Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: One might as easily say that in 10 years people will have forgotten how dreadful it was being in the EU.
IMO something similar is partially driving this new nationalism. All the bad about a divided Europe has been ignored in favour of a rose tinted view of how things used to be, and combined with a focus on the EU's(many) flaws over its benefit's.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Ultimately this whole mess can be attributed to the blind and ideologically stubborn insistence of European Union leaders to push full European integration on all member states without any consideration of alternatives, such as a two tier Europe with varying degrees of political and economic integration to suit the differing attitudes, values and desires of the various member states. If such an alternative had been in place already, instead of the current One Size Fits All policy, then the UK might not have voted to withdraw (because we would have been in the lower Tier), and the integrity of the EU as a whole would not currently be at jeopardy.
One could also argue the same applies to Scotland and Westminster.
But hey, why take an introspective look at yourselves when you can just blame the scapegoat of the "Daily Heil"?
The EU already has different 'tiers' in respect of membership of the Euro, Schengen, exceptions to directives like the Working Time Directive, the status of Norway and Switzerland, blah di blah, and other examples where the UK and other member states negotiated a different arrangement to the straight EU line.
And do not forget that the UK did put themselves into the whole EU thing. The UK was a founding member of the EFTA whose sole and only scope was free trade, they could have stayed there and everyone would be happier.
your analysis is coloured by your personal hopes in this regard. The longer we are out of Europe, the less young people will care about it, or even remember having been in it. That will remove it as an immediate political issue, and as young people rarely vote, the young people of tomorrow are unlikely to have a particularly loud voice one way or another.
That makes the assumption that we will just get on with things and forget what happens. If that was the case UKIP would never have been started 26 years ago and we would still be in the UK. It's also not the young people of tomorrow you have to worry about, it's the young people of today that will be older generation (and more likely to vote). If they continue to hold the same views of Europe (and lets not forget people always think it is greener on the other side) and an endless barrage of "well we did vote to leave the EU" then you see a substantial shift towards wanting to rejoin the EU. That shift is already happening as people wake up to the implications of leaving in that more people now think leaving the EU is worse than remaining (ignoring the don't knows that seems pretty stagnant).
What's more, those who voted for it now will in turn grow older, and likely vote more conservatively (judging by normal voter demographics). Assuming the country hasn't fallen apart (a reasonable assumption judging by the face we've had a continuous government since Cromwell), there'll be other more pressing political issues playing on their mind then signing back up to European bureaucracy.
We don't really know this because the education demographics are changing when you consider education levels. It has only been in the last 20 or so years where university education has been made available to the larger proportion of the population (one of the good things labour encouraged) and that in itself could drive a different set of politics in the future. There's a substantial shift of views on the EU between the under 40's and over 40's which is about the point that education became more open. Whether that is because they have a better education or have been exposed to a broader range of cultures and hence the protectionist and isolationist views that humans can harbour are more constrained is probably a topic for research. However it is almost certainly that the Leave vote was won because a fraction (but significant one) were generally bigoted/anti-immigration and those concerns are much less prevalent in the current younger population as they have grown up in such a society - that in itself may result is swing to being in the EU as the 'fears' over migration weaken. If this education level continues to have an influence on peoples thinking then it will only be in the next 20 years or so that we will see how this feeds into the 'new' older generations political views. If I was to hazard a guess I'd say you a right that people become more conservative but only in the perspective of changing their views on the world and that the older the generation the more set those views become.
Finally, you're assuming that what the EU turns into will be something that a) well educated liberal types would want to be part of, and b) that indeed anyone would want to be part of. The EU of today bears absolutely no resemblance to that of thirty years ago; there's no telling what it could look like in another twenty five. It could be a dictatorship, have crashed and burned, or (more likely) have unified into something more akin to an individual nation-state.
Or alternatively it could just be like now, where there is a set of common guidelines that the countries comply with (so for example emissions from energy form waste facilities) but how they out those in practice is something for the individual countries to apply. I think your view that the UK populace won't want to be part of the EU again for the better part of a century is rather pessimistic given that it is only 40 years since we were asked the last time. There's a higher probability of an individual nation state becoming a dictatorship especially when you get circumstances where a biased media favours a certain group and there calculated actions to isolate themselves from the public at large so they can't be questioned....oh wait....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/30 09:28:31
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Theresa May was in Aberdeen yesterday on the campaign trail.
