Forum: Author Hangout

Can we not build a wall around England to keep out the immigrants? :P

Joking!

Can we not build a wall around England to keep out the immigrants? :P
Joking!

You may soon need a wall to keep your emigrants in. :-)

Can we not build a wall around England to keep out the immigrants? :P

Why not suggest a referendum? The Scots and Welsh would be agreeable. :-)

build a wall around England

Hadrian's didn't work all that well. Perhaps because it was trying to keep out the Scots. Or were they Picts?

Can we not build a wall around England to keep out the immigrants? :P

"Now fill it with water."

it might be a tad extreme to drown the English. Just building a wall around england and keeping them out of europe is enough ;)

Just building a wall around england and keeping them out of europe is enough ;)

But they're only 20 miles away! That's close enough so you'll still be able to hear them constantly bickering amongst themselves. :-)

Requires subscription to read :(

I suspect that only applies to those in the UK. Look in your email inbox.

I'll forward a copy to anyone who wants it if they send me an email contact via the SOL mail system.

It's somewhat worrying that 30% of the standards are dreamt up by EU Commissioners, those worthy gentlemen who came up with standards for banana curvaceousness, cucumber straightness and the tampon tax, and are currently trying to ban floodlights powerful enough for pop concerts and nighttime sporting events.

I didn't think I would come across someone who still believes the Banana myth. *smh*
Those regulations are for QUALITY. Nothing is banned. You can have straight, curvy, even looping Bananas or Cucumber. What the EU regulated was the quality classification and for the best classification, specific fruits and vegetables have to be in a specific shape, consistency, length, and volume.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/11/boris-johnson-launches-the-vote-leave-battlebus-in-cornwall

I've read too many articles where it bends the truth or lies by omission :(

or outright lies. Sadly that seems to describe pretty much ALL news media nowadays. From CNN to Fox and everything in between...

the "outright lies" was meant for the media in general, not specifically for the Guardian :)

Now, the Daily Mail . . . that was the paper which employed Kate Hopkins until the cost of the libel actions exceeded what they were prepared to tolerate.
The Mail has just appointed a new editor (apparently one who supports staying in the EU), under the previous one it saw no reason to publish the truth if lies were a better fit to its agenda.

All free(?) market media corporations around the world have owners. Those owners are to a fault biased. That bias rears it's head by way of editors employed by those owners. Be it overt, covert, or omission lies, a lie is a lie. The guardian is not immune to that by any stretch of imagination.

Sadly that seems to describe pretty much ALL news media nowadays. From CNN to Fox and everything in between...

I think you're mistaking American mass media for ALL mass media.

I see much American mass media as hardly even pretending to distinguish facts from opinions anymore.

I've read a lot of British newspaper articles about Brexit lately and I'm inclined to agree with AJ. The various outlets are all very biased but they seem open out what their biases are. I've seen a lot of selectivity in which facts are presented but not so much of opinions presented as if they were facts.

allowing [Freedom of Movement] would be electoral suicide.

I agree. I think anything which ends Freedom of Movement will be popular with voters - even if nothing else Brexiteers want is achieved.

If I interpret the FT article correctly, this could be a back-door way of accepting the other three Freedoms (goods, services, and capital) without staying in the Single Market.

The Uk has to decide if they want to crash out into
- a hard Brexit, burning enough money to finance 3 to 5 decades of EU contributions, pissing off many leave voters
- a soft Brexit with all 4 freedoms, pissing off many leave voters
- no Brexit, because it can't be fucking done, pissing off leave voters
- a hard border between North Ireland and the rest of UK, massively undermining the bond of the Union, pissing off unionists
- or the Unicorn and Rainbows miracle solution that the UK government promises but doesn't know how.

The Uk has to decide if they want ...

I disagree. The UK cannot do whatever it wants - not if it means reneging on its obligations under an existing international treaty.

I haven't seen anything the UK government has suggested so far that does not constitute unilaterally tearing up its treaty with Ireland which implemented the Good Friday Agreement. I think the EU correctly refuses to the midwife to the UK doing that to one of its remaining members. If the UK insists on doing that the EU will not agree nor even discuss anything they may do later - until after the awful deed has been irrevocably done!

I know the EU has a reputation for being willing to negotiate away their grandmothers to squeeze more money out of the Brits. That reputation is not undeserved. But this time, I'm convinced they are steadfastly defending a principle, albeit a principle which coincides with what they want to happen.

The Tories and DUP are very fond of listing all their "red lines". The EU has one too. All of those cannot be satisfied.

I'm convinced the EU is not bluffing, and there will be no deal which does not include Northern Ireland staying in their Single Market.

They have suggested a viable solution: a hard border on the Irish Sea. That is unacceptable to the Brits, but only because of their internal political situation. I'd say the underlying problem is the Brits voted in a referendum for something they're not willing to do, and they haven't woken up to that fact yet.

Why is a hard border within a country more 'viable' than a hard border between two countries?

The way I see it, because it doesn't the countries obligations to a neighbour under an existing treaty.

They have suggested a viable solution: a hard border on the Irish Sea. That is unacceptable to the Brits, but only because of their internal political situation. I'd say the underlying problem is the Brits voted in a referendum for something they're not willing to do, and they haven't woken up to that fact yet.

"The Brits" (voters)who voted to leave are not the same "Brits" (politicians) who are currently negotiating. So your statement is in error.

A referendum was held and the majority of voters wanted out of the EU.

Those in power didn't like the result, but now have to follow it through.

There are a number of groups that will happily try to negotiate some kind of half-way house.

