Interesting. Spain's next up, then Monaco. Passing's tricky in Spain, and perhaps even more so in Monaco.
What will be intriguing is seeing if qualifying in Russia was a one-off, or if the ban on oil-burning has removed a key Mercedes advantage. Ferrari are super on the supersoft tyres, which are likely to be used for Monaco (not sure about Spain).
Anyway, not long enough for me to bet, but I think this is the first time he's been odds against.
Mr. 1000, I'm not diminishing the gravity of war. On the contrary, the sooner the EU ends, the less the fall-out of its collapse, and the better the chance of a peaceful, orderly dissolving of the organisation.
The more it integrates, the greater the pain and the conflict when it ends.
The UK being outside the EU is a good thing, and likewise for other nations.
Imagine the EU ends tomorrow peacefully, there's a political vacuum in Europe and you're Vladimir Putin. What do you do?
Phone NATO? Just to make sure they're still there.
Ah, maybe this tweet by Michael Roth, Germany's Europe minister, explains what's going on:
Michael Roth MdB: The British government must abandon myth that all British will be better off post-#Brexit.
They are not interested in the most mutually-advantageous deal, or at least they might not object to one as long as Theresa May pretends it's a disaster. You can sort-of see their point, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to work in practice.
They are petrified. They foresee a Britain outside Europe that does indeed succeed.
The more adamant we are, the more they fear that their people will start to agree.
A successful Britain outside of the EU is quite literally the EUcrat worst nightmare. It brings into question the very basis of its continued existence, the trade off of sovereignty for economic gain. If it can be showed that economic gain can be had outside of the EU it will have an existential crisis, worse than anything it has ever seen. The reason scepticism has decreased is because many expect Britain to suffer in the short to medium term after leaving. If that isn't the case then scepticism will rise again, and probably worse than before.
I wonder if the poverty of Ireland for most of its post independence period acted as a deterrent to Scottish nationalism
I don't think it did, but it should do. Ireland is the closest reference point for Scotland. Nationalists happily pointed to Ireland when it was in the Celtic Tiger phase but went quiet when the bid depression hit.
Mr. 1000, I'm not diminishing the gravity of war. On the contrary, the sooner the EU ends, the less the fall-out of its collapse, and the better the chance of a peaceful, orderly dissolving of the organisation.
The more it integrates, the greater the pain and the conflict when it ends.
The UK being outside the EU is a good thing, and likewise for other nations.
Imagine the EU ends tomorrow peacefully, there's a political vacuum in Europe and you're Vladimir Putin. What do you do?
@faisalislam ... for what its worth, I was 1 of only 2 waiting outside No 10 when dinner was happening, & body language at end did not suggest disaster..
Yes, to be fair, we certainly shouldn't assume that the leaked account is necessarily accurate.
Of course it's not accurate. It'll be hyped-up and slanted to suit the Commission's objectives. Jean-Claude Juncker is the man who said "When it becomes serious, you have to lie". He literally said that. Here are some other Juncker quotes:
On the EU Constitution
"Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"
On the French referendum on the EU constitution
“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
On the introduction of the euro:
"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."
He is the EU personified. He is a liar and an anti-democrat. He is why we left. But that doesn't mean there aren't significant grains of truth in his account. I'm sure there are.
There are plenty in the UK Establishment who were happy to play along with him. They assumed we had gone so far down the line of assigning our sovereignty to Brussels that it would be impossible to unravel.
And the islamaphobes reckon muslim women arent allowed to express themselves
"Three teenage women have been arrested in connection with an “active terror plot” which was foiled by police after a dramatic raid at a house in Willesden.
Scotland Yard said a 19-year-old woman and two others, both aged 18, have been arrested on suspicion of the commission, preparation and instigation of terrorist acts.
The teenagers were arrested at three addresses in east London on Monday morning and taken into custody at a police station outside of the capital.
A 21-year-old woman who was shot by armed police as they carried out the raid on the address was discharged from hospital and arrested on suspicion of terror offence, Scotland Yard said on Sunday."
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
But you are well-off and protected from the downsides of a cliff-edge Brexit (as am I, of course). It's not your mortgage, your summer holiday, your new car etc on the line.
The vote was clear - the consequences remain [sic] to be seen. We've had the soothsayers on all day like Fraser from Dad's Army - time to give it a bit of a rest maybe?
We're on a political message board. This is a big political story. We all have views and we are sharing them.
It's when the views get presented as facts that it gets really boring.
A handy tip when reading posts is to imagine "I think" in front of what is written. You can even do it with this one ;-)
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
I think we can do a lot better than tiny, rural, deserted, god-logged Ireland of the 1920s.
5 or 10 years to recover our position. Greater prosperity in the long term than if we had stayed in.
I think this ignores some rather important existential questions.
If we want to create a viable and inspiring non-EU option for this part of Europe, we need to do some serious thought about how it would be more appealing for Ireland to join us, rather than stick with the EU. The fact that this is only ever mentioned in a kind of bullying, 'what choice do they have' way just shows that in fact we have nothing to offer them, and nothing to offer ourselves. The UK is finished. Death by Brexit.
That's a VERY high bar to set. The Republic of Ireland went into the EEC for the sake of (a) increasing its prosperity and (b) getting away from dependency on us. Leaving the EU, unless it globalises even more, would presumably contradict the second aim; as for the first, however well we might be able to do outside of the EU, they would have the psychological barrier of chucking in the Euro and reviving the Punt to overcome. That, in turn, would also effectively mean admitting that everything they suffered during the Eurozone crisis - including a very sharp spike in unemployment, a property crash and a huge bailout - was entirely avoidable and, therefore, a complete waste of time and resources. That's hard.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
I think we can do a lot better than tiny, rural, deserted, god-logged Ireland of the 1920s.
5 or 10 years to recover our position. Greater prosperity in the long term than if we had stayed in.
I think this ignores some rather important existential questions.
If we want to create a viable and inspiring non-EU option for this part of Europe, we need to do some serious thought about how it would be more appealing for Ireland to join us, rather than stick with the EU. The fact that this is only ever mentioned in a kind of bullying, 'what choice do they have' way just shows that in fact we have nothing to offer them, and nothing to offer ourselves. The UK is finished. Death by Brexit.
That's a VERY high bar to set. The Republic of Ireland went into the EEC for the sake of (a) increasing its prosperity and (b) getting away from dependency on us. Leaving the EU, unless it globalises even more, would presumably contradict the second aim; as for the first, however well we might be able to do outside of the EU, they would have the psychological barrier of chucking in the Euro and reviving the Punt to overcome. That, in turn, would also effectively mean admitting that everything they suffered during the Eurozone crisis - including a very sharp spike in unemployment, a property crash and a huge bailout - was entirely avoidable and, therefore, a complete waste of time and resources. That's hard.
Why should we wish the Irish Republic to join us?
as I sit here in the sunshine of co waterford, I rather wish they would.
I always been an Irish Unionist rather than an Ulster one. :-)
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has
The EU is a big and complex body that incorporates every major country in Europe. If we want a meaningful relationship with our neighbours we have no choice but to deal with the EU. As a non member that means doing what they tell us. As we left the EU mainly because we didn't like that we are in quandary:
1. We go for a close relationship where we are outside the EU but have no influence over it and our relationship with it.
2. We go Bhutan and cut ourselves off with all the consequences that implies.
3. We go for a close relationship as a member of the EU with the same level of influence as similar members.
We rejected (3) through a democratic vote, we don't want (2) and we can't bear (1). We have never faced up to the real choices.
As always you present your opinion as fact. All of the above is complete rubbish, just like the rest of your posts.
Expertly argued :-D
Three options, one including Bhutan? If it was any other poster I'd assume it was tongue in cheek, but with FF43 I know he is deadly serious. Some of the EUphiles have gone completely insane. Not even Alastair Meeks has descended to this level.
I happily withdraw "Bhutan" as a metaphor as it disturbs the anal. Let me refer to "cliff edge", which is what Mrs May called it, or simply and factually that the relationship between the UK and all the major countries of Europe will be be much weaker than before unless we agree new terms with the EU. Those terms, if they happen, and we agree to them,will be essentially dictated by the EU.
