Another 2 nails in the coffin for European Social Democracy. German SPD voting for coalition and decline of the Italian party to its lowest ever vote. It is a sign of the times that over 50 per cent of the vote in Italy went to overtly populist parties and it hardly raises a ripple of comment. The EU will be hoping that Berlusconi, of all people and Juncker's favourite, will manoeuvre himself into leading the new government. Meanwhile Macron sees it all as an opportunity to 'push on' with the EU project. Dream on Monsieur President.
If there is one thing that the impending sunlit uplands of Brexit has achieved, it is a sudden interest in politics outside the UK.
However, there is a tendency to view everything through Brexit.
Euroscepticism is not the same in each country, so it does not follow, for example, that any of the potential governments that might be formed in Italy (and there is every chance of no government and another election) would seek to follow, or support the path being followed by the UK. Indeed, if the next Italian Government seeks to repatriate powers from, or otherwise limit the powers of, the EU, it could actually be damaging to the UK's interests.
As a fan of liberal democracy, it pains me to see parties of the extreme (either left or right) winning a greater share of the vote than before (as does the apparent normalisation of ideas that I had hoped would be consigned to the dustbin of history).
But I would caution those who view the outcome, as we know it, of the Italian election as meaning anything significant for the UK. This is partly because Italy has a unique electoral history, since the foundation of the Republic, that has a habit of producing unexpected political outcomes. The nature of any coalition that is created, if any, will determine what sort of policies are followed, and for how long. At the moment, there appear only to be uneasy bedfellows.
From a UK perspective, in my opinion, the likelihood of extended political horse trading in Italy is quite possibly the worst outcome that could have been imagined. In order to get the best possible trading arrangement, following Brexit (and I doubt very much whether the "vision" outlined on Friday will achieve it), the UK actually needs an EU that is less divided and less caught up with any internal wrangling. Unless, of course, the UK Government wants to leave without any deal.
The way that the EU operates means that the EU27 have already managed sufficient compromise between themselves to deliver a single negotiating position. Whilst the message coming from the EU27 to date has not been music to the ears of those who are "leading" the UK at the minute, it is at least consistent and coherent. It is much, much easier to negotiate with one party over Brexit, and then any future trading arrangement, than to try to influence competing factions.
On the day when further evidence comes to light that the US is going to be pushing for the UK to water down it's protections for businesses and consumers, that will directly effect us...we'd rather talk about the Italian election.
On the day when further evidence comes to light that the US is going to be pushing for the UK to water down it's protections for businesses and consumers, that will directly effect us...we'd rather talk about the Italian election.
Talk about both.
It is worrying that the US are pushing for it. Thankfully 'pushing for it' doesn't mean it will necessarily happen. By the same token it doesn't mean that they wont achieve it. Anything can happen with the people we have at the top table.
What's also worrying is that fascism seems to be very much prevalent on both the pro-EU and anti-EU side of things.
Had Five Star been anti-EU then I think the result would have had a more significant reaction on here.
It's funny how the same people who insist that goal line technology will never be as good as a linesman also seem to think that somehow a border monitored by cameras can protect us against smuggling and illegal immigration.
Another 2 nails in the coffin for European Social Democracy. German SPD voting for coalition and decline of the Italian party to its lowest ever vote. It is a sign of the times that over 50 per cent of the vote in Italy went to overtly populist parties and it hardly raises a ripple of comment. The EU will be hoping that Berlusconi, of all people and Juncker's favourite, will manoeuvre himself into leading the new government. Meanwhile Macron sees it all as an opportunity to 'push on' with the EU project. Dream on Monsieur President.
One can see that Progressive Democrats in Germany and Italy have both been reduced to around 20% and that the Alt-right anti immigrant vote is at 15% in both countries but there the similarity ends. Burlusconi on 12% is all but finished and M5* is very hard to make out except for this: They are very, very strong in the South reflecting anti political establishment views there and they have some distinct policies around the environment and basic income.
Incidentally there is a fascinating debate about universal credit vs basic income as two possible solutions to mass unemployment allowing people to top up with part time work without horrific marginal rates of tax.
In short this might be something Renzi and the PD can work with. As M5* are against cronyism and people with convictions, that rules out Burlusconi for a coalition.
It will take months to resolve and it will also shape M5* as they have to deliver a full on policy platform and not just the fluffy green bits!
What we can agree on is the causes starting with regime change in Libya which has led to hundreds of thousands arriving from North Africa via "sea taxi" plus a complete failure to reflate the economy of the South.
If we know about this, one can be sure that Markel, Macron and the SPD are also aware. They have a chance in 2018-20 to put in place policies to reduce unemployment and make social democratic policies a success. Le Pen is gloating but this might be the focus and pressure required.
And this is not good for the UK / muddled cherry picking as the EU will be 100% focussed on resolution of challenges facing their political economy.
If there is one thing that the impending sunlit uplands of Brexit has achieved, it is a sudden interest in politics outside the UK.
However, there is a tendency to view everything through Brexit.
Euroscepticism is not the same in each country, so it does not follow, for example, that any of the potential governments that might be formed in Italy (and there is every chance of no government and another election) would seek to follow, or support the path being followed by the UK. Indeed, if the next Italian Government seeks to repatriate powers from, or otherwise limit the powers of, the EU, it could actually be damaging to the UK's interests.
As a fan of liberal democracy, it pains me to see parties of the extreme (either left or right) winning a greater share of the vote than before (as does the apparent normalisation of ideas that I had hoped would be consigned to the dustbin of history).
But I would caution those who view the outcome, as we know it, of the Italian election as meaning anything significant for the UK. This is partly because Italy has a unique electoral history, since the foundation of the Republic, that has a habit of producing unexpected political outcomes. The nature of any coalition that is created, if any, will determine what sort of policies are followed, and for how long. At the moment, there appear only to be uneasy bedfellows.