The UK Government does not often hold a referendum, but when it does, it is duty bound to abide by the result. If it does not, or negotiates a result other than in accordance with the referendum result, what claim to credibility is there?

It really does not matter which way anyone voted, the fact is that the Government held a referendum, the people voted, and the result was Leave. If Parliament does not abide by the result then the UK is no longer a democracy. A Parliament that circumvents the will of the people is going to find the political landscape changing in ways they don't expect or anticipate, just like they didn't give any real credence to the referendum result being leave.

The thing is, the Government does not need to heed the referendum, it wasn't binding.

Also, like i said earlier, the leave voters are divided, there is no way that a majority is happy about any of the deals, because people voted to leave for different reasons.

The thing is, the Government does not need to heed the referendum, it wasn't binding.

If that was the case the result would have been ignored as soon as the last vote was counted.

Also, like i said earlier, the leave voters are divided, there is no way that a majority is happy about any of the deals, because people voted to leave for different reasons.

Of course they had different reasons, but they did all agree to vote leave.

So they shouldn't moan when they are not getting what they want.

So they shouldn't moan when they are not getting what they want.

Hold that thought until we find out exactly what the "deal" ends up being.

Hold that thought until we find out exactly what the "deal" ends up being.

regardless what the deal ends up being, there will be a massive amount of leave voters who will feel betrayed.

the Government held a referendum, the people voted, and the result was Leave. If Parliament does not abide by the result then the UK is no longer a democracy.

The problem I see is that this referendum is inconsistent with the referendums that approved the Good Friday Agreement. Those approved the precise wording of an agreement which was them implemented as an international treaty. 71% voted in favour in Northern Ireland, and 94% in Ireland.

I would not support any country breaking international law to satisfy the democratic will of their own people. That is what I see as happening if the UK leaves the EU in the manner that many Leavers want. I think the EU has had no option, legally or morally, other than rejecting outright ever proposal put forward by the UK government so far regarding what will happen in Northern Ireland.

71% voted in favour in Northern Ireland, and 94% in Ireland.

And the % vote in England ??

When we leave the EU crossing the border from NI to Eire is the same as crossing from Dover to Calais. If it isn't the same then the Eire / NI border will be a backdoor into the EU, it's not rocket science.

And the % vote in England ??

When we leave the EU crossing the border from NI to Eire is the same as crossing from Dover to Calais. If it isn't the same then the Eire / NI border will be a backdoor into the EU, it's not rocket science.

Do you even know what the Good Friday Agreement brought?
End of the Northern Ireland Terror that plagued the region for decades. It is not even close to the significance of the Dover/Calais border.

A border between an EU country and a non EU country is a border, regardless of the geography. Upon crossing the border the regulations etc change, if they don't then we have not actually left the EU.

Why argue about borders? The leftists of the world have told us they are just for xenophobes.

Seems stupid to argue over something we have been told is evil.

When we leave the EU crossing the border from NI to Eire is the same as crossing from Dover to Calais.

IT WILL NOT!

Thousands of people cross the Irish border every day to go to work. Nobody crossing that border needs to carry their passports; there is nobody and nothing there to stop them. That came about as a result of the Good Friday Agreement and no one is suggesting that will change.

Are passports currently checked when someone crosses the English Channel? I think so. If not already, they certainly will be after the UK leaves the EU. The UK government has vowed to take back control of the country's borders - not throw them open to all-comers.

You, and they, can't have it both ways.

You, and they, can't have it both ways.

I have no idea what that means.

My point is that the UK is not legally entitled to implement Brexit in a manner which contravenes the Good Friday Agreement. That's going to disappoint many English because it prohibits options for Brexit they've been misled into believing are available.

So, 'legality' is not ultimately a bar to Brexit. The UK could simple tear up the treaty and move on.

That is true and I don't expect Ireland to resort to military force if that happens.

I've been looking an explanation for why the EU's negotiating positions have seemed so contrary to their own self-interest. I think the reason is that while they cannot prevent the UK abrogating on a treaty, they will do nothing which facilitates the UK doing that.

You clearly understand their current predicament. The UK has somehow managed to get itself stuck between a rock, a hard place, and a wrecking ball; and a 16 ton weight is about to be dropped on them. :-)

the truly radical solution - reunification of Ireland.

[Ducks for cover]

It's the potential for that, while being so implausible, that made the Good Friday Agreement such an inspired fudge which must not be torn up.

It promised the Northern protestants that unification would never be forced upon NI without its consent.

It promised the Catholics, from the North and South, the island would increasingly function as a single society with a unified economy - to facilitate the transition to unification if or when both sides voted for that.

That's why I think the EU's agenda (on behalf of Ireland) is to prevent NI from leaving their Single Market.

The EU has implicitly accepted the possibility of some checks at the border. Barnier has said, "The Norway option is available." That means the UK may leave the customs union, and different customs rates would require customs declarations to be made when goods cross the border. It's feasible that could be done online, away from the border, but a small percentage of vehicles crossing the border must be stopped to check the goods being carried match those listed in the customs declaration, otherwise the border becomes 'Smuggler's Alley'. The average delay for vehicles carrying goods across the Norway-EU border is less than 20 minutes. Ireland may not like that, but it's not willing to declare war if it happens.

It appears what Ireland will not accept is a progressive diverge between the standards and regulations in the North and South, and all those being under different jurisdictions. That would make an eventual unification, if ever, of the island much more difficult to achieve. Barnier said about the UK's last written proposal for the "backstop" (my emphasis):

The UK recognises that the proposals in its paper cannot qualify as a backstop since the issue of full regulatory alignment is not addressed. I repeat that we need regulatory alignment to avoid a hard border.

