Sound like the EU leaders are going to agree that sufficient progress has been made in the initial stage negotiations and we can crack on with negotiations over a future trade deal (the first part of which, presumably, will be agreeing to a transitional period).
And we're staying in the Erasmus scheme which is good news.
Sound like the EU leaders are going to agree that sufficient progress has been made in the initial stage negotiations and we can crack on with negotiations over a future trade deal (the first part of which, presumably, will be agreeing to a transitional period).
And we're staying in the Erasmus scheme which is good news.
I'm amazed that the EU are actually prepared to work with far right politicians, little Englanders and a nasty Tory party that wants to kill people, hates foreigners and lies all the time
Sound like the EU leaders are going to agree that sufficient progress has been made in the initial stage negotiations and we can crack on with negotiations over a future trade deal (the first part of which, presumably, will be agreeing to a transitional period).
And we're staying in the Erasmus scheme which is good news.
I'm amazed that the EU are actually prepared to work with far right politicians, little Englanders and a nasty Tory party that wants to kill people, hates foreigners and lies all the time
.. The EU has to deal with what's put in front of them.
Sound like the EU leaders are going to agree that sufficient progress has been made in the initial stage negotiations and we can crack on with negotiations over a future trade deal (the first part of which, presumably, will be agreeing to a transitional period).
And we're staying in the Erasmus scheme which is good news.
I'm amazed that the EU are actually prepared to work with far right politicians, little Englanders and a nasty Tory party that wants to kill people, hates foreigners and lies all the time
.. The EU has to deal with what's put in front of them.
Agreed.
It also seems to me that the other EU leaders are merely being pragmatic. In dealing with May they can hopefully keep the shittier element of the Tory party at arms length.
One mini theme that pops up from the people from time to time (it happened again on Question Time last night) was a desire for people to get together and have a whole Parliament cross party group of all the talents to sort brexit. This speaks to the suspicion that Theresa May, a remainer, ought not to lead on all this. It impresses me that she even does (she might well be motivated by a sheer hunger for power), because as a loser in all this I wouldn't be able to work for something I don't believe in. As I have said before, let the winners sort it all out, and let them explain the detail to 'the great British electorate' whilst they do so.
One mini theme that pops up from the people from time to time (it happened again on Question Time last night) was a desire for people to get together and have a whole Parliament cross party group of all the talents to sort brexit. This speaks to the suspicion that Theresa May, a remainer, ought not to lead on all this. It impresses me that she even does (she might well be motivated by a sheer hunger for power), because as a loser in all this I wouldn't be able to work for something I don't believe in. As I have said before, let the winners sort it all out, and let them explain the detail to 'the great British electorate' whilst they do so.
The likes of Gove, Redwood, Grayling and IDS have already stated that we should walk away and that’s even before the tough negotiations have started.
I think the 27 have knowingly thrown May a lifeline. A refusal to move talks on at this point could see a challenge for her leadership. Can you imagine either Rees-Mogg or Johnston leading the cavalry charge in Brussels ?
Question Time last night was really what anyone could have predicted. I did like the views of Robert Winston, even the rabid ones listened to him. And one of the guys in the audience made me laugh with his, "you think we are thick northerners" comment. Yep all wishing for something you are never going to get.
Interesting the brexiteers in the QT audience turning on Labour for their Brexit stance (or lack of it).
The usual lack of substance responses from Rebecca Long Bailey.
Labour are sitting on the fence, waiting for it all to go horribly wrong and hoping they will not get hurt in the fallout so they can seize power when the opportunity presents itself. Neither of the two major parties are covering themselves in glory on this.
One mini theme that pops up from the people from time to time (it happened again on Question Time last night) was a desire for people to get together and have a whole Parliament cross party group of all the talents to sort brexit. This speaks to the suspicion that Theresa May, a remainer, ought not to lead on all this. It impresses me that she even does (she might well be motivated by a sheer hunger for power), because as a loser in all this I wouldn't be able to work for something I don't believe in. As I have said before, let the winners sort it all out, and let them explain the detail to 'the great British electorate' whilst they do so.