From a UK perspective, in my opinion, the likelihood of extended political horse trading in Italy is quite possibly the worst outcome that could have been imagined. In order to get the best possible trading arrangement, following Brexit (and I doubt very much whether the "vision" outlined on Friday will achieve it), the UK actually needs an EU that is less divided and less caught up with any internal wrangling. Unless, of course, the UK Government wants to leave without any deal.
The way that the EU operates means that the EU27 have already managed sufficient compromise between themselves to deliver a single negotiating position. Whilst the message coming from the EU27 to date has not been music to the ears of those who are "leading" the UK at the minute, it is at least consistent and coherent. It is much, much easier to negotiate with one party over Brexit, and then any future trading arrangement, than to try to influence competing factions.
Well you know my view on the 'negotiation' ( ie that there is not one, only the EU saying the same thing over and over and 'soft' Brexiteers-aka Remainers, deluding themselves into hearing something else, Corbyn being the latest to put in the ear plugs). However, my point about the decline of Social Democracy across Europe is that these parties have tended to be the most federalist. Macron's EU project needs pro EU parties to be in power to proceed. If I were in the negotiations I would be insisting that no deal was better than a bad deal in order to encourage the fragmentation of the EU's bargaining unity. No other approach will work.
If there is one thing that the impending sunlit uplands of Brexit has achieved, it is a sudden interest in politics outside the UK.
However, there is a tendency to view everything through Brexit.
Euroscepticism is not the same in each country, so it does not follow, for example, that any of the potential governments that might be formed in Italy (and there is every chance of no government and another election) would seek to follow, or support the path being followed by the UK. Indeed, if the next Italian Government seeks to repatriate powers from, or otherwise limit the powers of, the EU, it could actually be damaging to the UK's interests.
As a fan of liberal democracy, it pains me to see parties of the extreme (either left or right) winning a greater share of the vote than before (as does the apparent normalisation of ideas that I had hoped would be consigned to the dustbin of history).
But I would caution those who view the outcome, as we know it, of the Italian election as meaning anything significant for the UK. This is partly because Italy has a unique electoral history, since the foundation of the Republic, that has a habit of producing unexpected political outcomes. The nature of any coalition that is created, if any, will determine what sort of policies are followed, and for how long. At the moment, there appear only to be uneasy bedfellows.
From a UK perspective, in my opinion, the likelihood of extended political horse trading in Italy is quite possibly the worst outcome that could have been imagined. In order to get the best possible trading arrangement, following Brexit (and I doubt very much whether the "vision" outlined on Friday will achieve it), the UK actually needs an EU that is less divided and less caught up with any internal wrangling. Unless, of course, the UK Government wants to leave without any deal.
The way that the EU operates means that the EU27 have already managed sufficient compromise between themselves to deliver a single negotiating position. Whilst the message coming from the EU27 to date has not been music to the ears of those who are "leading" the UK at the minute, it is at least consistent and coherent. It is much, much easier to negotiate with one party over Brexit, and then any future trading arrangement, than to try to influence competing factions.
Well you know my view on the 'negotiation' ( ie that there is not one, only the EU saying the same thing over and over and 'soft' Brexiteers-aka Remainers, deluding themselves into hearing something else, Corbyn being the latest to put in the ear plugs). However, my point about the decline of Social Democracy across Europe is that these parties have tended to be the most federalist. Macron's EU project needs pro EU parties to be in power to proceed. If I were in the negotiations I would be insisting that no deal was better than a bad deal in order to encourage the fragmentation of the EU's bargaining unity. No other approach will work.
Of course you would but that's because you have no idea what you're talking about. Your view on the EU negotiations are 100% inaccurate and your claim about deluded Remainers/soft-Brexiters is laughable. The only delusional ones are the far-right, hard Brexiteers such as yourself who keep spouting the same lies as some kind of comfort against the reality of the situation.
On the day when further evidence comes to light that the US is going to be pushing for the UK to water down it's protections for businesses and consumers, that will directly effect us...we'd rather talk about the Italian election.
In fairness, though, with or without the current incumbent in the White House, there was never any chance of any future trade negotiations with the United States of America that did not involve such pressures.
The UK, bravely going forth and seeking to mulitply (its trade deals) alone, has a much less strong position in terms of negotiations than it currently has as a member of the EU.
Equally, my understanding is that any President is limited in terms of direct influence of trade negotiations (as opposed to seeking to begin trade wars).
Various interest groups in the United States of America will exert pressure on politicians for favourable trading conditions, and if there is one thing that we all know about US politics, it is that pressure groups exert hardly any influence at all....
More evidence that US big business is already lobbying for the UK to roll back on consumer protection measures. Get ready for sprayable stilton to stuff your chlorinated chickens with...
I hope the BBC doesn't publish that story. I'm sick of their bias, they shouldn't publish facts that make Brexit look bad, they should only publish stuff that fits with my world view
If there is one thing that the impending sunlit uplands of Brexit has achieved, it is a sudden interest in politics outside the UK.
However, there is a tendency to view everything through Brexit.
Euroscepticism is not the same in each country, so it does not follow, for example, that any of the potential governments that might be formed in Italy (and there is every chance of no government and another election) would seek to follow, or support the path being followed by the UK. Indeed, if the next Italian Government seeks to repatriate powers from, or otherwise limit the powers of, the EU, it could actually be damaging to the UK's interests.
As a fan of liberal democracy, it pains me to see parties of the extreme (either left or right) winning a greater share of the vote than before (as does the apparent normalisation of ideas that I had hoped would be consigned to the dustbin of history).
But I would caution those who view the outcome, as we know it, of the Italian election as meaning anything significant for the UK. This is partly because Italy has a unique electoral history, since the foundation of the Republic, that has a habit of producing unexpected political outcomes. The nature of any coalition that is created, if any, will determine what sort of policies are followed, and for how long. At the moment, there appear only to be uneasy bedfellows.