"Regulatory alignment" means NI must remain in the Single Market. I think the EU will do everything in its power to achieve that - and that's precisely what they should be doing.

Why? Shouldn't they be trying to ... find a solution that works for everyone, not just the terrorists?

My personal view is that the EU should be working to protect the democratic will of the Irish peoples, as supported in their referendums, by over 94% of voters in Ireland and over 71% of those in NI. It's not their fault if that makes it impossible to achieve the outcome of another referendum by another group of people.

However, I've been trying to avoid putting a case to support my personal views here, although some surely slipped through. Rather, I've been trying to discuss the reality of the EU's negotiating positions. I don't think it helps the UK to continue internal debates on options which are theoretically possible, but not practically achievable. I include a hard Brexit with a transition period in that category.

BTW, the government just caved in to its Pro-EU rebels on the "meaningful vote" amendment to the Withdrawal bill.

BBC: "MPs vote by 324 to 298 against a bid to give Parliament the decisive say on the UK Brexit deal"

Yes, they managed a face-saving deal to get through this vote in the Commons, but a revised amendment will be put forward by the government when the bill returns to the Lords which will give the "rebels" basically what they wanted.

See this BBC report. It includes this report on what was said by Dr Phillip Lee, the justice minister who resigned today specifically to vote in support of that amendment:

Revealing he had abstained in the Commons vote on Parliament's role, he said he was "delighted" at the government's concession, adding: "This justifies my decision to resign and makes it a lot less painful."

Yes, they managed a face-saving deal to get through this vote in the Commons, but a revised amendment will be put forward by the government when the bill returns to the Lords which will give the "rebels" basically what they wanted.

It looks to me as though MPs only get a say if there's no agreement between the UK and EU by a certain date. That's actually disastrous for those hoping for a no-deal Brexit to wipe out the consequences of May's vacillations.

That seems unsatisfactory to everyone.

(In case you hadn't noticed, the BBC is pro-EU).

AJ

BBC: "MPs vote by 324 to 298 against a bid to give Parliament the decisive say on the UK Brexit deal"

Question Time the next day was fraught. The Speaker commented while ending it, "the baby in the public gallery has behaved impeccably." :-)

You seem to be enjoying the car-crash spectacle of the UK government imploding. Don't you want more export markets for your ostrich eggs and kangaroo testicles?

It's not going to affect me one bit, and I never believed the potential benefits for Australia amounted to much.

So yes, I am enjoying the spectacle. It has all the fascination of a fun day out at the Colosseum - except the Lions are ripping each other to shreds.

I could remind you of the saying 'don't shoot the messenger', but then, I'd ignore that myself if I saw a messenger taking unseemly delight in delivering bad news as quickly as possible.

We Brits are Lions led by Donkeys. It's the Donkeys who are ripping each other to shreds

Really? How many Donkeys are at risk of losing their jobs over this? And how many Lions?

We Brits are Lions led by Donkeys.

So why the determination to be led by British donkeys instead of European ones?

I understand the indignity and irritation in the UK at the often stupid rules imposed by the EU. But is the alternative better?

A hard Brexit will not free the UK from stupid rules; it just adds a second set of stupid rules meaning many businesses would then have to cope with both. And, seting up and administering a new parallel bureaucracy would cost the country a fortune.

I suggest you're better off sticking with the donkeys you know and hate.

I think it's us older people looking for just those donkeys we knew and hate, prior to the 'Common Market/ EEC/ European Union'; those in Brussels are a little too far away to launch half a brick at.

I don't get what you mean.

This may be close: I sometimes wonder how sad it will be for Britain after Brexit - when all you whingeing Poms no longer have Europe to whinge about.

'the computer says no'

I can see it now. Brits going into travel agencies to book holidays on the Mediterranean and being told, 'The EU says no'.

aren't you guys about due for another war over something or another, anyway?

Yes, and it's called the "World Cup", of football, real football, and it starts in two days.

What a shame about America not even qualifying. In case you missed it, the countries you finished behind of in qualifying were Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, and Honduras!

We're America, bitches! (To apparently quote an unnamed source regarding how we really feel.)

I think that unnamed source was Sheryl Sandberg and the original quote is "We are American bitches".

Are you talking soccer or rugby?

Soccer. 'Football' means soccer to most of the world.

Rugby, like cricket, is a mostly former British colony thing.

Either you still would have to comply with EU regulation to continue selling them in the EU

That's what I said.

But outside the restrictive protectionism of the EU bloc, we'd be able to strike trade deals with other countries and lessen our dependence on trade with the EU.

AJ

Does anyone have numbers about Germans naturalized in the UK? Caused the Brexit debate an increase or a decrease?

Naturally, you'd expect an increase from Germans living in the UK wanting to be certain they will not be forced to leave.

The Express newspaper website states applications by 'German hopefuls seeking British citizenship ... rose from 163 to 832 ... during the first quarter of this year' compared to the previous year.

[...] applications by 'German hopefuls seeking British citizenship ... rose from 163 to 832 ... during the first quarter of this year' compared to the previous year.

Just to state the obvious "this year" was 2017 and "previous year" was 2016.

Let's assume the increase was even over all quarters of 2016, that would then be
1st quarter 2016: 163
2nd quarter 2016: 330
3rd quarter 2016: 497
4th quarter 2016: 660 adding to a total of 1650 in 2016.
1st quarter 2017: 832
extrapolating a further increase for the other three quarters of 2017 I guess a total of 4300 to 4500 max. for 2017.

