work in this country under a set of rules that clearly and explicitly allowed them to do so. Of course their position is different to the citizens of other third-party countries. In fact, it is worse, because many will not qualify for permanent residency because their status has been different to other third-party nationals up to this point. What's more, securing permanent residency is infinitely harder and more complex to do in the UK than it is in most other EU member states. Given that, it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.

    Yes, we could hang out to dry British citizens living in the EU27.

    That's what we voted to do last June.

    Still nonsense.

    So we did not vote to leave the Single Market then?

    Nope. An EEA type deal was still available after the referendum had the losing side allied with the EEA-friendly Leavers - between them there was a majority.

    But the losers chose to try to deny - or fight - their defeat, and the chance has now gone.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited May 2017
    surbiton said:

    ydoethur said:

    llef said:



    the eur/dem rate was fixed at 1.95.
    so using the dem as a proxy for the euro before 1999,

    in nov 1996 eur/gbp was 0.875
    today its 0.842

    so the pound has appreciated vs the euro since nov 1996.

    http://fxtop.com/en/historical-exchange-rates.php?YA=1&C1=EUR&C2=GBP&A=1&YYYY1=1990&MM1=01&DD1=01&YYYY2=2017&MM2=05&DD2=01&LANG=en

    As I recall the German economy went through a rough patch at that time with some post-reunification blues. Meanwhile, we were in the middle of something of a boomlet. At one point in the late 90s the mark hit three to the pound having been down to near 2 in 1995. So it's not a terribly helpful comparator.
    1.1.1953 GBP = DEM 11.810
    Today GBP = DEM 2.31

    Which country has exported more in the last 60 years ? Which country's productivity has increased far faster than the other's ?
    Both of them Germany. As the currency shows. So I'm not quite sure what your point is? Mine was that the circumstances were atypical and that the underlying economic factors were probably more in Germany's favour than the currency showed at the time.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Quidder, Gina Miller's a modern day Nicias (sticking with my Thucydides' theme). By arguing so vehemently against leaving the EU she's effectively made the closest thing to a centre-ground option (EEA) politically unacceptable as it would be deemed to be a departure in name only.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.

    When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:

    - Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.

    - Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.

    - Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.

    Right now all we have from either side is their starting positions and yet people are treating them, particularly the EU position, as if it is their minimum acceptable. If it is they are hopeless negotiators and it is they rather than May who should be branded hapless.


    They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.

    It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.



    That just leaves the money!!!!!
    The EHIC is effective in the EEA, not just the EU. (And many people in Spain for example get ripped off as they are sent to private clinics - one of the reasons why travel insurance to the South of Europe is now more expensive than central/ northern.)

    The current problem with citizens is that the EU wants EU citizens to be subject to EU laws when they are in the UK - like they are in America - oh wait.
    Thanks for that about the EHIC; obviously therefore simply a matter of, on the UK side, sorting out a proper reimbursement system.
    And, IIRC citizens of one country, when in another, are subject to both sets of laws. The problem, again IIRC, revolves around getting them out of the other country to face trial or whatever in their howm country.
    Well we have extradition agreements with many countries - and IIRC one of the major problems about getting people out of this country when they have committed crimes is the EU-based Human Rights Act.
    I thought the HRA was one of Blair’s policies. Along similar lines to EU policies, but that’s all. However, I’m open to correction.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Essexit said:

    glw said:

    I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.

    Maybe we can count Eurosceptic Farron as an entry for the Brass Neck award? To Labour's credit, they have released a 20-point plan with 18 points.
    Don't say that, @Pong will accuse you of posting fake news and then not apologise when proved wrong.
    Can we assist Essexit to visit Specsavers ?

    https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/labour-20-point-plan-employment-workplace-policies/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    walterw said:

    'If the story in the Frankfurter Allgemeine story is accurate, the EU has offered a deal on acquired rights for EU nationals and British citizens living in the EU which May has rejected. '

    If that is true then it will be the ECJ jurisdiction that will have been the deal breaker, two classes of citizens in one country would never be acceptable.

    ECJ jurisdiction is a non-issue. It can be overcome with a choice of law provision. Alternatively, we could state that EU citizens resident in the UK as of a certain date will continue to have the same rights as they have now and that these rights cannot be changed except to the extent that they are also changed for UK citizens. This can easily be enshrined into UK law.