When I say Aberdeen, I mean small isolated village 20 miles outside Aberdeen.
When I say campaign trail, I mean isolated event packed with party members asking softball questions, with a few sympathetic journalists there to offer up lavish praise.
Can I survive 7 more weeks of this
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Ultimately this whole mess can be attributed to the blind and ideologically stubborn insistence of European Union leaders to push full European integration on all member states without any consideration of alternatives, such as a two tier Europe with varying degrees of political and economic integration to suit the differing attitudes, values and desires of the various member states. If such an alternative had been in place already, instead of the current One Size Fits All policy, then the UK might not have voted to withdraw (because we would have been in the lower Tier), and the integrity of the EU as a whole would not currently be at jeopardy.
One could also argue the same applies to Scotland and Westminster.
But hey, why take an introspective look at yourselves when you can just blame the scapegoat of the "Daily Heil"?
The EU already has different 'tiers' in respect of membership of the Euro, Schengen, exceptions to directives like the Working Time Directive, the status of Norway and Switzerland, blah di blah, and other examples where the UK and other member states negotiated a different arrangement to the straight EU line.
And do not forget that the UK did put themselves into the whole EU thing. The UK was a founding member of the EFTA whose sole and only scope was free trade, they could have stayed there and everyone would be happier.
Aye it began as a smaller central Europe trade block.
All economies around same level with similar attributes and nations.
Then its grown a long way from there to point they considered letting Turkey join, a curency, passport free travel, super state, parliments, and covers 27 nations of various economic levels.
The things is maybe it has grown too big...
Trade yeah, it did not have to become a political super state and consider founding its own combined nation armed forces.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It has often been said that young people love socialism, then they get jobs and property as they get older, and then become Conservatives...
There is some truth in that.
I skipped socialism entirely. I credit New Labour with that.
New Labour was a never a socialist party - Clause IV was ditched early on by Blair.
Love him or loathe him, Corbyn scares the hell out of the Blairites because he reminds them of what they used to be: a party that stood up for something, full of people who meant what they said.
If the Tories and Labour had proper ideological foundations, like what they used to have, instead of this centre ground nonsense we've had for the last 20 years, I think the country would be in a better shape.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The EU already has different 'tiers' in respect of membership of the Euro, Schengen, exceptions to directives like the Working Time Directive, the status of Norway and Switzerland, blah di blah, and other examples where the UK and other member states negotiated a different arrangement to the straight EU line.
The "Daily Heil" ignored all of that in favour of spreading lies about bendy banana bans.
That's because people from the government to individuals want to divest themselves of responsibility. Hence the EU became a punching bag that couldn't fight back on such issues - it was too easy. Hence the issues for small scale fishermen was all the EUs fault because of the limitations placed to keep things sustainable based on scientific evidence rather than that the UK government awarded 85% of fishing rights to large multinational companies. The 'wonky' fruit and veg was all the EU's fault rather than that we as consumers kept buying standardised, cosmetically pleasing products and the supermarkets and food chains were happy to do this because it made packaging and transport easier and the retailers had to worry less about waste space.
However the Daily Fail were happy to spout such nonsense because their owners/editors etc have a vested interest in a certain outcome so they can benefit.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It has often been said that young people love socialism, then they get jobs and property as they get older, and then become Conservatives...
There is some truth in that.
I was a conservative but the older i have gotten the more liberal i have gotten, but i know exactly what you mean and i think its more true that most realise.
I think that was Thatcher's plan all those years ago: let people buy their council houses and turn them into Conservatives.
In our multi-party democracy, there is nothing wrong with being a Conservative (although I don't like them myself)
but it was short term thinking, and 30 years on, we're in a major housing crisis because of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @whirlwind
It's a fair point about the rise of a pro-EU younger generation, but don't forget those young people will be old themselves one day, and like I said earlier, the older you get, the more conservative people generally get, and yes, there will always be exceptions to the norm.
None the less, it's not as clear cut as younger people taking us back into the EU in 10 years time. Assuming there is still an EU in 10 years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/30 09:45:31
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
When I say Aberdeen, I mean small isolated village 20 miles outside Aberdeen.