I realise we have a choice. My point is, we are not making it.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
I think we can do a lot better than tiny, rural, deserted, god-logged Ireland of the 1920s.
5 or 10 years to recover our position. Greater prosperity in the long term than if we had stayed in.
I think this ignores some rather important existential questions.
If we want to create a viable and inspiring non-EU option for this part of Europe, we need to do some serious thought about how it would be more appealing for Ireland to join us, rather than stick with the EU. The fact that this is only ever mentioned in a kind of bullying, 'what choice do they have' way just shows that in fact we have nothing to offer them, and nothing to offer ourselves. The UK is finished. Death by Brexit.
That's a VERY high bar to set. The Republic of Ireland went into the EEC for the sake of (a) increasing its prosperity and (b) getting away from dependency on us. Leaving the EU, unless it globalises even more, would presumably contradict the second aim; as for the first, however well we might be able to do outside of the EU, they would have the psychological barrier of chucking in the Euro and reviving the Punt to overcome. That, in turn, would also effectively mean admitting that everything they suffered during the Eurozone crisis - including a very sharp spike in unemployment, a property crash and a huge bailout - was entirely avoidable and, therefore, a complete waste of time and resources. That's hard.
Why should we wish the Irish Republic to join us?
My question was more conjectural than practical at this point, but if we see Britain/the British Isles as being permanently detached politically from mainland Europe then it necessitates a good answer. Ultimately if the EU is right for Ireland, then it's also right for Scotland, and it's also right for England and Wales. We are not the Japan of Europe.
Mr. Glenn, do you think the Visegrad countries would want to be under Russia's thumb?
The most important members of NATO in terms of military power are probably the US, UK, France and Turkey. Once we leave the EU, only one of those will be in it. I think you overestimate the accuracy of the EU's self-aggrandising claims.
Mr. 1000, I'm not diminishing the gravity of war. On the contrary, the sooner the EU ends, the less the fall-out of its collapse, and the better the chance of a peaceful, orderly dissolving of the organisation.
The more it integrates, the greater the pain and the conflict when it ends.
The UK being outside the EU is a good thing, and likewise for other nations.
Imagine the EU ends tomorrow peacefully, there's a political vacuum in Europe and you're Vladimir Putin. What do you do?
strip off my shirt, go riding my horse topless and cover Donald in baby oil.
@faisalislam ... for what its worth, I was 1 of only 2 waiting outside No 10 when dinner was happening, & body language at end did not suggest disaster..
Yes, to be fair, we certainly shouldn't assume that the leaked account is necessarily accurate.
Indeed. This is all very rum, and we should await some form of follow up questions to the participants. In fairness the Frankfurter Allgemeine is a respected broadsheet, it's not a rabid tabloid.
However, why leak? If the EU side have, well it questions the integrity of the whole process. If Juncker did actually say "Brexit cannot be a success", ditto.
Whilst I can see the EU might want some outlines of what we are prepared to do vis a vis Ireland, citizens, money etc it falls flat for me because we are not going to agree anything till it's all agreed. We are not going to hand over 50bn unless we know there's a FTA acceptable to us. How do we know how what customs or other arrangements to have in Newry when we don't know what the FTA deal will be? Would we need a Norway/Sweden arrangement, nothing at all, or a Trumpian wall?Does the EU want a "vanilla" deal on citizens or some form of complex extra judiciality for them via the ECJ (we walk in my view if that were the case), etc etc etc.
Here's an interesting snippet which seems to have past the UK press by.
The United Ireland clause was questioned by Tsipras in relation to the position of Cyprus.
The Turkish occupied part could conceivably become part of the EU as it too is currently a divided island.
In the event of consenting reunification of Ireland (and Cyprus) the EU would happily allow the expansion (it would be mad not to) but the EU law etc would be relatively trivial to deal with in comparison to the harmonisation of all of the other laws etc for the two countries.
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
I think we can do a lot better than tiny, rural, deserted, god-logged Ireland of the 1920s.
5 or 10 years to recover our position. Greater prosperity in the long term than if we had stayed in.
I think this ignores some rather important existential questions.
If we want to create a viable and inspiring non-EU option for this part of Europe, we need to do some serious thought about how it would be more appealing for Ireland to join us, rather than stick with the EU. The fact that this is only ever mentioned in a kind of bullying, 'what choice do they have' way just shows that in fact we have nothing to offer them, and nothing to offer ourselves. The UK is finished. Death by Brexit.
That's a VERY high bar to set. The Republic of Ireland went into the EEC for the sake of (a) increasing its prosperity and (b) getting away from dependency on us. Leaving the EU, unless it globalises even more, would presumably contradict the second aim; as for the first, however well we might be able to do outside of the EU, they would have the psychological barrier of chucking in the Euro and reviving the Punt to overcome. That, in turn, would also effectively mean admitting that everything they suffered during the Eurozone crisis - including a very sharp spike in unemployment, a property crash and a huge bailout - was entirely avoidable and, therefore, a complete waste of time and resources. That's hard.
Why should we wish the Irish Republic to join us?
as I sit here in the sunshine of co waterford, I rather wish they would.
I always been an Irish Unionist rather than an Ulster one. :-)
I've no objection, just don't see it as being essential to us.
A successful Britain outside of the EU is quite literally the EUcrat worst nightmare. It brings into question the very basis of its continued existence, the trade off of sovereignty for economic gain. If it can be showed that economic gain can be had outside of the EU it will have an existential crisis, worse than anything it has ever seen. The reason scepticism has decreased is because many expect Britain to suffer in the short to medium term after leaving. If that isn't the case then scepticism will rise again, and probably worse than before.
I'm coming round to the point of view that it is now our duty to leave on hard terms, succeed despite everything the EU tries to do, and set a good example to others who will follow us in time, so that the plug is pulled on the EU project.
control of your own destiny, civil cohesion, laws to your own requirements for starters
We (the UK) got lots of opt-outs, we got our way in many deals, contracts, free-marketing etc, we got the City of London protected, civil cohesion seemed greater pre-June2016 as now we seem to have a Leave/Remain split and we are going to incorporate ALL of the existing EU law in UK law.
I cannot see what we have gained. We are introducing obstacles to trade, we are less cohesive and we will still have all EU law on our statute books.
Exactly so. And even the freedom to write our own laws in the future is a pretty small matter. How many issues are so unique that Britain needs to do things differently to the rest of the continent?
Imagine driving on the right was introduced by some future qualified majority vote?
e.g. Ireland was notably poorer for quite a while after securing its sovereignty. But I don't think the Irish have ever regretted independence, in any significant way.
It "only" took them about 70 years to turn things around. Not exactly inspiring for Brexit.
I think we can do a lot better than tiny, rural, deserted, god-logged Ireland of the 1920s.
5 or 10 years to recover our position. Greater prosperity in the long term than if we had stayed in.
I think this ignores some rather important existential questions.
If we want to create a viable and inspiring non-EU option for this part of Europe, we need to do some serious thought about how it would be more appealing for Ireland to join us, rather than stick with the EU. The fact that this is only ever mentioned in a kind of bullying, 'what choice do they have' way just shows that in fact we have nothing to offer them, and nothing to offer ourselves. The UK is finished. Death by Brexit.
That's a VERY high bar to set. The Republic of Ireland went into the EEC for the sake of (a) increasing its prosperity and (b) getting away from dependency on us. Leaving the EU, unless it globalises even more, would presumably contradict the second aim; as for the first, however well we might be able to do outside of the EU, they would have the psychological barrier of chucking in the Euro and reviving the Punt to overcome. That, in turn, would also effectively mean admitting that everything they suffered during the Eurozone crisis - including a very sharp spike in unemployment, a property crash and a huge bailout - was entirely avoidable and, therefore, a complete waste of time and resources. That's hard.
Why should we wish the Irish Republic to join us?
as I sit here in the sunshine of co waterford, I rather wish they would.