    We already have different classes of resident in the UK - there are at least five, as far as I can see: UK citizens, Irish citizens, other EU citizens, permanent residents and non-permanent residents.

    My favourite suggestion to the ECJ suggestion is - agree to it. Then have it struck down by the supreme court after Brexit
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"

    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.

    Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:

    He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.

    He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?

    He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!

    So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?

    EU citizens came to live and work in this country under a set of rules that clearly and explicitly allowed them to do so. Of course their position is different to the citizens of other third-party countries. In fact, it is worse, because many will not qualify for permanent residency because their status has been different to other third-party nationals up to this point. What's more, securing permanent residency is infinitely harder and more complex to do in the UK than it is in most other EU member states. Given that, it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.

    Yes, we could hang out to dry British citizens living in the EU27.

    That's what we voted to do last June.

    Still nonsense.

    So we did not vote to leave the Single Market then?

    Nope. An EEA type deal was still available after the referendum had the losing side allied with the EEA-friendly Leavers - between them there was a majority.

    But the losers chose to try to deny - or fight - their defeat, and the chance has now gone.

    The losers lost. The winners get to decide.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    surbiton said:

    Essexit said:

    glw said:

    I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.

    Maybe we can count Eurosceptic Farron as an entry for the Brass Neck award? To Labour's credit, they have released a 20-point plan with 18 points.
    Don't say that, @Pong will accuse you of posting fake news and then not apologise when proved wrong.
    Can we assist Essexit to visit Specsavers ?

    https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/labour-20-point-plan-employment-workplace-policies/
    I see that is not a link to the Labour Party's own website which would surely be the original source. Why is that?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    More Blair-related speculation. Posted without additional comment:

    The Blairite plan to take over the Lib Dems

    "...But the objective destruction of Labour as a serious party of government next month gives a new focus to all this – not least because many of these less confrontational MPs will soon pay the price for their failure to have acted, and will lose their seats.

    "This is the real context of Mr Blair’s words today. They are not, however, about a new party.

    "Over the past fortnight I have spoken to a number of experienced, highly respected and influential Labour moderates. Some elected, some behind-the-scenes fixers. Some Blairite, some Brownite. And they have all said the same thing to me, which is that it’s not simply that that it is too difficult to set up a new party: there is no need to set one up. Because there is already a vehicle available: the Lib Dems.

    "If the idea is to create a serious opposition then it cannot be seen to be simply a creation of homeless Labour members. It has to be something attractive to them but not of them – not least because it has to be attractive to those Tories who will, the argument goes, soon start to be disenchanted with Mrs May when Brexit starts to bite, such as the likes of Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan. Some have even mentioned George Osborne.

    "The plan is that, after the election, a cadre of these Labour moderates will join the Lib Dems. Where they lead, others will follow."

    https://reaction.life/blairite-plan-take-lib-dems/

    Do the Lib Dema get a say in this master plan?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    ydoethur said:

    surbiton said:

    ydoethur said:

    llef said:



    the eur/dem rate was fixed at 1.95.
    so using the dem as a proxy for the euro before 1999,

    in nov 1996 eur/gbp was 0.875
    today its 0.842

    so the pound has appreciated vs the euro since nov 1996.

    http://fxtop.com/en/historical-exchange-rates.php?YA=1&C1=EUR&C2=GBP&A=1&YYYY1=1990&MM1=01&DD1=01&YYYY2=2017&MM2=05&DD2=01&LANG=en

    As I recall the German economy went through a rough patch at that time with some post-reunification blues. Meanwhile, we were in the middle of something of a boomlet. At one point in the late 90s the mark hit three to the pound having been down to near 2 in 1995. So it's not a terribly helpful comparator.
    1.1.1953 GBP = DEM 11.810
    Today GBP = DEM 2.31

    Which country has exported more in the last 60 years ? Which country's productivity has increased far faster than the other's ?
    Both of them Germany. As the currency shows. So I'm not quite sure what your point is? Mine was that the circumstances were atypical and that the underlying economic factors were probably more in Germany's favour than the currency showed at the time.
    Plainly. Much of Germany was still in ruins in 1953, but Germany had the potential to bounce back.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.

    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.
    Sure. But that doesn't mean a ludicrous exit bill or extraterritorial judicial oversight. It could mean that there is a deal which makes sense for both sides.