When I say campaign trail, I mean isolated event packed with party members asking softball questions, with a few sympathetic journalists there to offer up lavish praise.
Can I survive 7 more weeks of this
What May is doing a fiasco and a farce. It's making a mockery of any idea that she has any interest in the populaces views at larger and much prefers to hide behind closed door events because it might do her some political harm in doing so. To me this implies she is a coward at heart and fears facing people that might challenge her and her views
The question is then, do we really want a coward trying to undertake complex negotiations with the EU and across the world?
It's a fair point about the rise of a pro-EU younger generation, but don't forget those young people will be old themselves one day, and like I said earlier, the older you get, the more conservative people generally get, and yes, there will always be exceptions to the norm.
None the less, it's not as clear cut as younger people taking us back into the EU in 10 years time. Assuming there is still an EU in 10 years.
I think the question is whether the increase in education levels will change that dynamic as we have never been in a position where there is a significant variation in the education levels between the older and younger generation and this might have unforeseen consequences. Additionally do people become more conservative as a whole or more conservative to changing their views? The latter would imply that for the next generation of older people will have entrenched pro-EU views. You could look at France as an example, there it's the older generation that are pro-EU and there is more scepticism in the younger generation. There was an interview on the BBC the other day and one of the younger people noted (in summary) that the older generation were more fearful of the past and wanted to avoid a repeat of the 1940's and that the younger generation were less scared of wars as the older generation is (I found the comment slightly disconcerting tbh).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/30 09:51:23
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
That makes the assumption that we will just get on with things and forget what happens.
In all seriousness, have you seen the attention span of the general public? And then the attention span of young people on top of that? There's a reason young people don't turn out to vote, they're too busy getting drunk, laid, and generally entertaining themselves with far more pleasant matters than things they know they don't particularly understand. Sure, there's always the exceptions (I was probably one of them), but the vast majority of 'young' people don't give a crap about anything that doesn't directly affect them (ala student loans).
It's also not the young people of tomorrow you have to worry about, it's the young people of today that will be older generation (and more likely to vote). If they continue to hold the same views of Europe (and lets not forget people always think it is greener on the other side) and an endless barrage of "well we did vote to leave the EU" then you see a substantial shift towards wanting to rejoin the EU. That shift is already happening as people wake up to the implications of leaving in that more people now think leaving the EU is worse than remaining (ignoring the don't knows that seems pretty stagnant).
Hence my comment about us rejoining something half-way if it looks like it makes good economic sense.
More generally though, I highly, highly doubt any future general election in ten years is going to be fought on the basis of 'Let's get back into Europe' without a major economic catastrophe. I mean, seriously. Right now, we've a million and one pressing problems, from palliative care to our lack of an energy policy beyond 'Kick it down the road another five years'. When those things are still biting us in the arse in ten years, some vague liberal sense of 'how we should all totes come back together in Europe' won't even make Page 5 when it comes to voting choices, and none of the major parties will be running on it. There'll always be far more pressing immediate problems. The only way it will re-emerge is if necessity (aka economic urgency) dictate it.
We don't really know this because the education demographics are changing when you consider education levels. It has only been in the last 20 or so years where university education has been made available to the larger proportion of the population (one of the good things labour encouraged) and that in itself could drive a different set of politics in the future.
You appear to be saying that your hope this will happen is based upon a prediction around a topic where you say you yourself 'don't know' what will happen. That's why I'm picking it out. You're hoping for a demographic shift in voting patterns different to those of the last fifty years with no real evidence as of yet beyond your own hopes and predictions.
Or alternatively it could just be like now, where there is a set of common guidelines that the countries comply with (so for example emissions from energy form waste facilities) but how they out those in practice is something for the individual countries to apply.
In which case I doubt anyone will care much one way or the other. Unless it either literally transforms into utopia or we descend into hell, there's no real motivation for anyone to care a huge amount. The EU was alright, but it has a crapton of ups and downs. It's not this magical grail shaped beacon which all young people will be instinctively drawn to. It's a bunch of elderly men sitting in a room espousing vague free trade policies whilst trying to plan a superstate. You're letting the fact you think it's the dog's bollocks in many regards make you assume that a significant number of people in the future will see it in the same way as you.