Those figures are significantly lower than for Brits living in Germany seeking German citizenship (2865 in 2016; 7493 in 2017).
One cause of this difference may be Germans living in the UK expect – or know already – they will lose their jobs in the City of London, will be transfered to Frankfurt, so no need to apply for British citizenship.

HM.

Just to state the obvious "this year" was 2017 and "previous year" was 2016.

Right. I hadn't noticed the article I came across was from last year.

I have seen figures for this year of Brits taking German citizenship. The growth from the year before could be called "exponential".

the ditherer's enfeebled negotiating position

You should show some respect for your country's prime minister and refer to her as 'the Ditherer'. :-)

Theresa May is nothing like a politician with the courage of her convictions ;)

Yes. She caves in so consistently when pushed the end result is that no one can trust anything she says. :(

the single market is one of the 4 pillars of a free EU.

They won't let the UK pick what they want, they will get all 4 freedoms or none, NO cherry picking.

They won't let the UK pick what they want, they will get all 4 freedoms or none, NO cherry picking.

I understand why that principle exists.

In this case I would not see it as the UK picking the cherries they want, but them being forced to accept some cherries because of the unique situation with the Irish border.

I think the EU should, at the very least, accept the UK is going to free itself of the EU's Freedom of Movement rules. That's the one the voters really care about, and both main parties know they'll be crucified by the electorate if they prevent that being achieved.

The danger I see if the EU stick to their ideals -- and try to make the UK eat the entire cherry tree -- is mutual economic destruction AND a hard border in Ireland.

OTOH, I don't see any awareness in the UK of the critical importance of the ECJ to the EU. Continuing to accept the ECJ is an affront to the UK's dignity. So what? For the remaining members of the EU it's the only way they can trust each other! They don't know what kind of government future elections in Poland, Hungary, Romania, etc. will bring. To trust what may come later they need a rules-based system with a common jurisdiction. The UK cannot see why the EU does not trust them on security matters. It's not the UK they distrust; it's their other members! They need the ECJ to keep them in line, thus the UK must accept the ECJ too before any cooperation on security is possible.

Why should the EU bow to UK's unreasonable demands? it is the UK's job to set the stage with the red lines the EU had drawn. And that is 4 Freedoms if they want access to the single market.

You can't just cancel your subscription to Sky and tell them you still want access to channel xyz.

If they can't agree to 4 freedoms, the UK has to decide if they want a hard border between northern Ireland and rest-UK or hard border between northern Ireland and rest-Ireland.
First would break up the UK in 2 to 3 decades, second would break off northern Ireland in 5 to 10 years.

btw, lord ashcroft poll found out, that leave voters would chose brexit instead the continuation of the Union:

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/06/leave-voters-would-rather-lose-northern-ireland-than-give-up-the-benefits-of-brexit/

We also asked Leave voters in Britain whether they would leave the EU, or keep England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales together in the UK, if it were impossible to do both. Most, including more than seven in 10 Tory voters, said they would rather leave the EU.

I would agree with you completely - if not for the unique situation with the Irish border.

I'd love to see where the various poster live

I have no interest in the outcome; I'm an Australian living in Indonesia.

I think Brexit is economic madness. I see many Brits wanting to control immigration, but I don't think that's the real cause of the problems which concern them.

For me, much of the fun is the chance to josh with AJ, who's a Brit and ardent Brexiteer.

Yes, The Ditherer is dithering again :(

Perhaps the only point of this exercise was to reassert cabinet solidarity? The proposals effectively give in on the single market for goods, ECJ jurisdiction, and freedom of movement; but they are crafted to give the appearance that the UK will control those things - well, just enough of that appearance to make it difficult for cabinet members who hate the implications to resign on the spot.

Still, anything that can get Boris, DD, and company to shut the fuck up, or walk, has got to be considered a universal blessing upon mankind. :-)

I find his bluntness refreshing.

I have no problem with him being blunt at home, but not about domestic issues in countries he is visiting.

We can't competitively export steel, oil, cotton, or computers anymore.

We have to do something about our balance of trade.

So now we're exporting assholes...

We have to do something about our balance of trade.

YES! That is like an anchor slowly dragging the country down the rankings of international prosperity.

I think Brexit is the wrong solution. It blames foreigners - every country cannot be right to blame foreigners for their own difficulties - and it looks for the "magic bullet" to fix everything.

I think the underlying problem is poor productivity growth. That's the only way to grow the number of jobs which pay a decent wage. But the real solutions take too long for politicians. It requires investments in education and infrastructure, for starters. The Tories don't invest in the future: they spend any available resources on tax cuts. Labour don't either: they spend them on social programs.

The UK has a particular problem with its two-speed economy, the expensive South-East and the under-resourced remainder. That limits the country's potential competitiveness and is even harder to solve than education and infrastructure.

The Brexiters claim that the burdens of excessive EU bureaucracy can be reduced after the UK leaves. I think the result will be the exact opposite. The government will spend a fortune on setting up and administering a new parallel bureaucracy, even if it cuts the number of rules. And many businesses will have not have less rules to cope with; they'll have to start dealing with two sets of rules instead of one.

The thing that would disturb me is that, no matter what the outcome, Brexit is producing a hiatus in investment which is damaging its productivity even more. For years, businesses and government are not going to devote any available time or resources to improving productivity. They'll devote all of those to the transition and planning for it. A country never catches back up after that kind of one-off hit to its productivity.

That's already happening. The UK dropped from the top of GDP growth among G7 countries to the bottom six months after the vote to leave. That's the opposite of what should happen after a sudden devaluation of the currency by over 10%. At the same time, unemployment is down. Employers aren't investing in improving productivity. As needs be, they're employing extra staff instead while investments are on hold. That cannot continue for long. Those jobs are inherently uncompetitive.