From a UK perspective, in my opinion, the likelihood of extended political horse trading in Italy is quite possibly the worst outcome that could have been imagined. In order to get the best possible trading arrangement, following Brexit (and I doubt very much whether the "vision" outlined on Friday will achieve it), the UK actually needs an EU that is less divided and less caught up with any internal wrangling. Unless, of course, the UK Government wants to leave without any deal.
The way that the EU operates means that the EU27 have already managed sufficient compromise between themselves to deliver a single negotiating position. Whilst the message coming from the EU27 to date has not been music to the ears of those who are "leading" the UK at the minute, it is at least consistent and coherent. It is much, much easier to negotiate with one party over Brexit, and then any future trading arrangement, than to try to influence competing factions.
Well you know my view on the 'negotiation' ( ie that there is not one, only the EU saying the same thing over and over and 'soft' Brexiteers-aka Remainers, deluding themselves into hearing something else, Corbyn being the latest to put in the ear plugs). However, my point about the decline of Social Democracy across Europe is that these parties have tended to be the most federalist. Macron's EU project needs pro EU parties to be in power to proceed. If I were in the negotiations I would be insisting that no deal was better than a bad deal in order to encourage the fragmentation of the EU's bargaining unity. No other approach will work.
As long as you are happy with no deal, that would be fine (and it does seem to have been at least part of the UK Government strategy).
Because, in the end, if the intent is to divide those with whom we seek to agree a trade deal, the likely outcome is that no deal will be agreed at all.
For me, that is the worst possible outcome, because would be the UK deliberately choosing political and economic damage, for both parties, rather than compromise. Which is probably not the wisest course of action in relation to the UK's nearest and largest export market.
I have a fairly low opinion of human nature at the best of times, and I believe that such an approach would be seen as hostile by the EU27, and would have significant negative repercussions.
Surprisingly, perhaps, there is still a significant opinion in the EU27 in favour of seeking a compromise/agreement with the UK (there was an interesting World Service programme - the Brexit Shipping Forecast? - that is worth listening to), but this could all too easily be lost.
If there is one thing that the impending sunlit uplands of Brexit has achieved, it is a sudden interest in politics outside the UK.
However, there is a tendency to view everything through Brexit.
Euroscepticism is not the same in each country, so it does not follow, for example, that any of the potential governments that might be formed in Italy (and there is every chance of no government and another election) would seek to follow, or support the path being followed by the UK. Indeed, if the next Italian Government seeks to repatriate powers from, or otherwise limit the powers of, the EU, it could actually be damaging to the UK's interests.
As a fan of liberal democracy, it pains me to see parties of the extreme (either left or right) winning a greater share of the vote than before (as does the apparent normalisation of ideas that I had hoped would be consigned to the dustbin of history).
But I would caution those who view the outcome, as we know it, of the Italian election as meaning anything significant for the UK. This is partly because Italy has a unique electoral history, since the foundation of the Republic, that has a habit of producing unexpected political outcomes. The nature of any coalition that is created, if any, will determine what sort of policies are followed, and for how long. At the moment, there appear only to be uneasy bedfellows.
From a UK perspective, in my opinion, the likelihood of extended political horse trading in Italy is quite possibly the worst outcome that could have been imagined. In order to get the best possible trading arrangement, following Brexit (and I doubt very much whether the "vision" outlined on Friday will achieve it), the UK actually needs an EU that is less divided and less caught up with any internal wrangling. Unless, of course, the UK Government wants to leave without any deal.
The way that the EU operates means that the EU27 have already managed sufficient compromise between themselves to deliver a single negotiating position. Whilst the message coming from the EU27 to date has not been music to the ears of those who are "leading" the UK at the minute, it is at least consistent and coherent. It is much, much easier to negotiate with one party over Brexit, and then any future trading arrangement, than to try to influence competing factions.
Well you know my view on the 'negotiation' ( ie that there is not one, only the EU saying the same thing over and over and 'soft' Brexiteers-aka Remainers, deluding themselves into hearing something else, Corbyn being the latest to put in the ear plugs). However, my point about the decline of Social Democracy across Europe is that these parties have tended to be the most federalist. Macron's EU project needs pro EU parties to be in power to proceed. If I were in the negotiations I would be insisting that no deal was better than a bad deal in order to encourage the fragmentation of the EU's bargaining unity. No other approach will work.
As long as you are happy with no deal, that would be fine (and it does seem to have been at least part of the UK Government strategy).
Because, in the end, if the intent is to divide those with whom we seek to agree a trade deal, the likely outcome is that no deal will be agreed at all.
For me, that is the worst possible outcome, because would be the UK deliberately choosing political and economic damage, for both parties, rather than compromise. Which is probably not the wisest course of action in relation to the UK's nearest and largest export market.
I have a fairly low opinion of human nature at the best of times, and I believe that such an approach would be seen as hostile by the EU27, and would have significant negative repercussions.
Surprisingly, perhaps, there is still a significant opinion in the EU27 in favour of seeking a compromise/agreement with the UK (there was an interesting World Service programme - the Brexit Shipping Forecast? - that is worth listening to), but this could all too easily be lost.
Up and until Germany looks like caving, none of the others matter.
If there is one thing that the impending sunlit uplands of Brexit has achieved, it is a sudden interest in politics outside the UK.
However, there is a tendency to view everything through Brexit.
Euroscepticism is not the same in each country, so it does not follow, for example, that any of the potential governments that might be formed in Italy (and there is every chance of no government and another election) would seek to follow, or support the path being followed by the UK. Indeed, if the next Italian Government seeks to repatriate powers from, or otherwise limit the powers of, the EU, it could actually be damaging to the UK's interests.
As a fan of liberal democracy, it pains me to see parties of the extreme (either left or right) winning a greater share of the vote than before (as does the apparent normalisation of ideas that I had hoped would be consigned to the dustbin of history).