I always been an Irish Unionist rather than an Ulster one. :-)
I've no objection, just don't see it as being essential to us.
of course it is
we could then sell scotland to the usa as a submarine base, clear the national debt and still have a supply of decent whiskey
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has
The EU is a big and complex body that incorporates every major country in Europe. If we want a meaningful relationship with our neighbours we have no choice but to deal with the EU. As a non member that means doing what they tell us. As we left the EU mainly because we didn't like that we are in quandary:
1. We go for a close relationship where we are outside the EU but have no influence over it and our relationship with it.
2. We go Bhutan and cut ourselves off with all the consequences that implies.
3. We go for a close relationship as a member of the EU with the same level of influence as similar members.
We rejected (3) through a democratic vote, we don't want (2) and we can't bear (1). We have never faced up to the real choices.
As always you present your opinion as fact. All of the above is complete rubbish, just like the rest of your posts.
Expertly argued :-D
Three options, one including Bhutan? If it was any other poster I'd assume it was tongue in cheek, but with FF43 I know he is deadly serious. Some of the EUphiles have gone completely insane. Not even Alastair Meeks has descended to this level.
I happily withdraw "Bhutan" as a metaphor as it disturbs the anal. Let me refer to "cliff edge", which is what Mrs May called it, or simply and factually that the relationship between the UK and all the major countries of Europe will be be much weaker than before unless we agree new terms with the EU. Those terms, if they happen, and we agree to them,will be essentially dictated by the EU.
I realise we have a choice. My point is, we are not making it.
You keep forgetting that the British public just voted to water down our relationship with the EU. I know you don't like the result, but that is what we voted for, a lesser relationship with the EU. Also, there are far more than three options, especially if one of them is remain. Your logic is completely flawed because you refuse to acknowledge that the people voted for it and on the whole will be comfortable with a lesser relationship with the EU. It is only EUphiles like yourself that are running around like headless chickens worrying about what the fools in Brussels think.
Most important quote from Juncker dinner is 'Brexit cannot be a success.' What's 'best' for them isn't just economic interest of a good deal.
As others have pointed out, the two sides seem to be talking at cross-purposes when it comes to the definition of success. Once the negotiations have been finalised it is entirely possible that both sides will be able to claim success according to their respective definitions.
@faisalislam ... for what its worth, I was 1 of only 2 waiting outside No 10 when dinner was happening, & body language at end did not suggest disaster..
Yes, to be fair, we certainly shouldn't assume that the leaked account is necessarily accurate.
Of course it's not accurate. It'll be hyped-up and slanted to suit the Commission's objectives. Jean-Claude Juncker is the man who said "When it becomes serious, you have to lie". He literally said that. Here are some other Juncker quotes:
On the EU Constitution
"Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"
On the French referendum on the EU constitution
“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
On the introduction of the euro:
"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."
He is the EU personified. He is a liar and an anti-democrat. He is why we left. But that doesn't mean there aren't significant grains of truth in his account. I'm sure there are.
There are plenty in the UK Establishment who were happy to play along with him. They assumed we had gone so far down the line of assigning our sovereignty to Brussels that it would be impossible to unravel.
A short, extremely offensive word describes them.
They were almost right.
Given that there was never democratic consent for our membership in the Project, our Leaving was inevitable. It wouldn't have been any easier 10 or 20 years down the line...
control of your own destiny, civil cohesion, laws to your own requirements for starters
We (the UK) got lots of opt-outs, we got our way in many deals, contracts, free-marketing etc, we got the City of London protected, civil cohesion seemed greater pre-June2016 as now we seem to have a Leave/Remain split and we are going to incorporate ALL of the existing EU law in UK law.
I cannot see what we have gained. We are introducing obstacles to trade, we are less cohesive and we will still have all EU law on our statute books.
Exactly so. And even the freedom to write our own laws in the future is a pretty small matter. How many issues are so unique that Britain needs to do things differently to the rest of the continent?
Imagine driving on the right was introduced by some future qualified majority vote?
It has been done elsewhere in the world, but we were big enough with enough clout to get opt-outs for this sort of thing in the past.
Ah, maybe this tweet by Michael Roth, Germany's Europe minister, explains what's going on:
Michael Roth MdB: The British government must abandon myth that all British will be better off post-#Brexit.
They are not interested in the most mutually-advantageous deal, or at least they might not object to one as long as Theresa May pretends it's a disaster. You can sort-of see their point, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to work in practice.
They are petrified. They foresee a Britain outside Europe that does indeed succeed.
The more adamant we are, the more they fear that their people will start to agree.
A successful Britain outside of the EU is quite literally the EUcrat worst nightmare. It brings into question the very basis of its continued existence, the trade off of sovereignty for economic gain. If it can be showed that economic gain can be had outside of the EU it will have an existential crisis, worse than anything it has ever seen. The reason scepticism has decreased is because many expect Britain to suffer in the short to medium term after leaving. If that isn't the case then scepticism will rise again, and probably worse than before.
I wonder if the poverty of Ireland for most of its post independence period acted as a deterrent to Scottish nationalism
I don't think so. Scotland and Ireland have very different histories. The SNP also began to gain traction (e.g. with victory in the Hamilton by-election, and a very strong performance in the October 1974 general election) long before the Republic of Ireland became wealthy.
I lack knowledge about exactly how the SNP managed to come to prominence between the end of the War and the 1970s, but I imagine it probably had more to do with the dissolution of the Empire - England & Scotland's big common project, beyond the British state itself - allied to the SNP challenging Scottish Labour politically from the Left.
Of course, after Margaret Thatcher came along, Scottish Labour cultivated nationalism as part of its project to take apart the Scottish Tories, delegitimize (English-dominated) Conservative Government from Westminster, and thereby cement its own dominance in Scotland. It rode the tiger of nationalism successfully for many years, but no social democrat movement with internationalist and universalist leanings is ever, in the long run, going to prosper using that strategy. It was thrown to the ground, and a genuine nationalist movement mauled it to death. Hence where Scotland finds itself now.
'Brexit cannot be a success.' It sounds that, even with an agreement, the EU will continue to introduce policies to damage the UK - because damage is the end game. Any agreement will 'peace in our time'.
Ah, maybe this tweet by Michael Roth, Germany's Europe minister, explains what's going on:
Michael Roth MdB: The British government must abandon myth that all British will be better off post-#Brexit.
They are not interested in the most mutually-advantageous deal, or at least they might not object to one as long as Theresa May pretends it's a disaster. You can sort-of see their point, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to work in practice.
They are petrified. They foresee a Britain outside Europe that does indeed succeed.
The more adamant we are, the more they fear that their people will start to agree.
A successful Britain outside of the EU is quite literally the EUcrat worst nightmare. It brings into question the very basis of its continued existence, the trade off of sovereignty for economic gain. If it can be showed that economic gain can be had outside of the EU it will have an existential crisis, worse than anything it has ever seen. The reason scepticism has decreased is because many expect Britain to suffer in the short to medium term after leaving. If that isn't the case then scepticism will rise again, and probably worse than before.
I wonder if the poverty of Ireland for most of its post independence period acted as a deterrent to Scottish nationalism
I don't think so. Scotland and Ireland have very different histories. The SNP also began to gain traction (e.g. with victory in the Hamilton by-election, and a very strong performance in the October 1974 general election) long before the Republic of Ireland became wealthy.
I lack knowledge about exactly how the SNP managed to come to prominence between the end of the War and the 1970s, but I imagine it probably had more to do with the dissolution of the Empire - England & Scotland's big common project, beyond the British state itself - allied to the SNP challenging Scottish Labour politically from the Left.
Of course, after Margaret Thatcher came along, Scottish Labour cultivated nationalism as part of its project to take apart the Scottish Tories, delegitimize (English-dominated) Conservative Government from Westminster, and thereby cement its own dominance in Scotland. It rode the tiger of nationalism successfully for many years, but no social democrat movement with internationalist and universalist leanings is ever, in the long run, going to prosper using that strategy. It was thrown to the ground, and a genuine nationalist movement mauled it to death. Hence where Scotland finds itself now.
Oil
the SNP said 5 million scots should have the revenue rather than 60 million brits
this was a fair pitch at the time but is now 40 years past its sell by date
Most important quote from Juncker dinner is 'Brexit cannot be a success.' What's 'best' for them isn't just economic interest of a good deal.