When in reality? I suspect they'll look at it like they do the USA. A foreign political grouping with its ups and its downs. But certainly not something to feel strongly enough about to let it dictate their voting tendencies, not when the Tory Party is trying to pass the law which allows tellies to watch us in the name of fighting terrorism or Labour's just raised the beer duty by 2%.
When I say Aberdeen, I mean small isolated village 20 miles outside Aberdeen.
When I say campaign trail, I mean isolated event packed with party members asking softball questions, with a few sympathetic journalists there to offer up lavish praise.
Can I survive 7 more weeks of this
They all do it. Remember Broon and Gillian Duffy? All politicians want a carefully choreographed performance in an election runup. If you have a loud argument with a member of the general public, it's guaranteed to be front page the next day, and almost equally guaranteed to paint you in a bad light and hurt your odds. Corbyn and Farron will have retinues keeping away the punters just as enthusiastically.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/30 10:26:51
That makes the assumption that we will just get on with things and forget what happens.
In all seriousness, have you seen the attention span of the general public? And then the attention span of young people on top of that? There's a reason young people don't turn out to vote, they're too busy getting drunk, laid, and generally entertaining themselves with far more pleasant matters than things they know they don't particularly understand. Sure, there's always the exceptions (I was probably one of them), but the vast majority of 'young' people don't give a crap about anything that doesn't directly affect them (ala student loans).
It's also not the young people of tomorrow you have to worry about, it's the young people of today that will be older generation (and more likely to vote). If they continue to hold the same views of Europe (and lets not forget people always think it is greener on the other side) and an endless barrage of "well we did vote to leave the EU" then you see a substantial shift towards wanting to rejoin the EU. That shift is already happening as people wake up to the implications of leaving in that more people now think leaving the EU is worse than remaining (ignoring the don't knows that seems pretty stagnant).
Hence my comment about us rejoining something half-way if it looks like it makes good economic sense.
More generally though, I highly, highly doubt any future general election in ten years is going to be fought on the basis of 'Let's get back into Europe' without a major economic catastrophe. I mean, seriously. Right now, we've a million and one pressing problems, from palliative care to our lack of an energy policy beyond 'Kick it down the road another five years'. When those things are still biting us in the arse in ten years, some vague liberal sense of 'how we should all totes come back together in Europe' won't even make Page 5 when it comes to voting choices, and none of the major parties will be running on it. There'll always be far more pressing immediate problems. The only way it will re-emerge is if necessity (aka economic urgency) dictate it.
We don't really know this because the education demographics are changing when you consider education levels. It has only been in the last 20 or so years where university education has been made available to the larger proportion of the population (one of the good things labour encouraged) and that in itself could drive a different set of politics in the future.
You appear to be saying that your hope this will happen is based upon a prediction around a topic where you say you yourself 'don't know' what will happen. That's why I'm picking it out. You're hoping for a demographic shift in voting patterns different to those of the last fifty years with no real evidence as of yet beyond your own hopes and predictions.
Or alternatively it could just be like now, where there is a set of common guidelines that the countries comply with (so for example emissions from energy form waste facilities) but how they out those in practice is something for the individual countries to apply.
In which case I doubt anyone will care much one way or the other. Unless it either literally transforms into utopia or we descend into hell, there's no real motivation for anyone to care a huge amount. The EU was alright, but it has a crapton of ups and downs. It's not this magical grail shaped beacon which all young people will be instinctively drawn to. It's a bunch of elderly men sitting in a room espousing vague free trade policies whilst trying to plan a superstate. You're letting the fact you think it's the dog's bollocks in many regards make you assume that a significant number of people in the future will see it in the same way as you.
When in reality? I suspect they'll look at it like they do the USA. A foreign political grouping with its ups and its downs. But certainly not something to feel strongly enough about to let it dictate their voting tendencies, not when the Tory Party is trying to pass the law which allows tellies to watch us in the name of fighting terrorism or Labour's just raised the beer duty by 2%.
When I say Aberdeen, I mean small isolated village 20 miles outside Aberdeen.
When I say campaign trail, I mean isolated event packed with party members asking softball questions, with a few sympathetic journalists there to offer up lavish praise.
Can I survive 7 more weeks of this
They all do it. Remember Broon and Gillian Duffy? All politicians want a carefully choreographed performance in an election runup. If you have a loud argument with a member of the general public, it's guaranteed to be front page the next day, and almost equally guaranteed to paint you in a bad light and hurt your odds. Corbyn and Farron will have retinues keeping away the punters just as enthusiastically.