But I would caution those who view the outcome, as we know it, of the Italian election as meaning anything significant for the UK. This is partly because Italy has a unique electoral history, since the foundation of the Republic, that has a habit of producing unexpected political outcomes. The nature of any coalition that is created, if any, will determine what sort of policies are followed, and for how long. At the moment, there appear only to be uneasy bedfellows.
From a UK perspective, in my opinion, the likelihood of extended political horse trading in Italy is quite possibly the worst outcome that could have been imagined. In order to get the best possible trading arrangement, following Brexit (and I doubt very much whether the "vision" outlined on Friday will achieve it), the UK actually needs an EU that is less divided and less caught up with any internal wrangling. Unless, of course, the UK Government wants to leave without any deal.
The way that the EU operates means that the EU27 have already managed sufficient compromise between themselves to deliver a single negotiating position. Whilst the message coming from the EU27 to date has not been music to the ears of those who are "leading" the UK at the minute, it is at least consistent and coherent. It is much, much easier to negotiate with one party over Brexit, and then any future trading arrangement, than to try to influence competing factions.
Well you know my view on the 'negotiation' ( ie that there is not one, only the EU saying the same thing over and over and 'soft' Brexiteers-aka Remainers, deluding themselves into hearing something else, Corbyn being the latest to put in the ear plugs). However, my point about the decline of Social Democracy across Europe is that these parties have tended to be the most federalist. Macron's EU project needs pro EU parties to be in power to proceed. If I were in the negotiations I would be insisting that no deal was better than a bad deal in order to encourage the fragmentation of the EU's bargaining unity. No other approach will work.
As long as you are happy with no deal, that would be fine (and it does seem to have been at least part of the UK Government strategy).
Because, in the end, if the intent is to divide those with whom we seek to agree a trade deal, the likely outcome is that no deal will be agreed at all.
For me, that is the worst possible outcome, because would be the UK deliberately choosing political and economic damage, for both parties, rather than compromise. Which is probably not the wisest course of action in relation to the UK's nearest and largest export market.
I have a fairly low opinion of human nature at the best of times, and I believe that such an approach would be seen as hostile by the EU27, and would have significant negative repercussions.
Surprisingly, perhaps, there is still a significant opinion in the EU27 in favour of seeking a compromise/agreement with the UK (there was an interesting World Service programme - the Brexit Shipping Forecast? - that is worth listening to), but this could all too easily be lost.
Up and until Germany looks like caving, none of the others matter.
An opinion that ignores how it is that the EU works.
Germany, by itself cannot have the sort of power that you assume.
Simply speaking, where there is a veto, all member states have equal power, and where there is Qualified Majority Voting, no one state has that kind of influence.
If your assertion was correct, the UK could, and should, have wielded precisely the same influence.
On the day when further evidence comes to light that the US is going to be pushing for the UK to water down it's protections for businesses and consumers, that will directly effect us...we'd rather talk about the Italian election.
In fairness, though, with or without the current incumbent in the White House, there was never any chance of any future trade negotiations with the United States of America that did not involve such pressures.
The UK, bravely going forth and seeking to mulitply (its trade deals) alone, has a much less strong position in terms of negotiations than it currently has as a member of the EU.
Equally, my understanding is that any President is limited in terms of direct influence of trade negotiations (as opposed to seeking to begin trade wars).
Various interest groups in the United States of America will exert pressure on politicians for favourable trading conditions, and if there is one thing that we all know about US politics, it is that pressure groups exert hardly any influence at all....
Oh I know. I've been banging this particular drum for as long as Seth has been raising the border issue. Certainly since well before the referendum. The standard response, if any, is that we had rules before we joined the EU so why should it be any different post-Brexit? This ignores the passing of decades of globalisation, the rise of the internet, non-compliance excluding us from the world's biggest single market, etc. etc.
As I posted only recently Leavers simply do not wish to acknowledge that there is a very real risk, I'd say a certainty, that we will be worse off as consumers post leaving. The idea that individual ministers (let's not forget that) are going to stand up to lobbying from the US meat industry for example or in this case the dairy trade is fanciful. These groups have massive political clout domestically and will have the full support of the US government going into any trade deal, even without factoring in the idiot currently in post over there.
Wasn't the EU that gave the Cornish Pasty protected status? If so, after Brexit, it won't be protected.
Yep. There's a certain irony if an area that voted leave losses the geographical protections given to its most famous product but it has an economic impact too.
I wondered about the potential impact on the Scotch Whisky industry should the protections be removed. I didn't realise that it accounts for 20% of all our food & drink exports and supports 40,000 jobs.
To be fair you can't go down the supermarket aisle without seeing things like 'Real American Pancakes', Chicago pizza, Kansas BBQ sauce, Kentucky chicken, Tennessee ribs etc. when all of it is manufactured in Uttoxeter.
Bring on Scotch from Scottsdale and pasties from Pennsylvania.
If there is one thing that the impending sunlit uplands of Brexit has achieved, it is a sudden interest in politics outside the UK.
However, there is a tendency to view everything through Brexit.
Euroscepticism is not the same in each country, so it does not follow, for example, that any of the potential governments that might be formed in Italy (and there is every chance of no government and another election) would seek to follow, or support the path being followed by the UK. Indeed, if the next Italian Government seeks to repatriate powers from, or otherwise limit the powers of, the EU, it could actually be damaging to the UK's interests.
As a fan of liberal democracy, it pains me to see parties of the extreme (either left or right) winning a greater share of the vote than before (as does the apparent normalisation of ideas that I had hoped would be consigned to the dustbin of history).
But I would caution those who view the outcome, as we know it, of the Italian election as meaning anything significant for the UK. This is partly because Italy has a unique electoral history, since the foundation of the Republic, that has a habit of producing unexpected political outcomes. The nature of any coalition that is created, if any, will determine what sort of policies are followed, and for how long. At the moment, there appear only to be uneasy bedfellows.