Cannot can be a statement of opinion or of aspiration.
Possibly both. I've said below why the latter is true for the ardent EUphiles and believers in "the project". If we show there is life after the EU outside of the single market then the value of the EU drops to zero for a lot of countries, most of them net contributors. Why trade one's sovereignty for economic gain if those same gains can be had without making that sacrifice?
It's one of the reasons why I think the government needs to lay out a radical tax cutting and investment agenda so we succeed regardless of whether we are in or out of the single market. There are enough domestic tools available to offset any minor losses we may experience from leaving the single market, the government just have to be bold enough to use them.
control of your own destiny, civil cohesion, laws to your own requirements for starters
We (the UK) got lots of opt-outs, we got our way in many deals, contracts, free-marketing etc, we got the City of London protected, civil cohesion seemed greater pre-June2016 as now we seem to have a Leave/Remain split and we are going to incorporate ALL of the existing EU law in UK law.
I cannot see what we have gained. We are introducing obstacles to trade, we are less cohesive and we will still have all EU law on our statute books.
Exactly so. And even the freedom to write our own laws in the future is a pretty small matter. How many issues are so unique that Britain needs to do things differently to the rest of the continent?
Imagine driving on the right was introduced by some future qualified majority vote?
It has been done elsewhere in the world, but we were big enough with enough clout to get opt-outs for this sort of thing in the past.
Yes it's very unlikely, sure. But if the EU became a true United States Of Europe, I guess it would be odd to have a couple of states (and a couple of tiddlers) driving on the "wrong" side of the road. The USA wouldn't allow California, Oregon, and Hawaii to drive on the left.
Mr. Quidder, not very gentlemanly, particularly as thumping the table might shift the balls. I recall Peter Ebdon (perhaps playing Stephen Lee) shouting his head off after getting a difficult shot during a very tense match.
Most important quote from Juncker dinner is 'Brexit cannot be a success.' What's 'best' for them isn't just economic interest of a good deal.
Did he mean "it is impossible" or "it must not be allowed to happen"?
Both.
I don't see how it can be both. Something which is impossible can't be prevented, by definition.
I was kinda joking. Though I suspect a man as eurofanatic as Juncker could simultaneously hold these contradictory positions.
Basically he believes successful Brexit is impossible. We are bound to be much poorer, forever, because Brexit. However he's also gonna make sure we take a load of damage and pay a load of money, to guard against the tiny tiny tiny chance that he's wrong, and we might do OK.
You keep forgetting that the British public just voted to water down our relationship with the EU. I know you don't like the result, but that is what we voted for, a lesser relationship with the EU. Also, there are far more than three options, especially if one of them is remain. Your logic is completely flawed because you refuse to acknowledge that the people voted for it and on the whole will be comfortable with a lesser relationship with the EU. It is only EUphiles like yourself that are running around like headless chickens worrying about what the fools in Brussels think.
You believe the consensus of voters is happy for Brexit to be a crash-out and would see that as Brexit success? I have seen no evidence of that. As I said in the post you objected to, voters rejected membership, I don't think they want to crash out; but they won't want to accept the terms of a non-membership close relationship. Somehow that's going to have to be resolved. It's the issue that has obsessed me since before the referendum. (I know, too much comment from me on this. Sorry).
Apologies if everyone is aware of this already, but the details of Sunday's ICM poll are now up on their website. I mention this not in order to say anything about the tables themselves, but for the sake of the following admission:
"In a poll conducted for the Sun on Sunday, a slight fightback is recorded for Labour, but not to the extent identified in a couple of other polls. Indeed, this lower Conservative lead is a largely based on ICM’s methodological adjustment, which returned 2-points to Labour directly from the Tories as part of the Partial Refuser adjustment. Without that, it would have been “as you were”."
i.e. more evidence that they're (probably all) tweaking their assumptions and massaging the figures on an ongoing basis as this campaign goes along, and therefore, over time, the polls - even when coming from the same company - are not necessarily directly comparable with one another.
Tentative predictions:
1. By the end of the election campaign, all the companies will have herded together and will be reporting roughly the same figures (again.) That's probably just me being the most dreadful old cynic, but we'll see... 2. Consequently, they'll all be wrong by roughly the same margin, most likely counting Labour's VI too high, and the Conservatives' and the Liberal Democrats' too low.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
@Black_Rock - Are you sure that you've read that correctly?
this lower Conservative lead is a largely based on ICM’s methodological adjustment, which returned 2-points to Labour directly from the Tories as part of the Partial Refuser adjustment. Without that, it would have been “as you were
I don't think that means they've tweaked their methodology, but that they have applied it as usual and in this particular poll that adjustment made more difference than in the previous one.
This might be related to the Bank Holiday affecting the polling. We should probably wait to see what happens once we're back to normal working weeks.
Apologies if everyone is aware of this already, but the details of Sunday's ICM poll are now up on their website. I mention this not in order to say anything about the tables themselves, but for the sake of the following admission:
"In a poll conducted for the Sun on Sunday, a slight fightback is recorded for Labour, but not to the extent identified in a couple of other polls. Indeed, this lower Conservative lead is a largely based on ICM’s methodological adjustment, which returned 2-points to Labour directly from the Tories as part of the Partial Refuser adjustment. Without that, it would have been “as you were”."
i.e. more evidence that they're (probably all) tweaking their assumptions and massaging the figures on an ongoing basis as this campaign goes along, and therefore, over time, the polls - even when coming from the same company - are not necessarily directly comparable with one another.
Tentative predictions:
1. By the end of the election campaign, all the companies will have herded together and will be reporting roughly the same figures (again.) That's probably just me being the most dreadful old cynic, but we'll see... 2. Consequently, they'll all be wrong by roughly the same margin, most likely counting Labour's VI too high, and the Conservatives' and the Liberal Democrats' too low.
I wonder if a version of Lusser's Law is applicable to polling. The more modifications they make to the raw data based on assumptions, the less likely the end result is to be accurate.
Apologies if everyone is aware of this already, but the details of Sunday's ICM poll are now up on their website. I mention this not in order to say anything about the tables themselves, but for the sake of the following admission:
"In a poll conducted for the Sun on Sunday, a slight fightback is recorded for Labour, but not to the extent identified in a couple of other polls. Indeed, this lower Conservative lead is a largely based on ICM’s methodological adjustment, which returned 2-points to Labour directly from the Tories as part of the Partial Refuser adjustment. Without that, it would have been “as you were”."
i.e. more evidence that they're (probably all) tweaking their assumptions and massaging the figures on an ongoing basis as this campaign goes along, and therefore, over time, the polls - even when coming from the same company - are not necessarily directly comparable with one another.
Tentative predictions:
1. By the end of the election campaign, all the companies will have herded together and will be reporting roughly the same figures (again.) That's probably just me being the most dreadful old cynic, but we'll see... 2. Consequently, they'll all be wrong by roughly the same margin, most likely counting Labour's VI too high, and the Conservatives' and the Liberal Democrats' too low.
Yep 156 LD voters weighted down to 124 , 99 UKIP voters up to 110 .
I don't think so. Scotland and Ireland have very different histories. The SNP also began to gain traction (e.g. with victory in the Hamilton by-election, and a very strong performance in the October 1974 general election) long before the Republic of Ireland became wealthy.
I lack knowledge about exactly how the SNP managed to come to prominence between the end of the War and the 1970s, but I imagine it probably had more to do with the dissolution of the Empire - England & Scotland's big common project, beyond the British state itself - allied to the SNP challenging Scottish Labour politically from the Left.
Of course, after Margaret Thatcher came along, Scottish Labour cultivated nationalism as part of its project to take apart the Scottish Tories, delegitimize (English-dominated) Conservative Government from Westminster, and thereby cement its own dominance in Scotland. It rode the tiger of nationalism successfully for many years, but no social democrat movement with internationalist and universalist leanings is ever, in the long run, going to prosper using that strategy. It was thrown to the ground, and a genuine nationalist movement mauled it to death. Hence where Scotland finds itself now.