    Fundamentally the EU believes that political union and Free Movement are positives while the UK doesn't. Therefore a deal which kept everything else but those (not saying it is achievable) would be better for both sides
    The UK obviously can't stay in the single market without free movement and some kind of political union. They don't want an a la carte EU so it won't happen.
    Norway's in the Single Market and has no intention of joining the EU.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    No. He's saying publicly, these are our rules, this is the process. May has been floundering around since June 24th, trying to find the alchemy that changes cake that has been eaten into cake that has not. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable.

    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"
    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.

    Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:

    He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.

    He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?

    He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!

    So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?

    EU citizens came to live and work in this country under a set of rules that clearly and explicitly allowed them to do so. Of course their position is different to the citizens of other third-party countries. In fact, it is worse, because many will not qualify for permanent residency because their status has been different to other third-party nationals up to this point. What's more, securing permanent residency is infinitely harder and more complex to do in the UK than it is in most other EU member states. Given that, it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.

    Yes, we could hang out to dry British citizens living in the EU27.

    That's what we voted to do last June.

    That is your interpretation. Nothing more and a good deal less.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    Mr. Observer, choice of law provision? You mean, let EU citizens here choose whether they want UK or EU law?

    Nope - you just say what the UK government has already said: EU law applies until it doesn't; then any changes to EU citizens' rights can only be made to the extent that they also apply to UK citizens. That recognises we have left and also gives EU citizens the same level of protection as UK citizens moving forwards. Under such circumstances you can leave it to the UK Supreme Court to apply the law.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    walterw said:

    'If the story in the Frankfurter Allgemeine story is accurate, the EU has offered a deal on acquired rights for EU nationals and British citizens living in the EU which May has rejected. '

    If that is true then it will be the ECJ jurisdiction that will have been the deal breaker, two classes of citizens in one country would never be acceptable.

    ECJ jurisdiction is a non-issue. It can be overcome with a choice of law provision. Alternatively, we could state that EU citizens resident in the UK as of a certain date will continue to have the same rights as they have now and that these rights cannot be changed except to the extent that they are also changed for UK citizens. This can easily be enshrined into UK law.

    We already have different classes of resident in the UK - there are at least five, as far as I can see: UK citizens, Irish citizens, other EU citizens, permanent residents and non-permanent residents.

    You can only have a choice of law provision if you have a contract to put it in. And who on earth is going to employ an EU national in the UK if they are obliged to give them better rights than UK workers are entitled to?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    surbiton said:

    Essexit said:

    glw said:

    I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.

    Maybe we can count Eurosceptic Farron as an entry for the Brass Neck award? To Labour's credit, they have released a 20-point plan with 18 points.
    Don't say that, @Pong will accuse you of posting fake news and then not apologise when proved wrong.
    Can we assist Essexit to visit Specsavers ?

    https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/labour-20-point-plan-employment-workplace-policies/
    So those people who claimed that our 20 point plan only had 18 points were full of crap.

    There's a surprise.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    surbiton said:

    Essexit said:

    glw said:

    I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.

    Maybe we can count Eurosceptic Farron as an entry for the Brass Neck award? To Labour's credit, they have released a 20-point plan with 18 points.
    Don't say that, @Pong will accuse you of posting fake news and then not apologise when proved wrong.
    Can we assist Essexit to visit Specsavers ?

    https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/labour-20-point-plan-employment-workplace-policies/
    So those people who claimed that our 20 point plan only had 18 points were full of crap.

    There's a surprise.
    Is this the new £350m a week? Labour deliberately created ambiguity about the number of points so that everyone would draw attention to it?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.

    :

    - Your starting position. Depending on context you may ask for the moon. You will certainly include some points which you will be happy to give up in negotiations.

    - Your ideal outcome. This may be the same as your starting position but it should be more realistic.

    - Your minimum acceptable outcome. If there is no overlap between your minimum and the other side's minimum you will end up without a deal. Provided there is overlap a deal should be possible however far apart it may seem the parties are at the beginning of negotiations.

    Right now all we have from either side is their starting positions and yet people are treating them, particularly the EU position, as if it is their minimum acceptable. If it is they are hopeless negotiators and it is they rather than May who should be branded hapless.

    I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.

    They want the rights of EU citizens in the UK guaranteed. We are happy to guarantee them provided the rights of UK citizens in the EU are similarly guaranteed. That should be easy.

    They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.

    They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.

    It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.