Was that the Gordon Brown that bloody woman moment that put a huge dent In his campaign for a while.
Yeah, unplanned events have some serious risks.
You say the wrong thing in digital world... Everyone will know.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
In response to the above posts, yes there is a risk with engaging with the general public, but on the other hand, this type of action only reinforces the idea of the Westminster bubble, which has resulted in general apathy to politics and low turnouts with each passing year.
A balance needs to be struck between engagement and hiding away in a Scottish forest!
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
My mouth genuine;y fell open when I watched her say it.
But hey, why take an introspective look at yourselves when you can just blame the scapegoat of the "Daily Heil"?
Pot == kettle.
meanwhile ...
Spoiler:
2017 really is very odd indeed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/30 11:37:02
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Another thing that has angered me is the Tories' promise to address the problem of companies playing fast and loose with their employees' pension schemes.
The first major instance of this kind of scandal was Robert Maxwell in 1991-92. There have been a number of massive instances since, the latest being the collapse of British Home Stores with a £500 M+ hole in its pension scheme remarkably similar in size to the £500+ M of cash that "Sir" Philip Green extracted from the company and put into his Monaco resident non-tax paying wife's name over several years before selling the company for £1 to a failed bankrupt with no experience in the retail business and then saying none of it was his fault.
OK, Labour and Conservative governments, you've had 25 years to do something about this and you haven't. Why should anyone believe either of you now?
Infact, I'm pretty sure that I'd have a hard time believing anything this woman says. She U turns on pretty much anything, and has the principles and courage of an alley cat. How anyone can think she's a good fit for the forthcoming negotiations is beyond me.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Not unless its actually written in there manifesto no. Even then only if they think it will cause a stink in the press like the NI changes they tried to get in the budget.
Not unless its actually written in there manifesto no. Even then only if they think it will cause a stink in the press like the NI changes they tried to get in the budget.
I wouldn't believe it if it was carved in stone by a deity of your choice. VAT rises fit Tory ideology perfectly. Maximum revenue, minimum impact on their party donors and the "wealth creators".
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
The UK’s eventual exit from the EU is looking more and more likely to be a train wreck. The Brexiteers in Prime Minister Theresa May’s administration are living in a fantasy world. And although May herself comes across as sensible and pragmatic, it now appears that she is as deluded as they are.
Last Wednesday, April 25th, May met the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, for dinner in London. Senior members of the British and EU negotiating teams were also present.
The dinner was a total disaster. But just how badly it went, at least from the European Commission’s point of view, has only just been revealed.
As is its wont, the Commission has expressed its anger in the press. Although it has previously used the British press to communicate its views on Brexit, this time it has opted to use a German newspaper. An article in the print edition of Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAZ) reveals details of the proceedings at the dinner. It is in German. There is no English translation. Nor is there a complete online version of the article.
Releasing details of the dinner to a German newspaper for printing in German only is a slap in the face for May and her team. The Commission, it seems, is very angry indeed.
Jeremy Cliffe, The Economist’s Berlin bureau chief, tweeted the salient points from the FAZ article. They are absolutely damning. No wonder the Commission is angry. Here they are, transcribed.
Today's FAZ report on May's disastrous dinner with Juncker - briefed by senior Commission sources -is absolutely damning.
May had said she wanted to talk not just Brexit but also world problems; but in practice it fell to Juncker to propose one to discuss.
May has made clear to the Commission that she fully expects to be reelected as PM.
It is thought [in the Commission] that May wants to frustrate the daily business of the EU27, to improve her own negotiating position.
May seemed pissed off at Davis for regaling her dinner guests of his ECJ case against her data retention measures-three times.
EU side were astonished at May's suggestion that EU/UK expats issue could be sorted at EU Council meeting at the end of June. Juncker objected to this timetable as way too optimistic given complexities, eg on rights to health care.
Juncker pulled two piles of paper from his bag: Croatia's EU entry deal, Canada's free trade deal. His point: Brexit will be v v complex.
May wanted to work through the Brexit talks in monthly, 4-day blocks; all confidential until the end of the process. Commission said impossible to reconcile this with need to square off member states & European Parliament, so documents must be published.