From a UK perspective, in my opinion, the likelihood of extended political horse trading in Italy is quite possibly the worst outcome that could have been imagined. In order to get the best possible trading arrangement, following Brexit (and I doubt very much whether the "vision" outlined on Friday will achieve it), the UK actually needs an EU that is less divided and less caught up with any internal wrangling. Unless, of course, the UK Government wants to leave without any deal.
The way that the EU operates means that the EU27 have already managed sufficient compromise between themselves to deliver a single negotiating position. Whilst the message coming from the EU27 to date has not been music to the ears of those who are "leading" the UK at the minute, it is at least consistent and coherent. It is much, much easier to negotiate with one party over Brexit, and then any future trading arrangement, than to try to influence competing factions.
Well you know my view on the 'negotiation' ( ie that there is not one, only the EU saying the same thing over and over and 'soft' Brexiteers-aka Remainers, deluding themselves into hearing something else, Corbyn being the latest to put in the ear plugs). However, my point about the decline of Social Democracy across Europe is that these parties have tended to be the most federalist. Macron's EU project needs pro EU parties to be in power to proceed. If I were in the negotiations I would be insisting that no deal was better than a bad deal in order to encourage the fragmentation of the EU's bargaining unity. No other approach will work.
Some of the traditional pre-crash parties are in decline but not Labouur, Portuguese left and M5*. What do these three have in common? They are populist anti-austerity. M5* tried to leave the MEP group containing UKIP and join a more liberal coalition.
So we agree that there is a new pressure on the Euro elite. And the French populist left plus Podemos are also on a healthy 20%.
And we agree that there is no negotiation - May is talking nonsense. We either take a Canada deal or we ask for a Norway deal. All the rest of her speech is fluff to burn another few months away. The UK either accepts the authority of the ECJ for all the bits affecting business or we are a tad screwed.
This divergence speak is rubbish - the UK operates under a common code or not. And if we don't then FDI will choose the 500 million consumers over us.
If there is one thing that the impending sunlit uplands of Brexit has achieved, it is a sudden interest in politics outside the UK.
However, there is a tendency to view everything through Brexit.
Euroscepticism is not the same in each country, so it does not follow, for example, that any of the potential governments that might be formed in Italy (and there is every chance of no government and another election) would seek to follow, or support the path being followed by the UK. Indeed, if the next Italian Government seeks to repatriate powers from, or otherwise limit the powers of, the EU, it could actually be damaging to the UK's interests.
As a fan of liberal democracy, it pains me to see parties of the extreme (either left or right) winning a greater share of the vote than before (as does the apparent normalisation of ideas that I had hoped would be consigned to the dustbin of history).
But I would caution those who view the outcome, as we know it, of the Italian election as meaning anything significant for the UK. This is partly because Italy has a unique electoral history, since the foundation of the Republic, that has a habit of producing unexpected political outcomes. The nature of any coalition that is created, if any, will determine what sort of policies are followed, and for how long. At the moment, there appear only to be uneasy bedfellows.
From a UK perspective, in my opinion, the likelihood of extended political horse trading in Italy is quite possibly the worst outcome that could have been imagined. In order to get the best possible trading arrangement, following Brexit (and I doubt very much whether the "vision" outlined on Friday will achieve it), the UK actually needs an EU that is less divided and less caught up with any internal wrangling. Unless, of course, the UK Government wants to leave without any deal.
The way that the EU operates means that the EU27 have already managed sufficient compromise between themselves to deliver a single negotiating position. Whilst the message coming from the EU27 to date has not been music to the ears of those who are "leading" the UK at the minute, it is at least consistent and coherent. It is much, much easier to negotiate with one party over Brexit, and then any future trading arrangement, than to try to influence competing factions.
Well you know my view on the 'negotiation' ( ie that there is not one, only the EU saying the same thing over and over and 'soft' Brexiteers-aka Remainers, deluding themselves into hearing something else, Corbyn being the latest to put in the ear plugs). However, my point about the decline of Social Democracy across Europe is that these parties have tended to be the most federalist. Macron's EU project needs pro EU parties to be in power to proceed. If I were in the negotiations I would be insisting that no deal was better than a bad deal in order to encourage the fragmentation of the EU's bargaining unity. No other approach will work.
Some of the traditional pre-crash parties are in decline but not Labouur, Portuguese left and M5*. What do these three have in common? They are populist anti-austerity. M5* tried to leave the MEP group containing UKIP and join a more liberal coalition.
So we agree that there is a new pressure on the Euro elite. And the French populist left plus Podemos are also on a healthy 20%.
And we agree that there is no negotiation - May is talking nonsense. We either take a Canada deal or we ask for a Norway deal. All the rest of her speech is fluff to burn another few months away. The UK either accepts the authority of the ECJ for all the bits affecting business or we are a tad screwed.
This divergence speak is rubbish - the UK operates under a common code or not. And if we don't then FDI will choose the 500 million consumers over us.
We are all either going to go left or right. It is far better to go left than right. Corbyn isn't just needed in this country!
If there is one thing that the impending sunlit uplands of Brexit has achieved, it is a sudden interest in politics outside the UK.
However, there is a tendency to view everything through Brexit.
Euroscepticism is not the same in each country, so it does not follow, for example, that any of the potential governments that might be formed in Italy (and there is every chance of no government and another election) would seek to follow, or support the path being followed by the UK. Indeed, if the next Italian Government seeks to repatriate powers from, or otherwise limit the powers of, the EU, it could actually be damaging to the UK's interests.
As a fan of liberal democracy, it pains me to see parties of the extreme (either left or right) winning a greater share of the vote than before (as does the apparent normalisation of ideas that I had hoped would be consigned to the dustbin of history).