    I agree. The incomprehension is evenly shared between Leave/Remain. There's those that do boring middle-class jobs which are essentially about advising on/negotiating deals (claims for damages, price of a house, airbnb's forthcoming takeover of NewsCorp. etc) and those that don't. Those that don't tend to think, I think, that negotiations where the parties misrepresent their position to one another (and there is an unspoken understanding that the misrepresentations are in fact misrepresentations) only occur in comedy Middle Eastern bazaars: ("'Ow much for your camel?" "She is like a daughter to me, I could not part with her for less than 1,000 dinars." "1,000 dinars? Who but a madman would pay more than 5 dinars for a spavined old fleabag like that?" etc.) Hence "the 27 say they are united, therefore they are united" etc.
    One thing the EU are probably not keen on, for example, is explaining in public why a reciprocal deal on EU/UK citizens is not their first offer.

    To do so would expose divisions among the 27.

    6 dinars for your camel. That is the absolute limit.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    surbiton said:

    ydoethur said:

    llef said:



    the eur/dem rate was fixed at 1.95.
    so using the dem as a proxy for the euro before 1999,

    in nov 1996 eur/gbp was 0.875
    today its 0.842

    so the pound has appreciated vs the euro since nov 1996.

    http://fxtop.com/en/historical-exchange-rates.php?YA=1&C1=EUR&C2=GBP&A=1&YYYY1=1990&MM1=01&DD1=01&YYYY2=2017&MM2=05&DD2=01&LANG=en

    As I recall the German economy went through a rough patch at that time with some post-reunification blues. Meanwhile, we were in the middle of something of a boomlet. At one point in the late 90s the mark hit three to the pound having been down to near 2 in 1995. So it's not a terribly helpful comparator.
    1.1.1953 GBP = DEM 11.810
    Today GBP = DEM 2.31

    Which country has exported more in the last 60 years ? Which country's productivity has increased far faster than the other's ?
    Both of them Germany. As the currency shows. So I'm not quite sure what your point is? Mine was that the circumstances were atypical and that the underlying economic factors were probably more in Germany's favour than the currency showed at the time.
    Plainly. Much of Germany was still in ruins in 1953, but Germany had the potential to bounce back.
    What the Brexiters will never accept is that the UK is and has been for 60-70 years , a low productivity economy. This was true in 60s, 70s,.........00's, 10s.

    That is why from time to time we need a "currency adjustment" - in the old days it was called devaluation - to remain competitive.

    However, it is only a short term fix. Gradually input costs go up because of the devaluation and competitiveness is slowly eroded.....until the next time.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Observer, must be a bit sleepy, because that just sounds like the current plans to grandfather in EU laws and then repeal bits we don't like, and have the law of the land apply equally to everyone (UK and EU citizens alike).
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    Trust Jeremy Corbyn to negotiate Britain’s withdrawal from the EU?

    I wouldn't trust him to pack my bags at Sainsbury's.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Ishmael_Z said:

    walterw said:

    'If the story in the Frankfurter Allgemeine story is accurate, the EU has offered a deal on acquired rights for EU nationals and British citizens living in the EU which May has rejected. '

    If that is true then it will be the ECJ jurisdiction that will have been the deal breaker, two classes of citizens in one country would never be acceptable.

    ECJ jurisdiction is a non-issue. It can be overcome with a choice of law provision. Alternatively, we could state that EU citizens resident in the UK as of a certain date will continue to have the same rights as they have now and that these rights cannot be changed except to the extent that they are also changed for UK citizens. This can easily be enshrined into UK law.

    We already have different classes of resident in the UK - there are at least five, as far as I can see: UK citizens, Irish citizens, other EU citizens, permanent residents and non-permanent residents.

    You can only have a choice of law provision if you have a contract to put it in. And who on earth is going to employ an EU national in the UK if they are obliged to give them better rights than UK workers are entitled to?

    The contract will be the new Treaty that the EU and the UK sign. The sensible solution is as I have described down-thread and which is entirely feasible given the printed documents produced by both the UK and the EU (as opposed tot he leaks). I would strongly argue it is in our national interest to guarantee this unilaterally.

  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    surbiton said:

    Essexit said:

    glw said:

    I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.