EU side felt May was seeing whole thing through rose-tinted-glasses. "Let us make Brexit a success" she told them. Juncker countered that Britain will now be a third state, not even (like Turkey) in the customs union: "Brexit cannot be a success".
May seemed surprised by this and seemed to the EU side not to have been fully briefed. She cited her own JHA opt-out negotiations as home sec as a model: a mutually useful agreement meaning lots on paper, little in reality. May's reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared. I.e., as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience) then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit.
"The more I hear, the more sceptical I become" said Juncker (this was only half way through the dinner).
May then insisted to Juncker et al that UK owes EU no money because there is nothing to that effect in the treaties. Her guests then informed her that the EU is not a golf club. Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.
Leaving EU27 with UK's unpaid bills will involve national parliaments in process (a point that Berlin had made repeatedly before).
May has made clear to the Commission that she fully expects to be reelected as PM.
It is thought [in the Commission] that May wants to frustrate the daily business of the EU27, to improve her own negotiating position.
May seemed pissed off at Davis for regaling her dinner guests of his ECJ case against her data retention measures-three times.
EU side were astonished at May's suggestion that EU/UK expats issue could be sorted at EU Council meeting at the end of June. Juncker objected to this timetable as way too optimistic given complexities, eg on rights to health care.
Juncker pulled two piles of paper from his bag: Croatia's EU entry deal, Canada's free trade deal. His point: Brexit will be v v complex.
May wanted to work through the Brexit talks in monthly, 4-day blocks; all confidential until the end of the process. Commission said impossible to reconcile this with need to square off member states & European Parliament, so documents must be published.
EU side felt May was seeing whole thing through rose-tinted-glasses. "Let us make Brexit a success" she told them. Juncker countered that Britain will now be a third state, not even (like Turkey) in the customs union: "Brexit cannot be a success".
May seemed surprised by this and seemed to the EU side not to have been fully briefed. She cited her own JHA opt-out negotiations as home sec as a model: a mutually useful agreement meaning lots on paper, little in reality. May's reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared. I.e., as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience) then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit.
"The more I hear, the more sceptical I become" said Juncker (this was only half way through the dinner).
May then insisted to Juncker et al that UK owes EU no money because there is nothing to that effect in the treaties. Her guests then informed her that the EU is not a golf club. Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.
Leaving EU27 with UK's unpaid bills will involve national parliaments in process (a point that Berlin had made repeatedly before).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/01 07:59:49
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Are telivised debates going to happen now? Or are both May and Corbyn not prepared to play ball. Disgusting really. If they can't face each other and our public, then how can they be trusted to face the EU?
The UK’s eventual exit from the EU is looking more and more likely to be a train wreck. The Brexiteers in Prime Minister Theresa May’s administration are living in a fantasy world. And although May herself comes across as sensible and pragmatic, it now appears that she is as deluded as they are.
Last Wednesday, April 25th, May met the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, for dinner in London. Senior members of the British and EU negotiating teams were also present.
The dinner was a total disaster. But just how badly it went, at least from the European Commission’s point of view, has only just been revealed.
As is its wont, the Commission has expressed its anger in the press. Although it has previously used the British press to communicate its views on Brexit, this time it has opted to use a German newspaper. An article in the print edition of Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAZ) reveals details of the proceedings at the dinner. It is in German. There is no English translation. Nor is there a complete online version of the article.
Releasing details of the dinner to a German newspaper for printing in German only is a slap in the face for May and her team. The Commission, it seems, is very angry indeed.
Jeremy Cliffe, The Economist’s Berlin bureau chief, tweeted the salient points from the FAZ article. They are absolutely damning. No wonder the Commission is angry. Here they are, transcribed.
Today's FAZ report on May's disastrous dinner with Juncker - briefed by senior Commission sources -is absolutely damning.
May had said she wanted to talk not just Brexit but also world problems; but in practice it fell to Juncker to propose one to discuss.
May has made clear to the Commission that she fully expects to be reelected as PM.
It is thought [in the Commission] that May wants to frustrate the daily business of the EU27, to improve her own negotiating position.
May seemed pissed off at Davis for regaling her dinner guests of his ECJ case against her data retention measures-three times.