Oil
the SNP said 5 million scots should have the revenue rather than 60 million brits
this was a fair pitch at the time but is now 40 years past its sell by date
Oil wasn't discovered in the North Sea until the end of the 1960s. It has been a useful political football for the SNP since, but it didn't help to get them started.
Apologies if everyone is aware of this already, but the details of Sunday's ICM poll are now up on their website. I mention this not in order to say anything about the tables themselves, but for the sake of the following admission:
"In a poll conducted for the Sun on Sunday, a slight fightback is recorded for Labour, but not to the extent identified in a couple of other polls. Indeed, this lower Conservative lead is a largely based on ICM’s methodological adjustment, which returned 2-points to Labour directly from the Tories as part of the Partial Refuser adjustment. Without that, it would have been “as you were”."
i.e. more evidence that they're (probably all) tweaking their assumptions and massaging the figures on an ongoing basis as this campaign goes along, and therefore, over time, the polls - even when coming from the same company - are not necessarily directly comparable with one another.
Tentative predictions:
1. By the end of the election campaign, all the companies will have herded together and will be reporting roughly the same figures (again.) That's probably just me being the most dreadful old cynic, but we'll see... 2. Consequently, they'll all be wrong by roughly the same margin, most likely counting Labour's VI too high, and the Conservatives' and the Liberal Democrats' too low.
I always suspect that the mid campaign wobble in the polls that always seems to appear mid election campaign is a manufactured one. I don't believe it actually happens, it just makes the reporting of the election more interesting. Even in 1997, one poll showed the Tories doing significantly better than was the case and Labour not doing quite as well as the outcome. As you say it is easy to induce a methodological adjustment and create a talking point.
Germany watch: the last two state elections before the general election are coming up. Next Sunday is Schleswig-Holstein, by the Danish border. The CDU are slightly ahead and up on last time, a nose in front of the Social Democrats, who are down a bit. The liberal FDP and former Communist Left are both up, and the AfD after previous high polls is now on the 5% edge needed to get them intothe assembly. Overall, it looks a good CDU result.
The much larger North Rhine Westphalia is the following Sunday. The picture here looks similar, except that the Greens are well down on last time. Again, the CDU will be satisfied if the results match the polling.
@Black_Rock - Are you sure that you've read that correctly?
this lower Conservative lead is a largely based on ICM’s methodological adjustment, which returned 2-points to Labour directly from the Tories as part of the Partial Refuser adjustment. Without that, it would have been “as you were
I don't think that means they've tweaked their methodology, but that they have applied it as usual and in this particular poll that adjustment made more difference than in the previous one.
This might be related to the Bank Holiday affecting the polling. We should probably wait to see what happens once we're back to normal working weeks.
If they are talking about a pre-existing adjustment rather than one they have only just made, then they haven't exactly made this clear. I certainly read it as the latter. But you could be right.
I wonder if a version of Lusser's Law is applicable to polling. The more modifications they make to the raw data based on assumptions, the less likely the end result is to be accurate.
Most important quote from Juncker dinner is 'Brexit cannot be a success.' What's 'best' for them isn't just economic interest of a good deal.
Cannot can be a statement of opinion or of aspiration.
Possibly both. I've said below why the latter is true for the ardent EUphiles and believers in "the project". If we show there is life after the EU outside of the single market then the value of the EU drops to zero for a lot of countries, most of them net contributors. Why trade one's sovereignty for economic gain if those same gains can be had without making that sacrifice?
It's one of the reasons why I think the government needs to lay out a radical tax cutting and investment agenda so we succeed regardless of whether we are in or out of the single market. There are enough domestic tools available to offset any minor losses we may experience from leaving the single market, the government just have to be bold enough to use them.
What tools do we use to keep large-scale car manufacturers in the UK if we crash out of the EU with no deal? Whatever it is we will need to repeat the trick across a large number of sectors in which complex European supply chains and large-scale European exports are a necessity.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
Glad you are not negotiating on behalf of UK plc
Willy-waving is not a negotiating strategy. UK plc wants a deal, not a cliff-edge Brexit.
Interesting. Spain's next up, then Monaco. Passing's tricky in Spain, and perhaps even more so in Monaco.
What will be intriguing is seeing if qualifying in Russia was a one-off, or if the ban on oil-burning has removed a key Mercedes advantage. Ferrari are super on the supersoft tyres, which are likely to be used for Monaco (not sure about Spain).
Anyway, not long enough for me to bet, but I think this is the first time he's been odds against.
The oil burning thing is, I think, a complete red herring. Fact is that Ferrari have improved their engine dramatically, and have the best chassis. They should win (ceteris paribus) in Monaco and Spain (it's not the particular tyres themselves, but the interaction between tyre and circuit). At which point I will be backing the still longer odds Hamilton for the title.
You keep forgetting that the British public just voted to water down our relationship with the EU. I know you don't like the result, but that is what we voted for, a lesser relationship with the EU. Also, there are far more than three options, especially if one of them is remain. Your logic is completely flawed because you refuse to acknowledge that the people voted for it and on the whole will be comfortable with a lesser relationship with the EU. It is only EUphiles like yourself that are running around like headless chickens worrying about what the fools in Brussels think.
You believe the consensus of voters is happy for Brexit to be a crash-out and would see that as Brexit success? I have seen no evidence of that. As I said in the post you objected to, voters rejected membership, I don't think they want to crash out; but they won't want to accept the terms of a non-membership close relationship. Somehow that's going to have to be resolved. It's the issue that has obsessed me since before the referendum. (I know, too much comment from me on this. Sorry).
The point about Brexit is people voted for an end to mass immigration, £350 million more for the NHS and generally against the current economic situation. The fact they WILL NOT get any of this delivered to them seems to pass by those who supported Brexit. I voted Remain and I still think I was right to do so. However, Brexit is a reality and I will be interested in the reaction by those expecting £350 million more for the NHS and the fact continued mass immigration will take place as well as the economy follows a much worse trajectory. It is too late to stop Brexit now as we will be seen as weak by the EU if we bottle it.
Most important quote from Juncker dinner is 'Brexit cannot be a success.' What's 'best' for them isn't just economic interest of a good deal.
Cannot can be a statement of opinion or of aspiration.
Possibly both. I've said below why the latter is true for the ardent EUphiles and believers in "the project". If we show there is life after the EU outside of the single market then the value of the EU drops to zero for a lot of countries, most of them net contributors. Why trade one's sovereignty for economic gain if those same gains can be had without making that sacrifice?
It's one of the reasons why I think the government needs to lay out a radical tax cutting and investment agenda so we succeed regardless of whether we are in or out of the single market. There are enough domestic tools available to offset any minor losses we may experience from leaving the single market, the government just have to be bold enough to use them.
What tools do we use to keep large-scale car manufacturers in the UK if we crash out of the EU with no deal? Whatever it is we will need to repeat the trick across a large number of sectors in which complex European supply chains and large-scale European exports are a necessity.
we do what we always used to and encourage supply chain development
Apologies if everyone is aware of this already, but the details of Sunday's ICM poll are now up on their website. I mention this not in order to say anything about the tables themselves, but for the sake of the following admission:
"In a poll conducted for the Sun on Sunday, a slight fightback is recorded for Labour, but not to the extent identified in a couple of other polls. Indeed, this lower Conservative lead is a largely based on ICM’s methodological adjustment, which returned 2-points to Labour directly from the Tories as part of the Partial Refuser adjustment. Without that, it would have been “as you were”."
i.e. more evidence that they're (probably all) tweaking their assumptions and massaging the figures on an ongoing basis as this campaign goes along, and therefore, over time, the polls - even when coming from the same company - are not necessarily directly comparable with one another.
Tentative predictions:
1. By the end of the election campaign, all the companies will have herded together and will be reporting roughly the same figures (again.) That's probably just me being the most dreadful old cynic, but we'll see... 2. Consequently, they'll all be wrong by roughly the same margin, most likely counting Labour's VI too high, and the Conservatives' and the Liberal Democrats' too low.
Yep 156 LD voters weighted down to 124 , 99 UKIP voters up to 110 .