    Maybe we can count Eurosceptic Farron as an entry for the Brass Neck award? To Labour's credit, they have released a 20-point plan with 18 points.
    Don't say that, @Pong will accuse you of posting fake news and then not apologise when proved wrong.
    Can we assist Essexit to visit Specsavers ?

    https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/labour-20-point-plan-employment-workplace-policies/
    Labour has now, finally, updated its website after hours last night of having only 18 points (but they've done it sloppily and the colours give away the edit): http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/workers/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=JMcQuote
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:



    Not at all.

    May is saying - Brexit is a fact let's look to the future.

    Juncker is saying "F*ck you and all you stand for"

    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.

    Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:

    He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.

    He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?

    He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!

    So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?

    EU citizens came to live and work in this country under a set of rules that clearly and explicitly allowed them to do so. Of course their position is different to the citizens of other third-party countries. In fact, it is worse, because many will not qualify for permanent residency because their status has been different to other third-party nationals up to this point. What's more, securing permanent residency is infinitely harder and more complex to do in the UK than it is in most other EU member states. Given that, it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.

    Yes, we could hang out to dry British citizens living in the EU27.

    That's what we voted to do last June.

    Still nonsense.

    So we did not vote to leave the Single Market then?

    Nope. An EEA type deal was still available after the referendum had the losing side allied with the EEA-friendly Leavers - between them there was a majority.

    But the losers chose to try to deny - or fight - their defeat, and the chance has now gone.
    TM was a loser - wonder why she didn't push EEA-lite ?
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    malcolmg said:



    No he is not, he is trying to advise her to take her head out of her arse and look at reality.
    EU are not going to roll over and pay UK to leave and give them all they want. Quite clearly stating you leave the club you leave all the benefits. Even acretin can understand that and fools that believe the UK is all powerful and hold all the cards are just that , deluded and cretinous.

    The EU27 are saying that Brexit means Brexit. May used to believe that, too. Or said she did.

    Let's see what he's objecting to and how that is Brexit means Brexit:

    He doesn't want EU citizens to be treated the same as third party citizens post-Brexit. Sorry but the EU will be a third party post-Brexit.

    He wants the UK to agree to the EU's demands without a quid pro quo of a trade deal in place. Err why would we do that?

    He thinks we can't have a successful Brexit because Brexit means we'll be outside the EU ... err yes that's the point!

    So what is it he's saying that May doesn't agree to that represents Brexit means Brexit?

    EU citizens came to live and work in this country under a set of rules that clearly and explicitly allowed them to do so. Of course their position is different to the citizens of other third-party countries. In fact, it is worse, because many will not qualify for permanent residency because their status has been different to other third-party nationals up to this point. What's more, securing permanent residency is infinitely harder and more complex to do in the UK than it is in most other EU member states. Given that, it is entirely understandable that the EU would want to ensure their status. But, of course, it is something that we could now, too. We just choose not to.

    Yes, we could hang out to dry British citizens living in the EU27.

    That's what we voted to do last June.

    Still nonsense.

    So we did not vote to leave the Single Market then?

    Nope. An EEA type deal was still available after the referendum had the losing side allied with the EEA-friendly Leavers - between them there was a majority.

    But the losers chose to try to deny - or fight - their defeat, and the chance has now gone.

    The losers lost. The winners get to decide.

    Wrong. The winners did not, do not and will not form a government.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    Mr. Quidder, Gina Miller's a modern day Nicias (sticking with my Thucydides' theme). By arguing so vehemently against leaving the EU she's effectively made the closest thing to a centre-ground option (EEA) politically unacceptable as it would be deemed to be a departure in name only.

    Not sure Gina Miller has anywhere near the power you ascribe to her.
    EEA was ruled out by TM and the fact that there were easily enough Tory Brexiteers who would never accept it.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:

    Essexit said:

    glw said:

    I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.

    Maybe we can count Eurosceptic Farron as an entry for the Brass Neck award? To Labour's credit, they have released a 20-point plan with 18 points.
    Don't say that, @Pong will accuse you of posting fake news and then not apologise when proved wrong.
    Can we assist Essexit to visit Specsavers ?

    https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/labour-20-point-plan-employment-workplace-policies/
    So those people who claimed that our 20 point plan only had 18 points were full of crap.