EU side were astonished at May's suggestion that EU/UK expats issue could be sorted at EU Council meeting at the end of June. Juncker objected to this timetable as way too optimistic given complexities, eg on rights to health care.
Juncker pulled two piles of paper from his bag: Croatia's EU entry deal, Canada's free trade deal. His point: Brexit will be v v complex.
May wanted to work through the Brexit talks in monthly, 4-day blocks; all confidential until the end of the process. Commission said impossible to reconcile this with need to square off member states & European Parliament, so documents must be published.
EU side felt May was seeing whole thing through rose-tinted-glasses. "Let us make Brexit a success" she told them. Juncker countered that Britain will now be a third state, not even (like Turkey) in the customs union: "Brexit cannot be a success".
May seemed surprised by this and seemed to the EU side not to have been fully briefed. She cited her own JHA opt-out negotiations as home sec as a model: a mutually useful agreement meaning lots on paper, little in reality. May's reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared. I.e., as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience) then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit.
"The more I hear, the more sceptical I become" said Juncker (this was only half way through the dinner).
May then insisted to Juncker et al that UK owes EU no money because there is nothing to that effect in the treaties. Her guests then informed her that the EU is not a golf club. Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.
Leaving EU27 with UK's unpaid bills will involve national parliaments in process (a point that Berlin had made repeatedly before).
May has made clear to the Commission that she fully expects to be reelected as PM.
It is thought [in the Commission] that May wants to frustrate the daily business of the EU27, to improve her own negotiating position.
May seemed pissed off at Davis for regaling her dinner guests of his ECJ case against her data retention measures-three times.
EU side were astonished at May's suggestion that EU/UK expats issue could be sorted at EU Council meeting at the end of June. Juncker objected to this timetable as way too optimistic given complexities, eg on rights to health care.
Juncker pulled two piles of paper from his bag: Croatia's EU entry deal, Canada's free trade deal. His point: Brexit will be v v complex.
May wanted to work through the Brexit talks in monthly, 4-day blocks; all confidential until the end of the process. Commission said impossible to reconcile this with need to square off member states & European Parliament, so documents must be published.
EU side felt May was seeing whole thing through rose-tinted-glasses. "Let us make Brexit a success" she told them. Juncker countered that Britain will now be a third state, not even (like Turkey) in the customs union: "Brexit cannot be a success".
May seemed surprised by this and seemed to the EU side not to have been fully briefed. She cited her own JHA opt-out negotiations as home sec as a model: a mutually useful agreement meaning lots on paper, little in reality. May's reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared. I.e., as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience) then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit.
"The more I hear, the more sceptical I become" said Juncker (this was only half way through the dinner).
May then insisted to Juncker et al that UK owes EU no money because there is nothing to that effect in the treaties. Her guests then informed her that the EU is not a golf club. Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.
Leaving EU27 with UK's unpaid bills will involve national parliaments in process (a point that Berlin had made repeatedly before).
"I leave Downing St ten times as sceptical as I was before" Juncker told May as he left.
Next morning at c7am Juncker called Merkel on her mobile, said May living in another galaxy & totally deluding herself. Merkel quickly reworked her speech to Bundestag to include her now-famous "some in Britain still have illusions" comment.
FAZ concludes: May in election mode & playing to crowd, but what use is a big majority won by nurturing delusions of Brexit hardliners?
Juncker's team now think it more likely than not that Brexit talks will collapse & hope Brits wake up to harsh realities in time.
What to make of it all? Obviously this leak is a highly tactical move by Commission. But contents deeply worrying for UK nonetheless. The report points to major communications/briefing problems. Important messages from Berlin & Brussels seem not to be getting through. Presumably as a result, May seems to be labouring under some really rather fundamental misconceptions about Brexit & the EU27.
Also clear that (as some of us have been warning for a while...) No 10 should expect every detail of the Brexit talks to leak.
Sorry for the long thread. And a reminder: full credit for all the above reporting on the May/Juncker dinner goes to the FAZ.
Cliffe's analysis (third paragraph from the end) implies that May has made a terrible mistake. She has put hardline Brexiteers in charge of negotiating the UK's exit from the EU and its new trade relationships after Brexit. They appear to be systematically deceiving her. As a result, she is not in possession of the true facts.