That's true of most polls and their unweighted samples though, UKIP under-represented and LDs over. The same is true for the C2DE/ABC1 split (these two statistics are correlated). I mean half the people who get polled appear to post on this website so i'm not sure how much we should trust any pollster...
Apologies if everyone is aware of this already, but the details of Sunday's ICM poll are now up on their website. I mention this not in order to say anything about the tables themselves, but for the sake of the following admission:
"In a poll conducted for the Sun on Sunday, a slight fightback is recorded for Labour, but not to the extent identified in a couple of other polls. Indeed, this lower Conservative lead is a largely based on ICM’s methodological adjustment, which returned 2-points to Labour directly from the Tories as part of the Partial Refuser adjustment. Without that, it would have been “as you were”."
i.e. more evidence that they're (probably all) tweaking their assumptions and massaging the figures on an ongoing basis as this campaign goes along, and therefore, over time, the polls - even when coming from the same company - are not necessarily directly comparable with one another.
Tentative predictions:
1. By the end of the election campaign, all the companies will have herded together and will be reporting roughly the same figures (again.) That's probably just me being the most dreadful old cynic, but we'll see... 2. Consequently, they'll all be wrong by roughly the same margin, most likely counting Labour's VI too high, and the Conservatives' and the Liberal Democrats' too low.
Worth noting that their figures for the North are inclusive of Scotland and the Midlands includes Wales even though they are also separated out.
Apologies if everyone is aware of this already, but the details of Sunday's ICM poll are now up on their website. I mention this not in order to say anything about the tables themselves, but for the sake of the following admission:
"In a poll conducted for the Sun on Sunday, a slight fightback is recorded for Labour, but not to the extent identified in a couple of other polls. Indeed, this lower Conservative lead is a largely based on ICM’s methodological adjustment, which returned 2-points to Labour directly from the Tories as part of the Partial Refuser adjustment. Without that, it would have been “as you were”."
i.e. more evidence that they're (probably all) tweaking their assumptions and massaging the figures on an ongoing basis as this campaign goes along, and therefore, over time, the polls - even when coming from the same company - are not necessarily directly comparable with one another.
Tentative predictions:
1. By the end of the election campaign, all the companies will have herded together and will be reporting roughly the same figures (again.) That's probably just me being the most dreadful old cynic, but we'll see... 2. Consequently, they'll all be wrong by roughly the same margin, most likely counting Labour's VI too high, and the Conservatives' and the Liberal Democrats' too low.
Yep 156 LD voters weighted down to 124 , 99 UKIP voters up to 110 .
That's true of most polls and their unweighted samples though, UKIP under-represented and LDs over. The same is true for the C2DE/ABC1 split (these two statistics are correlated). I mean half the people who get polled appear to post on this website so i'm not sure how much we should trust any pollster...
It's funny because before the last GE, the LDs were constantly being uprated, and UKIP down-rated. And for exactly the same reason: i.e. they found too many people who said they voted UKIP in 2010, and too few who said they voted LD.
Apologies if everyone is aware of this already, but the details of Sunday's ICM poll are now up on their website. I mention this not in order to say anything about the tables themselves, but for the sake of the following admission:
"In a poll conducted for the Sun on Sunday, a slight fightback is recorded for Labour, but not to the extent identified in a couple of other polls. Indeed, this lower Conservative lead is a largely based on ICM’s methodological adjustment, which returned 2-points to Labour directly from the Tories as part of the Partial Refuser adjustment. Without that, it would have been “as you were”."
i.e. more evidence that they're (probably all) tweaking their assumptions and massaging the figures on an ongoing basis as this campaign goes along, and therefore, over time, the polls - even when coming from the same company - are not necessarily directly comparable with one another.
Tentative predictions:
1. By the end of the election campaign, all the companies will have herded together and will be reporting roughly the same figures (again.) That's probably just me being the most dreadful old cynic, but we'll see... 2. Consequently, they'll all be wrong by roughly the same margin, most likely counting Labour's VI too high, and the Conservatives' and the Liberal Democrats' too low.
I wonder if a version of Lusser's Law is applicable to polling. The more modifications they make to the raw data based on assumptions, the less likely the end result is to be accurate.
Almost certainly true. I am now trying to take the results of all these polls with a pinch of salt, and apply my own common sense to the reading of some of these answers. My iron rule is that any poll which says that Labour is on 30%, and the Lib Dems aren't doing any better than at the last election, is wrong. These ICM data just pass on both counts.
I am having trouble believing that the Tories will get above 45% - if something seems to be too good to be true, it probably is - but if they can syphon a large enough share of the vote from Ukip then I suppose it's not wholly out of the question.
Just saw Theresa May meeting the public and then taking press questions. She framed the EU leaks today as mischief and did not recognise them but then turned the briefings into confirming the negotiations are going to be tough and who do want at the table, me or Jeremy Corbyn.
This is a change in emphasis to May v Corbyn to front Brexit and there is only going to be one winner in that argument. Expect to hear it everyday. This silly EU briefing is going to rebound on the EU.
She was asked about Blair returning to the campaign and her put down was classic
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
Glad you are not negotiating on behalf of UK plc
Willy-waving is not a negotiating strategy. UK plc wants a deal, not a cliff-edge Brexit.
It is not willy-waving to know what you want and stick to it - at very least for a while in an 18-month negotiation. If you second-guess yourself into concessions from the outset you will be well and truly screwed.
The first negotiation party to step across the line into the other party's ZOPA on average loses about 95% of the value in the ZOPA and - far worse - may often be forced into a deal that they would have rejected before negotiations started. That is why it is essential for May not to give too many concessions too early. She should state our preferred position (no payments, no ECJ, out of single market and customs area), stick to it, and let the EU offer the first suggestions as to what relationship they'd accept on those terms.
Most important quote from Juncker dinner is 'Brexit cannot be a success.' What's 'best' for them isn't just economic interest of a good deal.
Cannot can be a statement of opinion or of aspiration.
Possibly both. I've said below why the latter is true for the ardent EUphiles and believers in "the project". If we show there is life after the EU outside of the single market then the value of the EU drops to zero for a lot of countries, most of them net contributors. Why trade one's sovereignty for economic gain if those same gains can be had without making that sacrifice?
It's one of the reasons why I think the government needs to lay out a radical tax cutting and investment agenda so we succeed regardless of whether we are in or out of the single market. There are enough domestic tools available to offset any minor losses we may experience from leaving the single market, the government just have to be bold enough to use them.
What tools do we use to keep large-scale car manufacturers in the UK if we crash out of the EU with no deal? Whatever it is we will need to repeat the trick across a large number of sectors in which complex European supply chains and large-scale European exports are a necessity.
That could be a tough one. I suppose it's just about possible that Japanese manufacturers might expand their U.K. production to supplant EU imports made more expensive as a result of Brexit. In any event, significant (i.e. any) trade barriers are going to cause rather a lot of dislocation.
"What tools do we use to keep large-scale car manufacturers in the UK if we crash out of the EU with no deal? Whatever it is we will need to repeat the trick across a large number of sectors in which complex European supply chains and large-scale European exports are a necessity. " - you expect the EU to put pressure to move jobs to the EU. But they have been doing that all along - see Ford in Southampton.
"During a visit to Dreams Daycare nursery in Insch on Monday, the first minister said: "The issue at the heart of this election is, whether you support independence or oppose independence, surely that decision should be taken by people in Scotland, by the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament, and not by a Tory government at Westminster".
"Ms Sturgeon, ***who was campaigning alongside Alex Salmond,*** highlighted the "stark contrast" between her party's investment in childcare and the prime minister's cuts to child tax credits."
Ah, so the General Election IS about independence after all - contrary to the denials from only a week ago...
"The general election is not about deciding if Scotland should be independent or not, the First Minister has said.
"Scots will go to the polls on June 8 in a snap vote called by the Prime Minister last week.
"The election comes shortly after Sturgeon called for a second independence referendum after Downing Street rejected her plans to keep Scotland inside the European single market even if the rest of the UK left.
"The SNP leader warned Scottish voters who back the Conservatives in June's election will enable Theresa May to carry out "deeper cuts" on the country's public services.