    There's a surprise.
    Is this the new £350m a week? Labour deliberately created ambiguity about the number of points so that everyone would draw attention to it?
    I think there is a simple explanation. Some of the Brexit-posters here are not particularly intelligent.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    edited May 2017
    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    surbiton said:

    ydoethur said:

    llef said:



    the eur/dem rate was fixed at 1.95.
    so using the dem as a proxy for the euro before 1999,

    in nov 1996 eur/gbp was 0.875
    today its 0.842

    so the pound has appreciated vs the euro since nov 1996.

    http://fxtop.com/en/historical-exchange-rates.php?YA=1&C1=EUR&C2=GBP&A=1&YYYY1=1990&MM1=01&DD1=01&YYYY2=2017&MM2=05&DD2=01&LANG=en

    As I recall the German economy went through a rough patch at that time with some post-reunification blues. Meanwhile, we were in the middle of something of a boomlet. At one point in the late 90s the mark hit three to the pound having been down to near 2 in 1995. So it's not a terribly helpful comparator.
    1.1.1953 GBP = DEM 11.810
    Today GBP = DEM 2.31

    Which country has exported more in the last 60 years ? Which country's productivity has increased far faster than the other's ?
    Both of them Germany. As the currency shows. So I'm not quite sure what your point is? Mine was that the circumstances were atypical and that the underlying economic factors were probably more in Germany's favour than the currency showed at the time.
    Plainly. Much of Germany was still in ruins in 1953, but Germany had the potential to bounce back.
    What the Brexiters will never accept is that the UK is and has been for 60-70 years , a low productivity economy. This was true in 60s, 70s,.........00's, 10s.

    That is why from time to time we need a "currency adjustment" - in the old days it was called devaluation - to remain competitive.

    However, it is only a short term fix. Gradually input costs go up because of the devaluation and competitiveness is slowly eroded.....until the next time.
    Yet, our standard of living is way in excess of what is was back then. The purpose of economic policy is to improve living standards, not to fix currency values.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    tim80 said:

    Some of the posts I see on here suggest a lack of understanding as to how negotiations work.

    When you go into a negotiation you have three positions:

    -
    I am encouraged by how close the EU's starting position is to May's demands.

    They want the rights of EU citizens in the UK guaranteed. We are happy to guarantee them provided the rights of UK citizens in the EU are similarly guaranteed. That should be easy.

    They want a divorce payment and have thrown in everything they can think of. We, unsurprisingly, argue that we don't owe anything. I am sure there will be a compromise.

    They want a soft border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. May says we want that too. There will be details to sort out and it only seems likely to work if the trade agreement is sorted. But it sounds like this should be doable.

    It is possible negotiations will collapse. But at the moment this just sounds like two sides setting out their starting positions. I think a deal is possible.

    This is an excellent post.

    It is the media's breathless reaction to every statement by each side, in what will inevitably become a tough negotiation, that helps explain why May needs a healthy majority.
    The pro-Brexit media will want to blame the nasty Europeans as the consequences of leaving the EU become increasingly apparent.

    But what's this nonsense about May needing a healthy majority? It desn't matter a jot to the other side what sort of a majority she has, be it 1 or 300; they will give us what they want to give us, no less and no more, because they have no reason to do otherwise and will be perfectly aware that the UK representatives are handcuffed by the referendum result.

    I note with thanks the excellent analysis in the thread header, but am struck by the naivity of those who perceive May as being more able to negotiate the best Brexit deal. Personally I would trust May more than Corbyn to perform any useful task, from Brexit to going down the High Street to get me a bag of chips. But it makes precious little difference who conducts the Brexit negotiations. We will get what we are given, regardless.

    And accept it, regardless.
    If the EU believes there are 10 Tories who would vote against a tough deal and bring down May's government they will be more inclined to push for a tough deal.

    A big majority takes that risk off the table
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    edited May 2017

    Mr. Observer, must be a bit sleepy, because that just sounds like the current plans to grandfather in EU laws and then repeal bits we don't like, and have the law of the land apply equally to everyone (UK and EU citizens alike).

    Yep - it does. The issue is how you guarantee the rights post-Brexit. What would stop a future government taking rights away from EU citizens while retaining them for British citizens? The EU's opening position seems to be that appeal to the ECJ would be needed as an ultimate recourse for EU citizens. That will not be a deal-breaker. UK law can be applied, if UK law is robust enough. Alternatively, you establish a new forum that decides these issues. What has to be agreed are the principles to be applied.

  • Arthur_PennyArthur_Penny Posts: 198
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    Essexit said:

    glw said:

    I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.