That's a bit rich from "the people". This is the people that has consistently rejected centre party politics or coalitions, preferring tribal left/right adversarial politics. Where was this call for a centrist approach pre-referendum? You had to be viscerally for it or against it. None of this pussyfooting around with detailed explanations of the pros and cons.
As you imply in your final sentence, the Brexiteers got what they wanted and they can sort it out. Why would people of genuine talent lend their talents to such patent nonsense?
Interesting the brexiteers in the QT audience turning on Labour for their Brexit stance (or lack of it).
The usual lack of substance responses from Rebecca Long Bailey.
Labour are sitting on the fence, waiting for it all to go horribly wrong and hoping they will not get hurt in the fallout so they can seize power when the opportunity presents itself. Neither of the two major parties are covering themselves in glory on this.
I tend to agree with this.
My disappointment is that it would be close to political suicide for any politicians to admit they don't want brexit at all. The media would slaughter them, they would be painted as traitors to their constituents, and ignoring the will of the British people and all that. Yet isn't is reasonable to assume there are MP's as opposed to brexit as I am, yet I am free to say what I want on this corner of the internet, and be true to what I believe, yet they feel they have to keep schtum? One of the only anti brexit politicians who seems to be able to speak their mind is good old Lord Buckethead. narrowly failed to get elected sadly. I may be doing the Scottish nationalists a disservice here, they seem to be anti brexit, but regrettably they are nationalists, a political philosophy I disagree with. I might even be cool about a politician (especially one from a pro remain constituency) saying 'I am totally anti-brexit, but whilst I am here I have to get in there and try to minimise the damage as best I can. However I would jump at the chance to be able to call brexit off'. Many would disagree with that position, but I believe there are many MP's who feel that way.
May insisting that Trade talks can begin straight away! Yet she has not even had the discussion with her own cabinet about what kind of deal the UK is seeking. She just keeps repeating terms like "deep and meaningful relationship"; much the same way she kept repeating "strong and stable" during the election. The EU have said from the start detailed trade talks can't begin until we leave. It would help those Trade talks along if the UK could let the EU know what kind of deal it is seeking so that the the broad terms of the talks can be set out.
She does not seem to understand that the EU have bent over backwards to choreograph the last week in a way that allows her supporters to try and claim she won significant victories in the Brexit talks when all she has done is make some secret grubby deal with the DUP to get them back on board. Yet in her head she seems to believe the headlines and be under the impression the EU now think she has the upper hand. There has been no real negotiations since these talks began. It has been pointless gesturing by the UK Brexit negotiators whilst the EU wait for cold hard facts to sink in one by one and the UK to accept the conditions specified by the EU from day one.
May insisting that Trade talks can begin straight away! Yet she has not even had the discussion with her own cabinet about what kind of deal the UK is seeking. She just keeps repeating terms like "deep and meaningful relationship"; much the same way she kept repeating "strong and stable" during the election. The EU have said from the start detailed trade talks can't begin until we leave. It would help those Trade talks along if the UK could let the EU know what kind of deal it is seeking so that the the broad terms of the talks can be set out.
She does not seem to understand that the EU have bent over backwards to choreograph the last week in a way that allows her supporters to try and claim she won significant victories in the Brexit talks when all she has done is make some secret grubby deal with the DUP to get them back on board. Yet in her head she seems to believe the headlines and be under the impression the EU now think she has the upper hand. There has been no real negotiations since these talks began. It has been pointless gesturing by the UK Brexit negotiators whilst the EU wait for cold hard facts to sink in one by one and the UK to accept the conditions specified by the EU from day one.
Pointless gesturing by the UK? EU bent over backwards? Cold hard facts from the EU?
Stonemuse said: So the fact that the agreement is not legally binding ... which the EU themselves also knew because they helped draft it ... is damaging trust according to that paragon of virtue, Guy Verhofstadt. I have no time for Davis but Verhofstadt is aware that the agreement is not legally binding. He is also playing to an audience.
A lot of people are jumping to a lot of conclusions are here. The most important part was always going to be the trade negotiations. Let's wait and see what we can negotiate here. One thing continues, most Remainers continue be arrogant and pompous, and think anyone who is a Leaver is dumb and stupid.