He is undermining a current head of state and being in favor of the rival. That is nothing an allied head of state would do diplomatically and would be considered a very major diplomatic faux pas and at worst a possible act of war.
He is basically trying to overthrow an allied NATO Government.

The second issue: He is insinuating that the EU is an enemy of the United States and is sanctioning anyone doing trade deals with the EU.

He is undermining a current head of state and being in favor of the rival.

Which rival? Johnson, Davis, Rees-Moggs, Corbyn, or all of the above?

he's the consummate professional negotiator in the REAL world, where dollars are on the line.

This has very little to do with Brexit, but: Trump is a poor negotiator and an outrageous liar. The two come together in that he simply lies about what was agreed or what he said. In the case of the Sun interview they released the audio and he had said exactly what they had published.
He also pulled another Brexit porker claiming (and getting his wife to back it up) that he had forecast the result of the referendum when he was in Scotland to open the Turnberry golf course. He arrived the day after the vote.
None of this "his word is his bond" garbage with him, and he still has a bankruptcy behind him.

He is an idiot and a very bad businessman. I mean he had to be bailed out several times from bankruptcy.
He couldn't even run a profit with a Casino. A CASINO! That thing just normally prints money where you open the door and hold your palm open to get profitable.

How is it best for America to do a trade war with over half the World?

He is a traitor that is a puppet of Putin and belongs behind bars.

The EU? An invitation-only club? I am not a shrink but still . . .

It's pretty much a given that Turkey ... will be hoovered up in the next decade of so.

Not while Sultan Erdogan still lives. :(

I don't think Turkey would have much chance in the current climate, even without Erdogan. They have no chance at all with him in power.
Most of the former communist E-European countries are already in there, the exceptions being Albania and some of the post-Yugoslavia states. One of the original aims of the then "Common Market" was to build up trading ties between former enemies to make war a losing proposition in the future, something which the Balkans need. This is on the table.
The Ukraine is very interested in being part of this but the most they can home for at present is some kind of associate membership. Georgia were looking towards NATO and the US at one point but were disillusioned 10 years ago.

I'm not sure what Fast Track Turkey is supposed to be on but they have been on it for decades now and the chances of it actually happening have dropped to practically zero since Erdogan started positioning himself as a dictator. They had been dropping for a while before that but - I spend quite a lot of time in Germany and speak the language - the only people in Germany now pushing for Turkey to join the EU are some of the non-Kurdish ethnic Turks.

I'm pretty sure Erdogan does not really think that, he has complained a few times about the way things are going.
Oh, and I forgot to say earlier that several countries have been admitted while Turkey has been waiting.

It's pretty much a given that Turkey ... will be hoovered up in the next decade o[r] so.

Thus giving the whole of the EU a land border with Syria, Iraq and Iran.

Not going to happen in the forseeable future.

With "special" friends like that

...short bus special?

He now claims to have been misquoted and that it is "fake news". The newspaper which published the interview - The Sun - is from the same stable as Fox News.
Trump has a long history of unreliability when it comes to being able to trust what he says. His claim - substantiated or not - that the UK will not get a good trade deal with the US unless they weaken ties with the EU is practically worthless, he could change his mind at any time.

His claim - substantiated or not - that the UK will not get a good trade deal with the US unless they weaken ties with the EU is practically worthless, he could change his mind at any time.

Not quite ... that the UK will not get a good trade deal with the US unless they weaken ties with the EU is certainly true. It's only everything he says about what they will get if they do weaken ties that is practically worthless.

That the US/Trump doesn't want the UK to have a close relationship with the EU has absolutely nothing to do with trade deals.

What he's been talking about in the past few days has everything to do with trade deals.

The US and EU attempted to negotiate a trade deal during the Obama administration. Those talks failed, largely because the EU would not relax some of its standards for food.

Up until the meeting at Chequers, the UK government was saying it would insist on a form of Brexit which freed Britain from the EU's standards, thus opening up the possibility of the UK offering the US a trade deal they would accept. That position was changed at Chequers which substantially reduces the potential scope of any future US-UK trade deal.

I would not doubt Trump has also viewed meddling in Brexit as an opportunity to undermine one of America's major "enemies", the EU, but that's not the specific point he's been talking about in recent days.

What he's been talking about in the past few days has everything to do with trade deals.

The US and EU attempted to negotiate a trade deal during the Obama administration. Those talks failed, largely because the EU would not relax some of its standards for food.

Up until the meeting at Chequers, the UK government was saying it would insist on a form of Brexit which freed Britain from the EU's standards, thus opening up the possibility of the UK offering the US a trade deal they would accept. That position was changed at Chequers which substantially reduces the potential scope of any future US-UK trade deal.

I would not doubt Trump has also viewed meddling in Brexit as an opportunity to undermine one of America's major "enemies", the EU, but that's not the specific point he's been talking about in recent days.

The talk about trade deals seems more like a curtain to me. He wants to force some very bad items to the EU, one very important one indeed the standards for food. In short, we don't want the same crap some Americans consider "food".
Trump is just disappointed (afraid?) that what was to be a hard brexit now has a possibility of a soft brexit. I personally don't care about brexit, I just don't want to see some of the low standards of the US coming here with the only advantage for the big companies to make more profit. As it is I think some standards here are already way to low (planned obsolescence should be marked as a crime in my opinion).

phoney

I checked dictionary.com when the SOL spellchecker flagged 'phoney'. It recognises that spelling but suggests 'phony' should be preferred.