But I would caution those who view the outcome, as we know it, of the Italian election as meaning anything significant for the UK. This is partly because Italy has a unique electoral history, since the foundation of the Republic, that has a habit of producing unexpected political outcomes. The nature of any coalition that is created, if any, will determine what sort of policies are followed, and for how long. At the moment, there appear only to be uneasy bedfellows.
From a UK perspective, in my opinion, the likelihood of extended political horse trading in Italy is quite possibly the worst outcome that could have been imagined. In order to get the best possible trading arrangement, following Brexit (and I doubt very much whether the "vision" outlined on Friday will achieve it), the UK actually needs an EU that is less divided and less caught up with any internal wrangling. Unless, of course, the UK Government wants to leave without any deal.
The way that the EU operates means that the EU27 have already managed sufficient compromise between themselves to deliver a single negotiating position. Whilst the message coming from the EU27 to date has not been music to the ears of those who are "leading" the UK at the minute, it is at least consistent and coherent. It is much, much easier to negotiate with one party over Brexit, and then any future trading arrangement, than to try to influence competing factions.
Well you know my view on the 'negotiation' ( ie that there is not one, only the EU saying the same thing over and over and 'soft' Brexiteers-aka Remainers, deluding themselves into hearing something else, Corbyn being the latest to put in the ear plugs). However, my point about the decline of Social Democracy across Europe is that these parties have tended to be the most federalist. Macron's EU project needs pro EU parties to be in power to proceed. If I were in the negotiations I would be insisting that no deal was better than a bad deal in order to encourage the fragmentation of the EU's bargaining unity. No other approach will work.
As long as you are happy with no deal, that would be fine (and it does seem to have been at least part of the UK Government strategy).
Because, in the end, if the intent is to divide those with whom we seek to agree a trade deal, the likely outcome is that no deal will be agreed at all.
For me, that is the worst possible outcome, because would be the UK deliberately choosing political and economic damage, for both parties, rather than compromise. Which is probably not the wisest course of action in relation to the UK's nearest and largest export market.
I have a fairly low opinion of human nature at the best of times, and I believe that such an approach would be seen as hostile by the EU27, and would have significant negative repercussions.
Surprisingly, perhaps, there is still a significant opinion in the EU27 in favour of seeking a compromise/agreement with the UK (there was an interesting World Service programme - the Brexit Shipping Forecast? - that is worth listening to), but this could all too easily be lost.
Up and until Germany looks like caving, none of the others matter.
An opinion that ignores how it is that the EU works.
Germany, by itself cannot have the sort of power that you assume.
Simply speaking, where there is a veto, all member states have equal power, and where there is Qualified Majority Voting, no one state has that kind of influence.
If your assertion was correct, the UK could, and should, have wielded precisely the same influence.
Yes I agree, but strangely did not. Is that because the EU is a political project aimed at keeping peace between France and Germany and nobody else really matters? Who would know.
It's only tangentially relevant to Brexit, but I would like to alert you to the re-emergence of Corbyn's Czech mate, Mr Sarkocy. Details on the Labour thread.
If there is one thing that the impending sunlit uplands of Brexit has achieved, it is a sudden interest in politics outside the UK.
However, there is a tendency to view everything through Brexit.
Euroscepticism is not the same in each country, so it does not follow, for example, that any of the potential governments that might be formed in Italy (and there is every chance of no government and another election) would seek to follow, or support the path being followed by the UK. Indeed, if the next Italian Government seeks to repatriate powers from, or otherwise limit the powers of, the EU, it could actually be damaging to the UK's interests.
As a fan of liberal democracy, it pains me to see parties of the extreme (either left or right) winning a greater share of the vote than before (as does the apparent normalisation of ideas that I had hoped would be consigned to the dustbin of history).
But I would caution those who view the outcome, as we know it, of the Italian election as meaning anything significant for the UK. This is partly because Italy has a unique electoral history, since the foundation of the Republic, that has a habit of producing unexpected political outcomes. The nature of any coalition that is created, if any, will determine what sort of policies are followed, and for how long. At the moment, there appear only to be uneasy bedfellows.
From a UK perspective, in my opinion, the likelihood of extended political horse trading in Italy is quite possibly the worst outcome that could have been imagined. In order to get the best possible trading arrangement, following Brexit (and I doubt very much whether the "vision" outlined on Friday will achieve it), the UK actually needs an EU that is less divided and less caught up with any internal wrangling. Unless, of course, the UK Government wants to leave without any deal.
The way that the EU operates means that the EU27 have already managed sufficient compromise between themselves to deliver a single negotiating position. Whilst the message coming from the EU27 to date has not been music to the ears of those who are "leading" the UK at the minute, it is at least consistent and coherent. It is much, much easier to negotiate with one party over Brexit, and then any future trading arrangement, than to try to influence competing factions.
Well you know my view on the 'negotiation' ( ie that there is not one, only the EU saying the same thing over and over and 'soft' Brexiteers-aka Remainers, deluding themselves into hearing something else, Corbyn being the latest to put in the ear plugs). However, my point about the decline of Social Democracy across Europe is that these parties have tended to be the most federalist. Macron's EU project needs pro EU parties to be in power to proceed. If I were in the negotiations I would be insisting that no deal was better than a bad deal in order to encourage the fragmentation of the EU's bargaining unity. No other approach will work.
As long as you are happy with no deal, that would be fine (and it does seem to have been at least part of the UK Government strategy).
Because, in the end, if the intent is to divide those with whom we seek to agree a trade deal, the likely outcome is that no deal will be agreed at all.
For me, that is the worst possible outcome, because would be the UK deliberately choosing political and economic damage, for both parties, rather than compromise. Which is probably not the wisest course of action in relation to the UK's nearest and largest export market.
I have a fairly low opinion of human nature at the best of times, and I believe that such an approach would be seen as hostile by the EU27, and would have significant negative repercussions.
Surprisingly, perhaps, there is still a significant opinion in the EU27 in favour of seeking a compromise/agreement with the UK (there was an interesting World Service programme - the Brexit Shipping Forecast? - that is worth listening to), but this could all too easily be lost.