"Sturgeon made the comments in an interview on STV's Scotland Tonight programme.
She said the forthcoming vote "is not deciding whether or not Scotland is independent" and added it would be for a subsequent debate about the country's future where she "would have to set out the process for resecuring our future with Europe."
Well, well, who'd-a-thunk it?
Conclusions:
1. Sturgeon lied through her teeth 2. Salmond got back from the Evil Wastemonster to issue fresh instructions 3. The organ grinder is now ensuring that the monkey bangs the cymbals to the correct tune
Apologies if everyone is aware of this already, but the details of Sunday's ICM poll are now up on their website. I mention this not in order to say anything about the tables themselves, but for the sake of the following admission:
"In a poll conducted for the Sun on Sunday, a slight fightback is recorded for Labour, but not to the extent identified in a couple of other polls. Indeed, this lower Conservative lead is a largely based on ICM’s methodological adjustment, which returned 2-points to Labour directly from the Tories as part of the Partial Refuser adjustment. Without that, it would have been “as you were”."
i.e. more evidence that they're (probably all) tweaking their assumptions and massaging the figures on an ongoing basis as this campaign goes along, and therefore, over time, the polls - even when coming from the same company - are not necessarily directly comparable with one another.
Tentative predictions:
1. By the end of the election campaign, all the companies will have herded together and will be reporting roughly the same figures (again.) That's probably just me being the most dreadful old cynic, but we'll see... 2. Consequently, they'll all be wrong by roughly the same margin, most likely counting Labour's VI too high, and the Conservatives' and the Liberal Democrats' too low.
Yep 156 LD voters weighted down to 124 , 99 UKIP voters up to 110 .
That's true of most polls and their unweighted samples though, UKIP under-represented and LDs over. The same is true for the C2DE/ABC1 split (these two statistics are correlated). I mean half the people who get polled appear to post on this website so i'm not sure how much we should trust any pollster...
It's funny because before the last GE, the LDs were constantly being uprated, and UKIP down-rated. And for exactly the same reason: i.e. they found too many people who said they voted UKIP in 2010, and too few who said they voted LD.
I suspect that is in large part due to the change in demographic support of the parties. The Yougov polls from 2010 show that when the LDs were in the 20s in the polls their vote was equal among both ABC1 and C2DE. Now since their collapse it is an ABC1 landslide. Perhaps some of the C2DE NOTA voters who deserted them for UKIP misremembered supporting their new party.
Probably downthread "After considering the case of Simon Danczuk in detail and speaking to him in an interview, the Labour Party’s NEC endorsement panel today unanimously recommended that he should not be endorsed as a Labour candidate. He will not be able to stand as a Labour candidate in any constituency at the General Election."
"What tools do we use to keep large-scale car manufacturers in the UK if we crash out of the EU with no deal? Whatever it is we will need to repeat the trick across a large number of sectors in which complex European supply chains and large-scale European exports are a necessity. " - you expect the EU to put pressure to move jobs to the EU. But they have been doing that all along - see Ford in Southampton.
Ford Europe take us all for fools
their constant bleating about they might have to leave the UK post Brexit more or less ignores the fact that de facto they already have.
In the 70s when we joined Ford was the UK's largest car manufacturer with 4 car assembly plants knocking out about 500000 cars and vans
today nothing. all the production has been transferred to Europe to make plants in Germany and Spain more profitable.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
Y
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've nright.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
Glad you are not negotiating on behalf of UK plc
Willy-waving is not a negotiating strategy. UK plc wants a deal, not a cliff-edge Brexit.
It is not willy-waving to know what you want and stick to it - at very least for a while in an 18-month negotiation. If you second-guess yourself into concessions from the outset you will be well and truly screwed.
The first negotiation party to step across the line into the other party's ZOPA on average loses about 95% of the value in the ZOPA and - far worse - may often be forced into a deal that they would have rejected before negotiations started. That is why it is essential for May not to give too many concessions too early. She should state our preferred position (no payments, no ECJ, out of single market and customs area), stick to it, and let the EU offer the first suggestions as to what relationship they'd accept on those terms.
Varoufakis is very interesting on negotiating with the EU. Basically he says they are lying, devious bastards, never trust them, play hardball, ignore their promises, don't give an inch unless you absolutely have to - hopefully this is exactly what TMay is doing
I'll introduce you to my friend at the IMF who was on the team in Greece. She says Varoufakis was utterly delusional, would rail against international capitalism for 20 minutes mid meeting, and would spend all the time between meetings trying to undo whatever had been agreed during the meeting.
She's pretty rude about the EU too, with the exception of the further Dutch finance minister, but her fundamental view of Varoufakis is that he would have been happy to see Greece burn if it increased the chance of true socialism rising from the ashes.
Mr. Palmer, cheers for that update von Deutschland.
Mr. Rook, thanks for that post on ICM polling.
Mr. B, Raikkonen's still 34 to win (or was when I checked this morning). Each way, top 2 a third the odds. If the Ferrari's good enough, that may be handy.
I agree that Ferrari should win at those circuits, although an ill-timed safety car could define either race.
During the referendum a Ford spokesman threatened "you will have to pay thousands more for your Ford cars". Or buy a Honda, Nissan, Toyota, JLR of course.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
Y
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've nright.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
Glad you are not negotiating on behalf of UK plc
Willy-waving is not a negotiating strategy. UK plc wants a deal, not a cliff-edge Brexit.
It is not willy-waving to know what you want and stick to it - at very least for a while in an 18-month negotiation. If you second-guess yourself into concessions from the outset you will be well and truly screwed.
The first negotiation party to step across the line into the other party's ZOPA on average loses about 95% of the value in the ZOPA and - far worse - may often be forced into a deal that they would have rejected before negotiations started. That is why it is essential for May not to give too many concessions too early. She should state our preferred position (no payments, no ECJ, out of single market and customs area), stick to it, and let the EU offer the first suggestions as to what relationship they'd accept on those terms.
Varoufakis is very interesting on negotiating with the EU. Basically he says they are lying, devious bastards, never trust them, play hardball, ignore their promises, don't give an inch unless you absolutely have to - hopefully this is exactly what TMay is doing
I'll introduce you to my friend at the IMF who was on the team in Greece. She says Varoufakis was utterly delusional, would rail against international capitalism for 20 minutes mid meeting, and would spend all the time between meetings trying to undo whatever had been agreed during the meeting.
She's pretty rude about the EU too, with the exception of the further Dutch finance minister, but her fundamental view of Varoufakis is that he would have been happy to see Greece burn if it increased the chance of true socialism rising from the ashes.
I think we can at least rely on May not to pursue true socialism ?
Comments
Interesting. Spain's next up, then Monaco. Passing's tricky in Spain, and perhaps even more so in Monaco.
What will be intriguing is seeing if qualifying in Russia was a one-off, or if the ban on oil-burning has removed a key Mercedes advantage. Ferrari are super on the supersoft tyres, which are likely to be used for Monaco (not sure about Spain).
Anyway, not long enough for me to bet, but I think this is the first time he's been odds against.
NATO still exists.
Ask what's behind the other door?
A short, extremely offensive word describes them.
"Three teenage women have been arrested in connection with an “active terror plot” which was foiled by police after a dramatic raid at a house in Willesden.
Scotland Yard said a 19-year-old woman and two others, both aged 18, have been arrested on suspicion of the commission, preparation and instigation of terrorist acts.
The teenagers were arrested at three addresses in east London on Monday morning and taken into custody at a police station outside of the capital.
A 21-year-old woman who was shot by armed police as they carried out the raid on the address was discharged from hospital and arrested on suspicion of terror offence, Scotland Yard said on Sunday."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/three-women-arrested-over-active-terror-plot-in-fresh-raids-linked-to-willesden-op-a3527686.html
Hungary is currently in NATO. Do you think Orban wouldn't ally with Putin in a Europe where there was no EU?
I always been an Irish Unionist rather than an Ulster one. :-)
I realise we have a choice. My point is, we are not making it.
The United Ireland clause was questioned by Tsipras in relation to the position of Cyprus.
The Turkish occupied part could conceivably become part of the EU as it too is currently a divided island.