    Maybe we can count Eurosceptic Farron as an entry for the Brass Neck award? To Labour's credit, they have released a 20-point plan with 18 points.
    Don't say that, @Pong will accuse you of posting fake news and then not apologise when proved wrong.
    Can we assist Essexit to visit Specsavers ?

    https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/labour-20-point-plan-employment-workplace-policies/
    So those people who claimed that our 20 point plan only had 18 points were full of crap.

    There's a surprise.
    Is this the new £350m a week? Labour deliberately created ambiguity about the number of points so that everyone would draw attention to it?
    I think there is a simple explanation. Some of the Brexit-posters here are not particularly intelligent.
    The Labour website does not mention the number '20' (and only has 18 pledges). the "20 pledges" tweet does in fact show 20 pledges - so it suggests that the remoaners aren't particularly intelligent/ observant.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    An interesting benchmark graph.

    image

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Charles said:

    More Blair-related speculation. Posted without additional comment:

    The Blairite plan to take over the Lib Dems

    "...But the objective destruction of Labour as a serious party of government next month gives a new focus to all this – not least because many of these less confrontational MPs will soon pay the price for their failure to have acted, and will lose their seats.

    "This is the real context of Mr Blair’s words today. They are not, however, about a new party.

    "Over the past fortnight I have spoken to a number of experienced, highly respected and influential Labour moderates. Some elected, some behind-the-scenes fixers. Some Blairite, some Brownite. And they have all said the same thing to me, which is that it’s not simply that that it is too difficult to set up a new party: there is no need to set one up. Because there is already a vehicle available: the Lib Dems.

    "If the idea is to create a serious opposition then it cannot be seen to be simply a creation of homeless Labour members. It has to be something attractive to them but not of them – not least because it has to be attractive to those Tories who will, the argument goes, soon start to be disenchanted with Mrs May when Brexit starts to bite, such as the likes of Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan. Some have even mentioned George Osborne.

    "The plan is that, after the election, a cadre of these Labour moderates will join the Lib Dems. Where they lead, others will follow."

    https://reaction.life/blairite-plan-take-lib-dems/

    Do the Lib Dema get a say in this master plan?
    The name has to be changed to, say, the Democrats or the Democratic Party.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Observer, ah. So, you mean privileged compared to other migrants?

    Benefits might be an area of contention.

    Mr. Chestnut, interesting graphs.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    chestnut said:

    An interesting benchmark graph.

    image

    I take it you are getting in your retaliation early !
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Mr. Observer, must be a bit sleepy, because that just sounds like the current plans to grandfather in EU laws and then repeal bits we don't like, and have the law of the land apply equally to everyone (UK and EU citizens alike).

    Yep - it does. The issue is how you guarantee the rights post-Brexit. What would stop a future government taking rights away from EU citizens while retaining them for British citizens? The EU's opening position seems to be that appeal to the ECJ would be needed as an ultimate recourse for EU citizens. That will not be a deal-breaker. UK law can be applied, if UK law is robust enough. Alternatively, you establish a new forum that decides these issues. What has to be agreed are the principles to be applied.

    It may be a deal -breaker. For example, a British government may wish to have different entitlements to social security for British nationals and non-British nationals.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    Mr. Observer, must be a bit sleepy, because that just sounds like the current plans to grandfather in EU laws and then repeal bits we don't like, and have the law of the land apply equally to everyone (UK and EU citizens alike).

    Yep - it does. The issue is how you guarantee the rights post-Brexit. What would stop a future government taking rights away from EU citizens while retaining them for British citizens? The EU's opening position seems to be that appeal to the ECJ would be needed as an ultimate recourse for EU citizens. That will not be a deal-breaker. UK law can be applied, if UK law is robust enough. Alternatively, you establish a new forum that decides these issues. What has to be agreed are the principles to be applied.

    The best way to enshrine rights is to become a citizen, which is probably the reason for the existing application form being mentioned as an issue.

    We have applicants struggling to prove their residency links to Britain.

    I have no idea what the process is for Brits in Europe.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881


    Nope. An EEA type deal was still available after the referendum had the losing side allied with the EEA-friendly Leavers - between them there was a majority.

    But the losers chose to try to deny - or fight - their defeat, and the chance has now gone.

    Who are these losers? Labour supported A50. The lib dems have less than 10 MPs.

    EEA was killed by May and the fact there were enough leavers in the Tory party who would never accept it.
This discussion has been closed.