Up and until Germany looks like caving, none of the others matter.
An opinion that ignores how it is that the EU works.
Germany, by itself cannot have the sort of power that you assume.
Simply speaking, where there is a veto, all member states have equal power, and where there is Qualified Majority Voting, no one state has that kind of influence.
If your assertion was correct, the UK could, and should, have wielded precisely the same influence.
Yes I agree, but strangely did not. Is that because the EU is a political project aimed at keeping peace between France and Germany and nobody else really matters? Who would know.
Well, anyone who researched the bases of the EU.
Yes, the original underpinnings were about preventing further war (a remarkably successful project) by ensuring that member states were not in competition with each other, and cooperated in things like heavy industry, etc., and then it moved on to wider areas of integration (which has also proved remarkably successful when you consider the changes that membership has wrought on places as diverse as Ireland, Spain, the Baltic States, Bulgaria and Romania).
But the EU is not about France and Germany alone.
Historically, France and Germany have sought (almost always) to work together, because the leaders of both countries have been alive to the perils of competition and conflict between the two nations, but it has not been a case of them agreeing between themselves and everyone else has to fall into line.
If there is one thing that the impending sunlit uplands of Brexit has achieved, it is a sudden interest in politics outside the UK.
However, there is a tendency to view everything through Brexit.
Euroscepticism is not the same in each country, so it does not follow, for example, that any of the potential governments that might be formed in Italy (and there is every chance of no government and another election) would seek to follow, or support the path being followed by the UK. Indeed, if the next Italian Government seeks to repatriate powers from, or otherwise limit the powers of, the EU, it could actually be damaging to the UK's interests.
As a fan of liberal democracy, it pains me to see parties of the extreme (either left or right) winning a greater share of the vote than before (as does the apparent normalisation of ideas that I had hoped would be consigned to the dustbin of history).
But I would caution those who view the outcome, as we know it, of the Italian election as meaning anything significant for the UK. This is partly because Italy has a unique electoral history, since the foundation of the Republic, that has a habit of producing unexpected political outcomes. The nature of any coalition that is created, if any, will determine what sort of policies are followed, and for how long. At the moment, there appear only to be uneasy bedfellows.
From a UK perspective, in my opinion, the likelihood of extended political horse trading in Italy is quite possibly the worst outcome that could have been imagined. In order to get the best possible trading arrangement, following Brexit (and I doubt very much whether the "vision" outlined on Friday will achieve it), the UK actually needs an EU that is less divided and less caught up with any internal wrangling. Unless, of course, the UK Government wants to leave without any deal.
The way that the EU operates means that the EU27 have already managed sufficient compromise between themselves to deliver a single negotiating position. Whilst the message coming from the EU27 to date has not been music to the ears of those who are "leading" the UK at the minute, it is at least consistent and coherent. It is much, much easier to negotiate with one party over Brexit, and then any future trading arrangement, than to try to influence competing factions.
Well you know my view on the 'negotiation' ( ie that there is not one, only the EU saying the same thing over and over and 'soft' Brexiteers-aka Remainers, deluding themselves into hearing something else, Corbyn being the latest to put in the ear plugs). However, my point about the decline of Social Democracy across Europe is that these parties have tended to be the most federalist. Macron's EU project needs pro EU parties to be in power to proceed. If I were in the negotiations I would be insisting that no deal was better than a bad deal in order to encourage the fragmentation of the EU's bargaining unity. No other approach will work.
Some of the traditional pre-crash parties are in decline but not Labouur, Portuguese left and M5*. What do these three have in common? They are populist anti-austerity. M5* tried to leave the MEP group containing UKIP and join a more liberal coalition.
So we agree that there is a new pressure on the Euro elite. And the French populist left plus Podemos are also on a healthy 20%.
And we agree that there is no negotiation - May is talking nonsense. We either take a Canada deal or we ask for a Norway deal. All the rest of her speech is fluff to burn another few months away. The UK either accepts the authority of the ECJ for all the bits affecting business or we are a tad screwed.
This divergence speak is rubbish - the UK operates under a common code or not. And if we don't then FDI will choose the 500 million consumers over us.
I mean really saying the EU only exists to promote France and Germany is like saying the UN only exists to combat the Nazi threat.
So Remainers, any comments on Italy following France and voting for a majority of EU sceptical parties? The tide of history is still moving in only one direction.
Comments
It is a sign of the times that over 50 per cent of the vote in Italy went to overtly populist
parties and it hardly raises a ripple of comment. The EU will be hoping that Berlusconi, of all people and Juncker's favourite, will manoeuvre himself into leading the new government.
Meanwhile Macron sees it all as an opportunity to 'push on' with the EU project. Dream on Monsieur President.
However, there is a tendency to view everything through Brexit.
Euroscepticism is not the same in each country, so it does not follow, for example, that any of the potential governments that might be formed in Italy (and there is every chance of no government and another election) would seek to follow, or support the path being followed by the UK. Indeed, if the next Italian Government seeks to repatriate powers from, or otherwise limit the powers of, the EU, it could actually be damaging to the UK's interests.
As a fan of liberal democracy, it pains me to see parties of the extreme (either left or right) winning a greater share of the vote than before (as does the apparent normalisation of ideas that I had hoped would be consigned to the dustbin of history).
But I would caution those who view the outcome, as we know it, of the Italian election as meaning anything significant for the UK. This is partly because Italy has a unique electoral history, since the foundation of the Republic, that has a habit of producing unexpected political outcomes. The nature of any coalition that is created, if any, will determine what sort of policies are followed, and for how long. At the moment, there appear only to be uneasy bedfellows.