100% agree. Think it's why many of the leave orientated posters have disappeared as noted by @ShootersHillGuru. It's made the thread a bit sterile. I think the country is coming together with Theresa May tories and kier starmer labour not a million miles apart. Both remain very vague.
Too soon to make much comment yet. The trade negotiations are, as they were always going to be, crucial.
On a tangent, I came across something today of which I was completely unaware. The Canadian/EU trade deal (CETA), agreed but still to be ratified, is often held up as one of our choices for the future, as is the Norway model.
And yet, apparently, a couple of months ago, Angela Merkel was prepared to put the many years of negotiation with Canada at risk, by assuring the Greens that she would drop ratification of CETA if they sided with her in a coalition!
I am astonished how unprincipled this is. Equivalent, probably worse, then May’s agreement with the DUP.
A lot of people are jumping to a lot of conclusions are here. The most important part was always going to be the trade negotiations. Let's wait and see what we can negotiate here. One thing continues, most Remainers continue be arrogant and pompous, and think anyone who is a Leaver is dumb and stupid.
100% agree. Think it's why many of the leave orientated posters have disappeared as noted by @ShootersHillGuru. It's made the thread a bit sterile. I think the country is coming together with Theresa May tories and kier starmer labour not a million miles apart. Both remain very vague.
Too soon to make much comment yet. The trade negotiations are, as they were always going to be, crucial.
On a tangent, I came across something today of which I was completely unaware. The Canadian/EU trade deal (CETA), agreed but still to be ratified, is often held up as one of our choices for the future, as is the Norway model.
And yet, apparently, a couple of months ago, Angela Merkel was prepared to put the many years of negotiation with Canada at risk, by assuring the Greens that she would drop ratification of CETA if they sided with her in a coalition!
I am astonished how unprincipled this is. Equivalent, probably worse, then May’s agreement with the DUP.
A lot of people are jumping to a lot of conclusions are here. The most important part was always going to be the trade negotiations. Let's wait and see what we can negotiate here. One thing continues, most Remainers continue be arrogant and pompous, and think anyone who is a Leaver is dumb and stupid.
100% agree. Think it's why many of the leave orientated posters have disappeared as noted by @ShootersHillGuru. It's made the thread a bit sterile. I think the country is coming together with Theresa May tories and kier starmer labour not a million miles apart. Both remain very vague.
Too soon to make much comment yet. The trade negotiations are, as they were always going to be, crucial.
On a tangent, I came across something today of which I was completely unaware. The Canadian/EU trade deal (CETA), agreed but still to be ratified, is often held up as one of our choices for the future, as is the Norway model.
And yet, apparently, a couple of months ago, Angela Merkel was prepared to put the many years of negotiation with Canada at risk, by assuring the Greens that she would drop ratification of CETA if they sided with her in a coalition!
I am astonished how unprincipled this is. Equivalent, probably worse, then May’s agreement with the DUP.
Unfortunately we let governments of all stripes get away with their lie that they wanted to curb immigration but it was the damned EC/EU who was forcing these workshy, benefit-scrounging, thieving, smelly foreigners into the country. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron all paid lip service to curbing immigration but even they knew that immigrants are the lifeblood of our economy and public services. Remember Brown claiming he would guarantee British jobs for British workers? It was just a cynical, hollow ploy to try to placate the same thick little Englanders who could not grow up and face the reality of our reliance on immigrant labour.
But no one bothered to point this out that they were hiding behind the EU excuse when they should have been standing up for these hard workers who helped boost our economy from being the sick man of Europe to the economic powerhouse we are now. Instead they fed us this narrative that immigrants are little better than criminals and for forty years the ignorant voters lapped this tripe up, to the point where some people are deluded enough to think NHS workers from overseas are the reason we have homeless ex-forces persons.
And of course we now are where we are because we allowed our governments to hide behind difficult realities by blaming everything on the EU. Same with the sovereignty red herring. The governments of the last 40 years were willing and active promoters within the EU, more or less every directive from the EU that was adopted into UK law was not only supported by the UK government but most of it was initiated or written with the help of the UK government. Then if a directive got flak from the EU, the government just lied and said it's the nasty EU forcing these laws on us. No wonder you have the likes of Southbank repeating this total shit when even the government is trying to sell this utter rubbish.
