shurlock

Conference call with some Canadian clients at 3pm - till then I'm all yours, if you want to respond.

Still fluffing for Guido? Have you actually read Change or Go? Its the usual banal regurgitation of wishful thinking, exaggeration, half-truths and bats**t crazy falsehoods. As for providing a blueprint for UK's departure from the EU, it dedicates 15 pages to the question - most of which is spent discussing the Norway, Swiss and Turkey options and suggesting how the UK could establish a new relationship ‘inside’ a form of European Union. To the extent that it trumpets the UK's unique position in the EU (a forerunner to we hold all the cards) and its confidence in a unique, bespoke treaty tailored to the precise details of the UK's situation, it is virtually silent on the consequences of leaving the EU without deal and how that transition would be managed. You'd also think think for a 1000 page magnum opus, there would be at least one reference to the Irish Border. Just one

I'm sympathetic to your perspective but you overstate the distinction between what you call 'humanists' and 'nationalists' (not sure about the labels). Its quite possible to hold multiple identities simultaneously without feeling threatened or having to choose one side over the other. Read a bit of Amartya Sen (Identity and Violence).

Oh dear Les and LD managing to rewrite history and dish up the usual pony. A few points on how leaving the SM and CU is tantamount to a plan. 1.Not all people knew they were voting to leave the CM and SM. That point has been demolished on here before and is well-summarised here I've posted this thread before and each time its been met with tumbleweed which suggests that you lads are a bit stumped 2. The small number of people who claimed we would leave the CM and SM also critically claimed that the UK would retain all the benefits of the SM and CU -that is the best of all possible worlds. A plan isn't a plan if it doesn't satisfy all the conditions set out by its proponents. 3. Not sure what either of you does for a living; but I'd be out of a job pal if I proposed a destination without a relatively clear idea how to get there. Leaving SM and CM is not a plan without specifics on how it can be implemented safely (as Tusk's full quote makes clear). The dirty secret is that leave never articulated a plan and promised the undeliverable. Some might respond that's not the point of a campaign but Brexiters continued to avoid a plan and promise the undeliverable after the referendum when they should have been governing. Hence we heard from the leading Cabinet members how we could have our cake and eat it, how we could have the exact same benefits of the SM and CU without its attendant obligations. Whenever leave campaigners have had to articulate anything resembling a workable plan, as Nick Cohen points out, they've fallen apart. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/26/brexiters-never-had-a-real-exit-plan-no-wonder-they-avoided-the-issue That stark fact was true in the wilderness years leading up to the referendum as it was true in the wake of the Chequers Plan when ERG members were at each others throats. It was acknowledged by the likes of Dominic Cummings “There is much to be gained from swerving the whole issue...opponents of the EU have been divided for years”. In any case, “the sheer complexity of leaving would involve endless questions of detail that cannot be answered”. The leave side had plenty of years to develop a plan. The IEA even created a €100,000 prize to whoever could design a means of leaving the European Union. I have a lot of time for informed leave campaigners like Richard North who understand the sheer complexity of leaving the EU and the folly of a sudden departure (see his blog). For a period of time, his Flexcit proposal stood its ground in the battle of ideas. Then again rational politics went out of the window years ago and the prize ultimately went to a fella who dismissed the difficulties of leaving the EU, claiming that the UK could enjoy the free movement of capital and goods in the single market but stop the free movement of labour. As Cohen notes, the lesson was clear: better to take the road to Narnia and promise everything while committing to nothing. To some extent, the strategy has worked brilliantly - its done a superb job of pulling the wool over the eyes of mugs like JJ, LD and Les.

What does this mean? patriotic = nationalist?

Eh?

I thought this blog has Les and the other gullible grunted and activists down to a tee. http://peterjnorth.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-special-place-in-hell.html?m=1 That’s what sheep do.

Les it’s been explained to you that Canada+++ could never be offered as an alternative to May’s deal. Youve failed to explain how the UK could have left the single market and the customs union, gone for a FTA like Canada+++ and failing that trade on WTO terms on March 29 because it’s a nonsequitur. Tough luck pal

Yep. The WA is also about settling the terms of departure so that however future trade discussions go (if, for example, they go abysmally), basics such as citizens rights, the Irish border and what the EU views as the UK honouring its past financial commitments won't be sacrificed or thrown by the wayside.

I did some consulting for a couple of prominent remainers in 2017 and 2018 (whose views I don't share FWIW) and they were interested in how the Lisbon Treaty was ratified across EU member states, esp UK and Germany, including its constitutional fallout.

Sadly Les just reflects the ignorance and insularity of the Brexit debate. As Sabine Weyand, Barnier's no.2, has lamented, much of the debate inside the Tory Party and Westminster has been over the rival strengths and weaknesses of different options -Chequers vs. Norway vs. Canada +++. Its a debate completely divorced from the realities of the negotiations which are all about the terms on which the UK leaves the EU, not its future relationship with the EU. Canada+++ (whatever it actually means) was never offered to us as an alternative to May's deal because the future relationship was never intended to be resolved at this time.

Try reading carefully Les. I was answering a question from Trousers who asked what the country would look like after Remain. What's happened in the past is irrelevant to answering that question. We already know what our relationship with the EU is under Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon. However we do not how our relationship might evolve going forward - to which I pointed out that for numerous reasons, including the 2011 referendum lock, there are significant constraints on what can happen, reducing the degree of uncertainty. I know when you're having a mare, there's a temptation to overcompensate; but in your case, its backfiring pal

The only one fudging is you pal - you’re drowning it. Then again it must be pretty embarrassing to not have a clue about the basic content, structure and sequence of the negotiations

Clueless yet again. I guess you’re unaware of the European Act 2011. And that 2011 came after the aforementioned treaties. Not a good start to the day for you

Good then you’re wrong and will concede that there’s no scope to accept or offer Canada+++ -never mind imply it’s some kind of missed opportunity. Why you’re banging on about something that is irrelevant at this stage, only you will know

Canada+++ has not been ruled in or out. The only thing under discussion is the withdrawal agreement and they are more or less mutually exclusive, so not sure why you’re getting so upset.

Agree.

An exquisite strawman. It goes without saying that nobody knows what the future looks like. However we know the extent of our rights and obligations as an EU member and the rules of the game that fix the scope of the EU’s activity and the processes for reaching collective decisions. All that considerably narrows the range of uncertainty. Thus, we would not be forced to join an EU army or participate in any of the swivels bête noires because of our veto etc while any new treaty or amendment of a treaty that attempted to rewrite the rules of the game would need to be approved by an Act of Parliament and the electorate in a referendum.

No Les. Tusk never offered us Canada +++ in the sense that it was legally on the table. This stage of negotiations was simply about the withdrawal agreement: the Irish border, the divorce bill and citizens rights. It was never intended to resolve the future trade relationship. What happens next -Chequers, Norway or your beloved Canada +++ is still up for grabs - hence the deliberate ambiguity and openendedness of the Political Declaration. It’s hard to take your childish belligerence seriously when you have such trouble with the basics.

Exactly. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-47131698

Les - that was desperately unfunny. Have you got any pat condell updates (I quite liked him) or has operation yewtree got to him?

"I was an admirer of them in many ways" - some good old orientalising there.

No. My point was more about the hypocrisy of many of those who've jumped all over Barnes remark as some sort of vindication presumably because he's a black man. But that wasn't reflected in my original post, so dropped it.

Donald Tusk on fire.