From a UK perspective, in my opinion, the likelihood of extended political horse trading in Italy is quite possibly the worst outcome that could have been imagined. In order to get the best possible trading arrangement, following Brexit (and I doubt very much whether the "vision" outlined on Friday will achieve it), the UK actually needs an EU that is less divided and less caught up with any internal wrangling. Unless, of course, the UK Government wants to leave without any deal.
The way that the EU operates means that the EU27 have already managed sufficient compromise between themselves to deliver a single negotiating position. Whilst the message coming from the EU27 to date has not been music to the ears of those who are "leading" the UK at the minute, it is at least consistent and coherent. It is much, much easier to negotiate with one party over Brexit, and then any future trading arrangement, than to try to influence competing factions.
On the day when further evidence comes to light that the US is going to be pushing for the UK to water down it's protections for businesses and consumers, that will directly effect us...we'd rather talk about the Italian election.
It is worrying that the US are pushing for it. Thankfully 'pushing for it' doesn't mean it will necessarily happen. By the same token it doesn't mean that they wont achieve it. Anything can happen with the people we have at the top table.
What's also worrying is that fascism seems to be very much prevalent on both the pro-EU and anti-EU side of things.
Had Five Star been anti-EU then I think the result would have had a more significant reaction on here.
They are very, very strong in the South reflecting anti political establishment views there and they have some distinct policies around the environment and basic income.
Incidentally there is a fascinating debate about universal credit vs basic income as two possible solutions to mass unemployment allowing people to top up with part time work without horrific marginal rates of tax.
In short this might be something Renzi and the PD can work with. As M5* are against cronyism and people with convictions, that rules out Burlusconi for a coalition.
It will take months to resolve and it will also shape M5* as they have to deliver a full on policy platform and not just the fluffy green bits!
What we can agree on is the causes starting with regime change in Libya which has led to hundreds of thousands arriving from North Africa via "sea taxi" plus a complete failure to reflate the economy of the South.
If we know about this, one can be sure that Markel, Macron and the SPD are also aware. They have a chance in 2018-20 to put in place policies to reduce unemployment and make social democratic policies a success. Le Pen is gloating but this might be the focus and pressure required.
And this is not good for the UK / muddled cherry picking as the EU will be 100% focussed on resolution of challenges facing their political economy.
The solution for the UK is a new government.
However, my point about the decline of Social Democracy across Europe is that these parties have tended to be the most federalist. Macron's EU project needs pro EU parties to be in power to proceed.
If I were in the negotiations I would be insisting that no deal was better than a bad deal in order to encourage the fragmentation of the EU's bargaining unity. No other approach will work.
The UK, bravely going forth and seeking to mulitply (its trade deals) alone, has a much less strong position in terms of negotiations than it currently has as a member of the EU.
Equally, my understanding is that any President is limited in terms of direct influence of trade negotiations (as opposed to seeking to begin trade wars).
Various interest groups in the United States of America will exert pressure on politicians for favourable trading conditions, and if there is one thing that we all know about US politics, it is that pressure groups exert hardly any influence at all....
Because, in the end, if the intent is to divide those with whom we seek to agree a trade deal, the likely outcome is that no deal will be agreed at all.
For me, that is the worst possible outcome, because would be the UK deliberately choosing political and economic damage, for both parties, rather than compromise. Which is probably not the wisest course of action in relation to the UK's nearest and largest export market.
I have a fairly low opinion of human nature at the best of times, and I believe that such an approach would be seen as hostile by the EU27, and would have significant negative repercussions.
Surprisingly, perhaps, there is still a significant opinion in the EU27 in favour of seeking a compromise/agreement with the UK (there was an interesting World Service programme - the Brexit Shipping Forecast? - that is worth listening to), but this could all too easily be lost.
Germany, by itself cannot have the sort of power that you assume.
Simply speaking, where there is a veto, all member states have equal power, and where there is Qualified Majority Voting, no one state has that kind of influence.
If your assertion was correct, the UK could, and should, have wielded precisely the same influence.
As I posted only recently Leavers simply do not wish to acknowledge that there is a very real risk, I'd say a certainty, that we will be worse off as consumers post leaving. The idea that individual ministers (let's not forget that) are going to stand up to lobbying from the US meat industry for example or in this case the dairy trade is fanciful. These groups have massive political clout domestically and will have the full support of the US government going into any trade deal, even without factoring in the idiot currently in post over there.
Still we're taking back control and all that...
I wondered about the potential impact on the Scotch Whisky industry should the protections be removed. I didn't realise that it accounts for 20% of all our food & drink exports and supports 40,000 jobs.
scotch-whisky.org.uk/what-we-do/facts-figures/
I'm sure the US bourbon trade association will be looking at that market very closely should the protections be lifted.
Bring on Scotch from Scottsdale and pasties from Pennsylvania.
They are populist anti-austerity. M5* tried to leave the MEP group containing UKIP and join a more liberal coalition.
So we agree that there is a new pressure on the Euro elite. And the French populist left plus Podemos are also on a healthy 20%.
And we agree that there is no negotiation - May is talking nonsense. We either take a Canada deal or we ask for a Norway deal. All the rest of her speech is fluff to burn another few months away. The UK either accepts the authority of the ECJ for all the bits affecting business or we are a tad screwed.
This divergence speak is rubbish - the UK operates under a common code or not. And if we don't then FDI will choose the 500 million consumers over us.
Yes, the original underpinnings were about preventing further war (a remarkably successful project) by ensuring that member states were not in competition with each other, and cooperated in things like heavy industry, etc., and then it moved on to wider areas of integration (which has also proved remarkably successful when you consider the changes that membership has wrought on places as diverse as Ireland, Spain, the Baltic States, Bulgaria and Romania).
But the EU is not about France and Germany alone.
Historically, France and Germany have sought (almost always) to work together, because the leaders of both countries have been alive to the perils of competition and conflict between the two nations, but it has not been a case of them agreeing between themselves and everyone else has to fall into line.
And by the way, any comments on this example of the' stinking cesspit of corruption'