I have never rejected the need for immigrant labour, or decried the contribution they have made / are making, and I haven't seen it mentioned on this thread (that I can spot).
Also, there is no link between overseas NHS workers and homeless ex-servicemen mentioned anywhere above (that I can spot). The squaddies were brought up by Cordoban to account for a percentage of rough sleepers - which was a "red herring" from Cordoban, as the article from the BBC talks about the deportation of homeless EU migrants. Ex=servicemen are not mentioned.
My point is simply that - we have enough (net) migrant workers now (low current vacancies) and don't need to allow free movement of labour to an island that has no available housing.
You seem to be bogged down with "little Englanders" who hate Johnny Foreigner, but don't you see it is far far beyond that. The Brexit vote received 17.4 million votes - probably not ALL based on curbing immigration, but this is a huge number who you claim to have been fooled all of the time by successive PM's. I think that is unlikely.
I heard a German MEP on Radio 5 today saying that the EU should give the UK some kind of relief from the free movement rights to persuade us to cancel Brexit, Part of his reasoning was that post-Brexit, the UK will be the EU's largest single export market - and Germany wants to ensure that a trade deal is in place very quickly as it is worried about exports.
There are much easier, simpler and in the long term cheaper solutions to the housing situation than leaving the EU but no party has the spine or willpower to pull it off because they would rather wrongfully blame immigration.
Anyone who thinks that leaving the EU will in any way help our housing shortage are woefully ignorant to the reality that the issue purely pertains to our politicians and has little, if anything, to with the EU, and once we leave the EU all parties will still carry on promoting an open door immigration policy, even if they aren't upfront about it.
Interesting the brexiteers in the QT audience turning on Labour for their Brexit stance (or lack of it).
The usual lack of substance responses from Rebecca Long Bailey.
Labour are sitting on the fence, waiting for it all to go horribly wrong and hoping they will not get hurt in the fallout so they can seize power when the opportunity presents itself. Neither of the two major parties are covering themselves in glory on this.
Obviously Labour are in opposition and it is therefore not for them to provide the solutions for the Government. Perhaps if the Tories cannot resolve this then they should resign!
As per the underlying data in a survation poll for the Daily Mail here For those interested, on page 33 you will see that Labour (and Lib Dem) voters are heavily in favour of either aborting the process or the EEA option - both involve staying in the SM/CU and that is Labour policy for the interim period which happens to take us up to the next general election.
The overall percentage for staying in the SM/CU as opposed to a "hard Brexit" is 52:38 - that's split between staying in the EU or joining the EEA. Whereas the Tory voters are 56:37 in favour of a Hard Brexit and UKIP are even more hardline. Thus Conservative policy and voters are not aligned with public opinion and very different to the opposition. And so there is little possibility of an all party group to deliver this.
2018 will see the EU27 unveil what is really on offer - given that the EEA option is always a possibility, it may end up as the only rational option on offer from the EU? Eventually the process may lead the UK to opt for that then people might ask several questions such as why take so long to get to that position. Or is there any other solution which is consistent with the Belfast agreement aka the GFA?
The government has more than enough resources to curb immigration and stay in the EU. Other countries make wide use of these restrictions. Britain is unique in not only having politician after politician whinging about immigration as a dog-whistle to get votes off little Englanders (even though they know full well they could curb immigration at the drop of a hat), but actually doing as much as it can to promote foreigners to come to the UK. It's an utter farce. Not that would stop the charming people of Barnsley, one of the lowest affected areas of EU immigration, from whinging about it because the government and the fourth estate tell them that's why they're so miserable.
Unfortunately we let governments of all stripes get away with their lie that they wanted to curb immigration but it was the damned EC/EU who was forcing these workshy, benefit-scrounging, thieving, smelly foreigners into the country. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron all paid lip service to curbing immigration but even they knew that immigrants are the lifeblood of our economy and public services. Remember Brown claiming he would guarantee British jobs for British workers? It was just a cynical, hollow ploy to try to placate the same thick little Englanders who could not grow up and face the reality of our reliance on immigrant labour.