Ngrams suggests this is another British-American variation. It suggests about 90% of Americans use 'phony', while 'phoney' is narrowly preferred by British, less than 60%

If I'm to be consistent with previous statements here I will need to start advocating writers using BrE should prefer 'phony' in stories - on the grounds it's acceptable to British readers and avoids needless irritation of American readers.

Naturally, I'll continue using 'phoney' in forum posts for the same reasons. :-)

A tory civil war is imminent The Remainer tories are furious.

A tory civil war is imminent The Remainer tories are furious.

I agree, but Remainer Tories may only have about another 7 hours to find their cojones - and get their act together.

I think the hard-line Leavers are actively trying to engineer a no-deal Brexit. They know the EU cannot, rather than will not, ever offer a deal they'd find acceptable. Their plan is get legislation through which prevents the UK from offering anything the EU could accept, then dictates the UK drops into a no-deal Brexit once negotiations inevitably collapse. The only option for Remainers might then be new legislation to reverse the Article 50 withdrawal request.

The legislation as now proposed by the government just about does that - unless the Remainers can overturn the amendments the government has just agreed to support.

This is serious for those who think - know - a no-deal Brexit would be disastrous for Britain.

The pound dropped by 2 Euro cents immediately after the announcement was made. :(

ETA: Whoops. That was 0.2, not 2, Euro cents. Hardly anything, really. But that drop was very sudden. The markets did not like the news.

There is an important other reason the EU is playing hard ass: they are deadly afraid more countries will separate if they make it "too easy".

Hm? I think you're seeing the EU's actions as motivated by conspiracy when common sense leads to similar choices.

There can be no doubt the EU would prefer the consequences of withdrawing will be sufficiently dire for the UK to discourage others from attempting the same.

However, I don't see the EU attempting to make those consequences more dire. I see their actions as the logical consequence of justified decisions to remain steadfast on two principles:
* They will not fundamentally change the way they function on account of the UK leaving.
* They will not facilitate actions by the UK which abrogate on its obligations under an international treaty with one of their members, i.e. they will not do anything which assists the UK undermining the Good Friday Agreement.

I don't see EU intransigence as the cause of the UK being unable to achieve what the Leavers want. I think the cause is the UK's internal political reality that they won't accept any type of border on the Irish Sea. The UK electorate effectively voted for something the country is unwilling to do. If not for the Irish border conundrum, I think the EU would be quite willing to allow the UK to shoot itself in the backside.

On the long run I am not sure the UK is shooting itself in the backside seeing as where the EU is going. I'm not against the EU, it has done a lot of good en still does but on other subjects it lacks. Currently immigration is one of the biggest problems and it seems as if the EU just sits back while it escalates. From what I understood that is also one of the main items why Brexit was made possible.

My opinion is that the old EEG worked great and it could have been extended to achieve much of what the EU has achieved but without killing of each countries sovereignty. I think that would have been way better then the current money slurping EU.

the EU ... has done a lot of good ... but on [the other hand] ...

Yep. Sigh!

Decision-making by committees inevitably leads to unsatisfying, lowest-common-denominator decisions. And the EU has one of the worst multiple and overlapping committee structures imaginable. Effectively, members of their committees cannot even act on their self-interest because of competing objectives from the countries they represent.

It is awful and it's impossible to fix; I just don't believe that leaving will be any better for the UK.

I suppose the only thing worse than being ruled by committee is being ruled by a dictator.

On the long run I am not sure the UK is shooting itself in the backside seeing as where the EU is going. I'm not against the EU, it has done a lot of good en still does but on other subjects it lacks. Currently immigration is one of the biggest problems and it seems as if the EU just sits back while it escalates. From what I understood that is also one of the main items why Brexit was made possible.

Bullshit. Immigration is currently lower than 2014, when the "crisis" began. Immigration is a scapegoat, we are currently battling the problem of the immigrants who are inside our borders. Also, the UK has a bigger immigration from outside the EU and had the "sovereignty" to do what they want with them all along.

On the long run, UK will be a tiny fish in the pond while USA; Russia, China, EU, India, and Brazil overshadow everything else economically.

I give the UK at maximum 2 decades outside the EU before they break up into their 4 states. (maybe not Wales)

Immigration is a scapegoat

I have a solution for the EU's chronic economic under-performance. I suggest they follow the example of Australia, a country which has not had a recession in the last 27 years.

My solution? ... large increases in net migration, up to over 1% of the population per year.

Excuse me while I run away and hide.

I have a solution for the EU's chronic economic under-performance. I suggest they follow the example of Australia, a country which has not had a recession in the last 27 years.

My solution? ... large increases in net migration, up to over 1% of the population per year.

Australia was created with immigrants but isn't the current policy that makes it much harder to enter then what is happening in the EU?

Australia was created with immigrants but isn't the current policy that makes it much harder to enter then what is happening in the EU?

No. Net immigration into Australia is similar to that of the UK, but we have less than half their population. It's been at similar levels for decades, and under both Conservative and Labor governments.

A large number of those immigrants are selected by a points system which favours younger people and those with skills we want. We have a right-wing anti-immigration party, One Nation, but I doubt it's ever achieved a vote of 10% in a Federal election. That's despite the fact we use the instant alternative vote which allows someone to give their first preference to a minor party but ultimately still have their preference between the two major parties counted.

You might be thinking our policies towards those who arrive in Australia by boat and then apply for refugee status. Those policies are very harsh; they are often locked up indefinitely. In contrast, we accept among the highest number of pre-approved refugees for resettlement in the world on a per-capita basis.

we accept among the highest number of pre-approved refugees for resettlement in the world on a per-capita basis.