The most important members of NATO in terms of military power are probably the US, UK, France and Turkey. Once we leave the EU, only one of those will be in it. I think you overestimate the accuracy of the EU's self-aggrandising claims.
However, why leak? If the EU side have, well it questions the integrity of the whole process. If Juncker did actually say "Brexit cannot be a success", ditto.
Whilst I can see the EU might want some outlines of what we are prepared to do vis a vis Ireland, citizens, money etc it falls flat for me because we are not going to agree anything till it's all agreed. We are not going to hand over 50bn unless we know there's a FTA acceptable to us. How do we know how what customs or other arrangements to have in Newry when we don't know what the FTA deal will be? Would we need a Norway/Sweden arrangement, nothing at all, or a Trumpian wall?Does the EU want a "vanilla" deal on citizens or some form of complex extra judiciality for them via the ECJ (we walk in my view if that were the case), etc etc etc.
@Krishnan Guru-Murthy
Most important quote from Juncker dinner is 'Brexit cannot be a success.' What's 'best' for them isn't just economic interest of a good deal.
we could then sell scotland to the usa as a submarine base, clear the national debt and still have a supply of decent whiskey
Given that there was never democratic consent for our membership in the Project, our Leaving was inevitable. It wouldn't have been any easier 10 or 20 years down the line...
To paraphrase Tim Farron: that post is a sin.
I lack knowledge about exactly how the SNP managed to come to prominence between the end of the War and the 1970s, but I imagine it probably had more to do with the dissolution of the Empire - England & Scotland's big common project, beyond the British state itself - allied to the SNP challenging Scottish Labour politically from the Left.
Of course, after Margaret Thatcher came along, Scottish Labour cultivated nationalism as part of its project to take apart the Scottish Tories, delegitimize (English-dominated) Conservative Government from Westminster, and thereby cement its own dominance in Scotland. It rode the tiger of nationalism successfully for many years, but no social democrat movement with internationalist and universalist leanings is ever, in the long run, going to prosper using that strategy. It was thrown to the ground, and a genuine nationalist movement mauled it to death. Hence where Scotland finds itself now.
the SNP said 5 million scots should have the revenue rather than 60 million brits
this was a fair pitch at the time but is now 40 years past its sell by date
It's one of the reasons why I think the government needs to lay out a radical tax cutting and investment agenda so we succeed regardless of whether we are in or out of the single market. There are enough domestic tools available to offset any minor losses we may experience from leaving the single market, the government just have to be bold enough to use them.
Don't watch snooker much nowadays.
BREAKING: @SimonDanczuk has been told he cannot stand again as a Labour candidate in Rochdale. He is considering legal action, sources said.
uk and eu will both be better off :-)
"In a poll conducted for the Sun on Sunday, a slight fightback is recorded for Labour, but not to the extent identified in a couple of other polls. Indeed, this lower Conservative lead is a largely based on ICM’s methodological adjustment, which returned 2-points to Labour directly from the Tories as part of the Partial Refuser adjustment. Without that, it would have been “as you were”."
i.e. more evidence that they're (probably all) tweaking their assumptions and massaging the figures on an ongoing basis as this campaign goes along, and therefore, over time, the polls - even when coming from the same company - are not necessarily directly comparable with one another.
Tentative predictions:
1. By the end of the election campaign, all the companies will have herded together and will be reporting roughly the same figures (again.) That's probably just me being the most dreadful old cynic, but we'll see...
2. Consequently, they'll all be wrong by roughly the same margin, most likely counting Labour's VI too high, and the Conservatives' and the Liberal Democrats' too low.
An awful lot of countries are going to be dissapointed in 2 years time.
this lower Conservative lead is a largely based on ICM’s methodological adjustment, which returned 2-points to Labour directly from the Tories as part of the Partial Refuser adjustment. Without that, it would have been “as you were
I don't think that means they've tweaked their methodology, but that they have applied it as usual and in this particular poll that adjustment made more difference than in the previous one.
This might be related to the Bank Holiday affecting the polling. We should probably wait to see what happens once we're back to normal working weeks.
Labour bans Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk.
the surrender monkeys are out in force, the threat to supplies of camembert is clearly concerning them
https://medium.com/@pererinza/winning-with-pr-an-fptpers-guide-27437c3e1b89
The much larger North Rhine Westphalia is the following Sunday. The picture here looks similar, except that the Greens are well down on last time. Again, the CDU will be satisfied if the results match the polling.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/landtage/index.htm
If the CDU do well in both, Merkel's chances on Betfair, currently 1.65, will probably come in a bit:
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128390571
YES! (agrees fervently)
[goes back to work]
Fact is that Ferrari have improved their engine dramatically, and have the best chassis. They should win (ceteris paribus) in Monaco and Spain (it's not the particular tyres themselves, but the interaction between tyre and circuit).
At which point I will be backing the still longer odds Hamilton for the title.
At least that's my cunning plan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39769564
I am having trouble believing that the Tories will get above 45% - if something seems to be too good to be true, it probably is - but if they can syphon a large enough share of the vote from Ukip then I suppose it's not wholly out of the question.
This is a change in emphasis to May v Corbyn to front Brexit and there is only going to be one winner in that argument. Expect to hear it everyday. This silly EU briefing is going to rebound on the EU.
She was asked about Blair returning to the campaign and her put down was classic
The first negotiation party to step across the line into the other party's ZOPA on average loses about 95% of the value in the ZOPA and - far worse - may often be forced into a deal that they would have rejected before negotiations started. That is why it is essential for May not to give too many concessions too early. She should state our preferred position (no payments, no ECJ, out of single market and customs area), stick to it, and let the EU offer the first suggestions as to what relationship they'd accept on those terms.
I suppose it's just about possible that Japanese manufacturers might expand their U.K. production to supplant EU imports made more expensive as a result of Brexit.
In any event, significant (i.e. any) trade barriers are going to cause rather a lot of dislocation.
"Ms Sturgeon, ***who was campaigning alongside Alex Salmond,*** highlighted the "stark contrast" between her party's investment in childcare and the prime minister's cuts to child tax credits."
Ah, so the General Election IS about independence after all - contrary to the denials from only a week ago...
https://stv.tv/news/politics/1386631-sturgeon-general-election-is-not-about-independence/
"The general election is not about deciding if Scotland should be independent or not, the First Minister has said.
"Scots will go to the polls on June 8 in a snap vote called by the Prime Minister last week.
"The election comes shortly after Sturgeon called for a second independence referendum after Downing Street rejected her plans to keep Scotland inside the European single market even if the rest of the UK left.
"The SNP leader warned Scottish voters who back the Conservatives in June's election will enable Theresa May to carry out "deeper cuts" on the country's public services.
"Sturgeon made the comments in an interview on STV's Scotland Tonight programme.
She said the forthcoming vote "is not deciding whether or not Scotland is independent" and added it would be for a subsequent debate about the country's future where she "would have to set out the process for resecuring our future with Europe."
Well, well, who'd-a-thunk it?
Conclusions:
1. Sturgeon lied through her teeth
2. Salmond got back from the Evil Wastemonster to issue fresh instructions
3. The organ grinder is now ensuring that the monkey bangs the cymbals to the correct tune
Will he stand against them?!
their constant bleating about they might have to leave the UK post Brexit more or less ignores the fact that de facto they already have.
In the 70s when we joined Ford was the UK's largest car manufacturer with 4 car assembly plants knocking out about 500000 cars and vans
today nothing. all the production has been transferred to Europe to make plants in Germany and Spain more profitable.
She's pretty rude about the EU too, with the exception of the further Dutch finance minister, but her fundamental view of Varoufakis is that he would have been happy to see Greece burn if it increased the chance of true socialism rising from the ashes.
Casper Schmeichel to sign for Man Utd after he recently changed agents to replace Real Madrid bound David De Gea
Mr. Rook, thanks for that post on ICM polling.
Mr. B, Raikkonen's still 34 to win (or was when I checked this morning). Each way, top 2 a third the odds. If the Ferrari's good enough, that may be handy.
I agree that Ferrari should win at those circuits, although an ill-timed safety car could define either race.