But no one bothered to point this out that they were hiding behind the EU excuse when they should have been standing up for these hard workers who helped boost our economy from being the sick man of Europe to the economic powerhouse we are now. Instead they fed us this narrative that immigrants are little better than criminals and for forty years the ignorant voters lapped this tripe up, to the point where some people are deluded enough to think NHS workers from overseas are the reason we have homeless ex-forces persons.
And of course we now are where we are because we allowed our governments to hide behind difficult realities by blaming everything on the EU. Same with the sovereignty red herring. The governments of the last 40 years were willing and active promoters within the EU, more or less every directive from the EU that was adopted into UK law was not only supported by the UK government but most of it was initiated or written with the help of the UK government. Then if a directive got flak from the EU, the government just lied and said it's the nasty EU forcing these laws on us. No wonder you have the likes of Southbank repeating this total shit when even the government is trying to sell this utter rubbish.
I have never rejected the need for immigrant labour, or decried the contribution they have made / are making, and I haven't seen it mentioned on this thread (that I can spot).
Also, there is no link between overseas NHS workers and homeless ex-servicemen mentioned anywhere above (that I can spot). The squaddies were brought up by Cordoban to account for a percentage of rough sleepers - which was a "red herring" from Cordoban, as the article from the BBC talks about the deportation of homeless EU migrants. Ex=servicemen are not mentioned.
My point is simply that - we have enough (net) migrant workers now (low current vacancies) and don't need to allow free movement of labour to an island that has no available housing.
You seem to be bogged down with "little Englanders" who hate Johnny Foreigner, but don't you see it is far far beyond that. The Brexit vote received 17.4 million votes - probably not ALL based on curbing immigration, but this is a huge number who you claim to have been fooled all of the time by successive PM's. I think that is unlikely.
I heard a German MEP on Radio 5 today saying that the EU should give the UK some kind of relief from the free movement rights to persuade us to cancel Brexit, Part of his reasoning was that post-Brexit, the UK will be the EU's largest single export market - and Germany wants to ensure that a trade deal is in place very quickly as it is worried about exports.
Sounds familiar !
Being an MEP is no guarantee of having any sense. Nigel Farage is living proof.
The article refers specifically to "the deportation of EU rough sleepers". there is no mention of British ex-servicemen.
You are quite right of course, and the sooner we have available housing and support services brought on by reduced migration - the better for those ex-squaddies.
@Valiantphil red herring! I was responding to this post from you. Not that you seem able to let the facts get in the way of your increasingly fatuous opinion.
Been out of circulation and catching up. The only post which explains what powers the vote actually gives Parliament, as contrasted with the trouser wetting excitement because the Givermment was defeated - gets not a single follow up comment.
To sumarize my understanding: 1 if there is no agreement with the EU under Article 50 there is nothing for Parliament to vote on - a “Hard Brexit” 2 if Parliament rejects the Agreement there is nothing further Parliament must vote on - there is no Agreement - a “Hard Brexit” 3 it shows what a weak position May is in.
Perhaps the brains of the intelligent Remain voters can explain better.
Perhaps Junkers and Barnier understand this, their media propaganda machine is in overdrive bumming up Theresa in order to counter their earlier strategy of piling ridicule on the UK’s negotiating stance to weaken her. If May is replaced by Boris or Gove the EU would be over a barrel. The prospect would be a bad deal that Parliament rejects or a no deal that doesn’t need Parliamentary approval. Means the EU would have to give Boris our cake so we could eat it.
I don’t have an issue with Parliament passing this, it’s actually evidence of what Brexit is all about and how the EU has nothing of equivalence. The EU Parliament of elected members has no power to act in such a way. It cannot propose anything. It cannot change anything, only ask for the Commission to make changes. MEPs can only vote on what the Comission puts before them. They are overpaid rubber stampers, but @seth plum loves em.
The only thing I have an issue with is our UK politicians using their immense power and precious democratic privilege to pursue gesture politics.
It is inaccurate to say I love them, my posts frequently point out that the EU overpaid rubber stampers are more or less the the same as the UK overpaid rubber stampers. Most particularly that our system is no great shakes. Earlier you mentioned EU vanity projects, yet we have UK ones like West ham's taxpayers stadium. I wearily point out yet again the EU parliament, the MEP's and the EU Commission are accountable. The system of accountability may well seem convoluted to you, but ultimately those bodies are accountable, and it can be argued to have equivalence in operations in comparison to the MP's in the UK.