You're doing it right. The key word is "pre-approved". Large numbers are no problem if they can participate in the economy and social environment. That is the biggest problem in the EU, nothing is pre-approved. The majority of the current immigrants in the EU from the last 5-10 years are useless because of lack of skills, education and no effort to integrate, the last mostly because of a muslim background.

They also have a very big ocean around them

I understand your opinions. I disagree with some of them but do not want to have a discussion about them.

My initial post was a little mischievious but I was only trying to have a bit of fun.

I understand your opinions. I disagree with some of them but do not want to have a discussion about them.

My initial post was a little mischievious but I was only trying to have a bit of fun.

No harm done. This is not the place for such discussions although its tempting since this is one of the very rare places with civilized people.

this is one of the very rare places with civilized people.

Ya think??? Note that few of our American regulars are contributing to this thread. :-)

Ya think??? Note that few of our American regulars are contributing to this thread. :-)

To know when not to comment. maybe that's what keeps it civilized ;)

civilized people

Lie civilly.

That's despite the fact we use the instant alternative vote which allows someone to give their first preference to a minor party but ultimately still have their preference between the two major parties counted.

Could you point me to a detailed explanation of how it works?

Could you point me to a detailed explanation of how it works?

It's quite simple, really.

Suppose there are six candidates for a seat. Voters do not mark just one box; they number all boxes from 1 to 6. If no candidate has more than 50% of total votes cast, the candidate with the lowest number of first preferences is eliminated. The second preferences on their all votes are used to decide which candidate gets each additional vote. And so on, until one candidate has accumulated more than 50% of the votes cast.

You may see an expression "two-party preferred" vote. That's the result of continuing the process of distributing preferences until only two candidates are left.

There are variations. The Australian Senate uses this method but in a way so that 6 members are elected from each state. One-seventh of the total votes is enough to secure one seat.

The overall effect is that the candidate elected has the concurrence of at least 50% of the electorate, even if they're not the voter's first choice.

In the long term the method has the effect of making major parties seek the support of the middle ground of the electorate, rather than just motivating their base supporters. It is actually the main reason I consider Australian politics is generally sane and moderate, compared to the insane and extremist politics in America. If I had the option of making one change to the American Constitution, this is what I would choose.

In the US, it's called ranked choice voting.

http://www.fairvote.org/rcv_in_us_elections

It's used at the local level in around a dozen cities and/or counties around the US.

In 2016 Main became the first US state to adopt ranked choice voting in the US. It will be used for US Congressional elections in Main for the first time this November.

http://www.fairvote.org/spotlight_maine#maine_ballot_initiative

In 2016 Main became the first US state to adopt ranked choice voting in the US.

I can't resist this one and you did make the same "typo" twice. :-)

I'm surprised the state of Maine allowed another state to join the Union with a name so close to its own.

And the system tends to produce governments which are effectively neutered because there's rarely any great impetus for change.

I suggest that change does tend to occur, by a the process of major parties changing their policies when minority interests become an electoral threat.

Certainly, there is no system that is suited for all situations.

Proportional voting systems tend to produce weak governments. Coalition governments may become inevitable. That can make it impossible to implement hard but necessary decisions because every decision ends up being the lowest common denominator the coalition can agree to. The recent spate of "Grand Coalitions" in Germany is an example of that.

First-past-the-post (FPTP) systems tend to produce tyrannies of one or two parties. Minor parties are stifled because votes for them are wasted. For example, Gore would have beaten Bush easily in 2000 with a preferential system. The small number of votes for Nader effectively gave the election to Bush, while those voters would have strongly preferred Gore.

FPTP systems tends to favour small regional parties but prevents new nation-wide parties with ideological differences winning substantial numbers of seats. For example, in the last UK election, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP won 9.2% of the total vote, but only 12 seats. The SNP, DUP, Sein Fein, and Plaid Cymru won 5.1% of the total vote, but 56 seats!

The thing I like about Australian politics is that it's very rare for any government, state or federal, to survive more than 10 years before they get tossed out. Both sides have some good ideas. If they gain power periodically they begin implementing their highest priorities. If they remain in power too long they tend to become corrupt or start implementing ideas from the lunatic fringes within their own party. That's when Australian electorates tend to toss them out and give the other lot a go.

* * *

This won't interest many here, but there's a federal election coming up in Australia in less than 12 months. Everything points towards the conservatives being tossed out and new Labor government with a massive majority. There's one odd aspect to this election: variations between the states. It's quite possible the conservatives could increase in their total vote but still lose the election badly!? They can only afford a net loss of 3 seats before losing power. They are doing relatively well in two states, NSW and South Australia. However, there's at most 3 seats they could gain in those states, even with a solid increase in their vote there. In two other states, Queensland and Western Australia, they are doing very badly. There are a massive number of seats they could lose with a moderate swing against them in those two states. Opinion polls suggest massive swings of over 5% in those states, which would produce utter carnage. The other state, Victoria, won't save the government. There are only 1 or 2 potential gains there but a handful of potential losses.

National-wide have been universally awful for the government. After scraping back in at the last election, polls showed a swing against then from the first opinions polls after that election. The difference grew to a wide margin very quickly and has remained there ever since.

This is a good site for anyone interested in the prospects for that election.

Bullshit. Immigration is currently lower than 2014, when the "crisis" began. Immigration is a scapegoat, we are currently battling the problem of the immigrants who are inside our borders.