Presumably these wrecking tactics are intended to further the Brexiteers' real aim of a no-deal exit from the EU - the so-called 'clean Brexit'. But the cost of such an exit for the UK would be terrible. Such behaviour from the Brexiteers is unbelievably irresponsible. And it undermines May's own credibility, just as she is seeking a new mandate from the British people to strengthen her hand in the negotiations.
If the UK is to secure the smoothest possible end to the UK's membership of the EU and the best possible relationship between the UK and the EU in the future, the British team must conduct the negotiations in good faith and with good will. The Brexiteers have demonstrated neither. May must sack them.
It's a damning read, and considering her actions, entirely credible. A hard right, hard brexit forced on the nation by a handful of fantasist idealogues is a sure way to utterly crash the economy.
And to what account can we hold these arseholes? If they drag the UK down, they will just slink off elsewhere, insulated by their wealth and connections, just like Farage.
feth Brexit, and feth Brexiteers.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Let's hang on here for a minute. My loathing of all things Conservative is well known on these boards, and I'll declare up front that Juncker represents everything that is wrong with the EU,
But this is only one side of the story - Juncker's side.
I don't doubt that May is living in a fantasy realm with regards to Brexit, but I would be cautious of automatically buying anything that Juncker said, either.
There are two sides to every story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Are telivised debates going to happen now? Or are both May and Corbyn not prepared to play ball. Disgusting really. If they can't face each other and our public, then how can they be trusted to face the EU?
Well said.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/01 10:24:27
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Really not going to contribute towards any sort of discussion.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
1. The UK is already beginning to experience a consumer spending downtrend caused by rising inflation caused by the weakness of the GBP caused by the Brexit vote.
An increase in VAT would only make this worse.
2. There are plenty of other taxes that can be raised.
Kilkrazy wrote: May is pretty safe in promising not to raise VAT.
1. The UK is already beginning to experience a consumer spending downtrend caused by rising inflation caused by the weakness of the GBP caused by the Brexit vote.
An increase in VAT would only make this worse.
2. There are plenty of other taxes that can be raised.
Yup, the chickens have begun coming home to roost on this action and raising consumer-punitive taxes would be dog-piling an already bad situation.
My election thoughts about back home in Scotland were:
Speaking generally and inspecifically.
People don't vote Tory, because they're rich scumbag lawyers and toffs from old money.
People don't vote Labour, because they're rich scumbag pawns of union bosses that have bribed their way to power.
People don't vote lib-dem because their airie fairy dreamer types who don't know what real life actually is like.
Meanwhile, the SNP guy, is the guy you see walking his dog down the park, who always stops for a chat, who is dealing with the same problems you are, whose kid is just out of drug rehab and wants to do right by their community.
So there's a lot of love for the SNP locally that isn't necessarily related to wanting Scotland to leave the UK.
It also makes me wonder why those sorts of candidates haven't really been generated elsewhere in the UK. It seems to me those caricatures (for want of a better word) aren't too dissimilar to what I'm hear the regular grumbles about.
One would think that UKIP would be it, but they're typically seen as "jerkier tories." With the Greens as Lib Dems with an even more tenuous grasp on reality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/01 23:27:50
Compel wrote: My election thoughts about back home in Scotland were:
Speaking generally and inspecifically.
People don't vote Tory, because they're rich scumbag lawyers and toffs from old money.
People don't vote Labour, because they're rich scumbag pawns of union bosses that have bribed their way to power.
People don't vote lib-dem because their airie fairy dreamer types who don't know what real life actually is like.
Meanwhile, the SNP guy, is the guy you see walking his dog down the park, who always stops for a chat, who is dealing with the same problems you are, whose kid is just out of drug rehab and wants to do right by their community.
So there's a lot of love for the SNP locally that isn't necessarily related to wanting Scotland to leave the UK.
It also makes me wonder why those sorts of candidates haven't really been generated elsewhere in the UK.
Usually because those types cease to be able to survive (metaphorically speaking) for long once they're in power. Either because they get pushed out once there is access to the "big leagues", or the simple realities of success and operating and higher levels of government inherently draw out certain kinds of behaviors in anyone, and once that has set in it's impossible for those types to rise again within that same group.
The SNP is (relatively) young and has only recently generated significant success, at least electorally speaking. They can still afford to have the "Everyday" types around.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/01 23:52:53
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