This Trump federal judge nominee seems the perfect fit for a job with the UK Brexit negotiating team.....in that he clearly cannot be labelled an expert.
Comments
And we're staying in the Erasmus scheme which is good news.
The EU has to deal with what's put in front of them.
It also seems to me that the other EU leaders are merely being pragmatic. In dealing with May they can hopefully keep the shittier element of the Tory party at arms length.
This speaks to the suspicion that Theresa May, a remainer, ought not to lead on all this. It impresses me that she even does (she might well be motivated by a sheer hunger for power), because as a loser in all this I wouldn't be able to work for something I don't believe in. As I have said before, let the winners sort it all out, and let them explain the detail to 'the great British electorate' whilst they do so.
I think the 27 have knowingly thrown May a lifeline. A refusal to move talks on at this point could see a challenge for her leadership. Can you imagine either Rees-Mogg or Johnston leading the cavalry charge in Brussels ?
And one of the guys in the audience made me laugh with his, "you think we are thick northerners" comment. Yep all wishing for something you are never going to get.
The usual lack of substance responses from Rebecca Long Bailey.
As you imply in your final sentence, the Brexiteers got what they wanted and they can sort it out. Why would people of genuine talent lend their talents to such patent nonsense?
My disappointment is that it would be close to political suicide for any politicians to admit they don't want brexit at all. The media would slaughter them, they would be painted as traitors to their constituents, and ignoring the will of the British people and all that.
Yet isn't is reasonable to assume there are MP's as opposed to brexit as I am, yet I am free to say what I want on this corner of the internet, and be true to what I believe, yet they feel they have to keep schtum?
One of the only anti brexit politicians who seems to be able to speak their mind is good old Lord Buckethead. narrowly failed to get elected sadly.
I may be doing the Scottish nationalists a disservice here, they seem to be anti brexit, but regrettably they are nationalists, a political philosophy I disagree with.
I might even be cool about a politician (especially one from a pro remain constituency) saying 'I am totally anti-brexit, but whilst I am here I have to get in there and try to minimise the damage as best I can. However I would jump at the chance to be able to call brexit off'.
Many would disagree with that position, but I believe there are many MP's who feel that way.
She does not seem to understand that the EU have bent over backwards to choreograph the last week in a way that allows her supporters to try and claim she won significant victories in the Brexit talks when all she has done is make some secret grubby deal with the DUP to get them back on board. Yet in her head she seems to believe the headlines and be under the impression the EU now think she has the upper hand. There has been no real negotiations since these talks began. It has been pointless gesturing by the UK Brexit negotiators whilst the EU wait for cold hard facts to sink in one by one and the UK to accept the conditions specified by the EU from day one.
EU bent over backwards?
Cold hard facts from the EU?
Depends on interpretation as always.
Rothko said: Here's the rest of that Stephen Bush piece https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/12/why-guy-verhofstadt-angry-david-davis-because-britain-has-brexit-strategy
Stonemuse said: So the fact that the agreement is not legally binding ... which the EU themselves also knew because they helped draft it ... is damaging trust according to that paragon of virtue, Guy Verhofstadt. I have no time for Davis but Verhofstadt is aware that the agreement is not legally binding. He is also playing to an audience.
That’s not what I am reading.
From The Independent: PM also acquiesced to EU demands for full trade framework talks to be postponed until March
Happens in the EU too.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/15/the-guardian-view-on-the-brexit-talks-nothing-to-applaud-in-brussels
And
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/15/gulf-in-expectations-for-next-phase-of-brexit-talks-widens
Also, there is no link between overseas NHS workers and homeless ex-servicemen mentioned anywhere above (that I can spot).
The squaddies were brought up by Cordoban to account for a percentage of rough sleepers - which was a "red herring" from Cordoban, as the article from the BBC talks about the deportation of homeless EU migrants. Ex=servicemen are not mentioned.
My point is simply that - we have enough (net) migrant workers now (low current vacancies) and don't need to allow free movement of labour to an island that has no available housing.