I never said new immigrants are the problem. I totally agree that the currently present immigrants are a big problem. If they had vetted the real refugees from the gold diggers from the start there would have been no problem at all. I understand that everyone wants to find a place where he has a better standard of living but it is obvious that the receiving place can not support the high numbers that have already entered and provide for them for free.

There is an important other reason the EU is playing hard ass: they are deadly afraid more countries will separate if they make it "too easy".

They are not afraid, a recent poll shows that EU wide, remain would win with 72% on a binary choice. Even Greece has remain at 56%

They play hard ball because of their believe in the 4 freedoms and the different FTA they have. In some of those FTA is the "most desired partner" clause that would automatically give any benefit in a specific sector that a new trading partner gets.

There is no question that lot of you want back in EU.

But, are you sure that now EU wants you back?

Some of the original founders had a vision of an united Europe, the USE without the faults in the structure of the USA.

They knew this would be tedious to achieve and thought it would need a period of about 50 years to get there.

I think the most contraproductive decision was to admit the UK to the EU. The UK was always opposed to the idea of a close-knit federal european state and countered any attempt
to proceed in this direction. I'm fully aware that there were and still are many opponents against this goal in most other member states too, especially among some of the hastily admitted eastern and southern members.

The best chance to achieve the original goal would probably be to leave the EU and create a new group with only those countries who are willing to transfer sovereignty to a true democratic european state.

BTW, for Germany to get more clout within the existing EU it should simply desolve itself and split up into its 16 states.

HM.

Catalonia would be if they attained independence

That's not going to happen.

Basque Country has a case they never accepted the Spanish Constitution - but Catalonia does not.

In the referendum which adopted the constitution, the Yes vote was 95% of those who voted, and 65% of the total electorate.

In Basque Country, the Yes vote was 75% of those who voted, but less than one-third of the total electorate.

However the 16 states would automatically be ejected from the EU (just like Scotland and Catalonia would be if they attained independence) and would have to apply for admittance.

Not the same. With 16 Germanies there would be no longer a German member state, instead 16 successor states, all of them legal successors of the Federal Republic of Germany.

HM.

signing Article 50 would mean the UK is out, and there would be no way back.

Not quite. The UK may ask to vary the two-year time period or even reverse the Article 50 request - but all 27 must agree to any change.

I strongly doubt they would agree to extend the leave date beyond the European parliament elections in May 2019. If they did the new members for the UK would continue to sit long after the UK had left the EU.

Farage: Things are looking pretty good.

Liam Fox opened his mouth over the weekend. THIS is what happened. :(

'THIS' was a pretty continual slide in the value of the pound from 1.12 to 1.10 euros over the next three weeks.

I'm pretty sure the "offer" will include:
* The UK may stay in or leave the Customs Union. If they leave that cannot start until there is an operational system in place for the Irish border requiring no more than spot checks for compliance on a few percent of vehicles carrying goods.
* The UK can end Freedom of Movement, regulate its own financial services sector, and they'll get a sensible deal for security issues.

The things that'll have Johnson, Rees-Moggs, and their cohort spitting their dummies is all goods and almost all services (financial services being an exception) must remain under the EU's regulations and their court. There is NO OTHER WAY, assuming they won't accept a border on the Irish Sea, to have minimal checks at the Irish border AND not have progressively more checks as time goes on.

The Chequers plan for a customs partnership is a non-starter. The best the EU can offer is something like: Start out at zero tariffs for UK to EU trade, but if the UK offers a 5% tariff on something to anybody else, and the EU external tariff is 20%, then the EU will impose a 15% tariff for all goods of that class coming in from the UK.

Nobody in the UK government seems to get why the EU's single market exists: it puts every business within the EU on a level playing field. That's THEIR RED LINE. They'll never allow a business from the UK to operate inside the EU with some an advantage over their own businesses. May made the first move towards that when she agreed to a common rule book for goods. She's got a lot more backing down to do to reach a point the EU could conceivably accept.

There is an irony in May's predicament. There is a deal available which would satisfy the voters, but she can't accept it without having over half her party determined to crucify her.

Then I learn he was born in the U.S. which makes it more interesting, aside from the matter of him renouncing his US citizenship

That may not even be relevant. The effectiveness of renouncing a former citizenship is entirely dependent on the law/legal processes of the nation whose citizenship is being renounced.

For US citizenship:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renunciation_of_citizenship#United_States

United States law requires that an individual appear in person before a consular officer at a U.S. embassy or consulate outside the United States and sign an oath or affirmation that the individual intends to renounce U.S. citizenship. Exceptions to this rule are permitted in times of war and under special circumstances.[24][25] During the expatriation procedure, the individual must complete several documents and demonstrate in an interview with a consular officer that the renunciation is voluntary and intentional. Depending on the embassy or consulate, the individual is often required to appear in person two times and conduct two separate interviews with consular officers over the course of several months.

Formal confirmation of the loss of U.S. citizenship is provided by the Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) and is received by the renunciant a number of months later.

Renunciation of U.S. citizenship was free until July 2010, at which time a fee of $450 was established.[46] An increase to $2,350, effective September 12, 2014, was justified as "reflective of the true cost" of processing.[47][48] This followed a fee increase of approximately 220% in 2013.[49] The increase took effect in January 2015.[citation needed][50]

So unless the relevant UK political figure can produce a CLN issued by the US State Department, he's still legally a US Citizen.

'squeaky-bum time'

Not to be confused with 'squishy-bum time'. That comes next.

Did it involve a ballgag, padded handcuffs and a very large dildo?

By the usual standards of international political negotiations, IT WAS the metaphorical equivalent of that!