You seem to be bogged down with "little Englanders" who hate Johnny Foreigner, but don't you see it is far far beyond that. The Brexit vote received 17.4 million votes - probably not ALL based on curbing immigration, but this is a huge number who you claim to have been fooled all of the time by successive PM's.
I think that is unlikely.
I heard a German MEP on Radio 5 today saying that the EU should give the UK some kind of relief from the free movement rights to persuade us to cancel Brexit, Part of his reasoning was that post-Brexit, the UK will be the EU's largest single export market - and Germany wants to ensure that a trade deal is in place very quickly as it is worried about exports.
Sounds familiar !
Anyone who thinks that leaving the EU will in any way help our housing shortage are woefully ignorant to the reality that the issue purely pertains to our politicians and has little, if anything, to with the EU, and once we leave the EU all parties will still carry on promoting an open door immigration policy, even if they aren't upfront about it.
As per the underlying data in a survation poll for the Daily Mail here For those interested, on page 33 you will see that Labour (and Lib Dem) voters are heavily in favour of either aborting the process or the EEA option - both involve staying in the SM/CU and that is Labour policy for the interim period which happens to take us up to the next general election.
The overall percentage for staying in the SM/CU as opposed to a "hard Brexit" is 52:38 - that's split between staying in the EU or joining the EEA. Whereas the Tory voters are 56:37 in favour of a Hard Brexit and UKIP are even more hardline. Thus Conservative policy and voters are not aligned with public opinion and very different to the opposition. And so there is little possibility of an all party group to deliver this.
2018 will see the EU27 unveil what is really on offer - given that the EEA option is always a possibility, it may end up as the only rational option on offer from the EU? Eventually the process may lead the UK to opt for that then people might ask several questions such as why take so long to get to that position. Or is there any other solution which is consistent with the Belfast agreement aka the GFA?
The government has more than enough resources to curb immigration and stay in the EU. Other countries make wide use of these restrictions. Britain is unique in not only having politician after politician whinging about immigration as a dog-whistle to get votes off little Englanders (even though they know full well they could curb immigration at the drop of a hat), but actually doing as much as it can to promote foreigners to come to the UK. It's an utter farce. Not that would stop the charming people of Barnsley, one of the lowest affected areas of EU immigration, from whinging about it because the government and the fourth estate tell them that's why they're so miserable.
The only post which explains what powers the vote actually gives Parliament, as contrasted with the trouser wetting excitement because the Givermment was defeated - gets not a single follow up comment.
To sumarize my understanding:
1 if there is no agreement with the EU under Article 50 there is nothing for Parliament to vote on - a “Hard Brexit”
2 if Parliament rejects the Agreement there is nothing further Parliament must vote on - there is no Agreement - a “Hard Brexit”
3 it shows what a weak position May is in.
Perhaps the brains of the intelligent Remain voters can explain better.
Perhaps Junkers and Barnier understand this, their media propaganda machine is in overdrive bumming up Theresa in order to counter their earlier strategy of piling ridicule on the UK’s negotiating stance to weaken her. If May is replaced by Boris or Gove the EU would be over a barrel. The prospect would be a bad deal that Parliament rejects or a no deal that doesn’t need Parliamentary approval. Means the EU would have to give Boris our cake so we could eat it.
I don’t have an issue with Parliament passing this, it’s actually evidence of what Brexit is all about and how the EU has nothing of equivalence. The EU Parliament of elected members has no power to act in such a way. It cannot propose anything. It cannot change anything, only ask for the Commission to make changes. MEPs can only vote on what the Comission puts before them. They are overpaid rubber stampers, but @seth plum loves em.
The only thing I have an issue with is our UK politicians using their immense power and precious democratic privilege to pursue gesture politics.
Earlier you mentioned EU vanity projects, yet we have UK ones like West ham's taxpayers stadium.
I wearily point out yet again the EU parliament, the MEP's and the EU Commission are accountable. The system of accountability may well seem convoluted to you, but ultimately those bodies are accountable, and it can be argued to have equivalence in operations in comparison to the MP's in the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/42360539/matthew-petersen-trump-s-nominee-for-judge-flubs-law-test