On the contrary - his golf was not great. But he was a senior lawyer who had worked: for two silver circle law firms in Germany, Japan and U.K.; the German privatisation agency after unification and many major x-border M&A deals. Despite this wealth of international experience and expertise he kept coming back to one point - Merkel had screwed up massively on immigration. He was v lukewarm on FoM too. When I tried to move on to Merkel as the master of compromise, he merely returned to migration and migrants. She had failed massively. He was unsympathetic (!!) to my suppprt for the four freedoms especially of people!! This is a v well educated, travelled and experienced German professional ?!?
Leavers are not alone - here, Germany and as this weekend shows in Sweden too. For those who don’t listen to the news/have access to google 😉
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45461686
In lovely, liberal utopic Sweden (?) immigration dominates the debate
(my comment was in reply to IGM FWIW)
So some rich bloke who has used FoM for his benefit is against poor economic migrants, quelle surprise
My prejudice against golfers has been reinforced.
I bet he had a moustache as well.
But he was equally mystified at Merkel’s approach to immigration
Really? I would have thought it was as obvious as their policy on refugees and people fleeing persecution has been pretty constant for a while.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_collective_guilt
we can pull some old news articles of refugee ships full of Jews being turned back from the USA and sent back to concentration camps which caused enough guilt for the US government to push for immigration restrictions to be lifted on Palestine creating the state of Israel.
guilt is a powerful tool.
So random german lawyers can be hypocrites too. Who knew?
I think you all missed the point of the story. THM gets his gossip from important people who are close to those making the decisions whereas the rest of us just have to wait for those making the decisions to tweet something.
As I recall the grown ups comment was about people behind the scenes doing the hard work that would secure a good deal
I think we can all stand back and agree quite how well that is going.
In other news still no plan
I didn't miss that, I just ignored it.
Ignoring stuff that doesn’t fit a predetermined narrative - plus ca change 😀
Sorry zippy. Wrong. But let’s not get in the way of prejudice either. He did like a nice bit of chocolate though
A story about one German lawyer you've met doesn't much like immigration...meaningless verbiage to the actual point of the thread...plus ca change.
Whereas an anecdote about someone's old nan who reads the Wail and thinks Europe is a bad idea is 100% relevant - when moaners out themselves as hypocrites it's brilliant
Ignoring stuff that doesn’t fit a predetermined narrative –
Like the content of the article who's headline suited you on port investment which was actually about the predicted chaos and resulting economic impact brexit at Dover.
I know fancy welcoming investment in N England to balance geographic inequality - let's just ignore it inside and write out of date comments on Immingham instead (which is easily falsified)
One out, all out 😀
Amomg the bad news in the article
Northern routes are also growing in popularity as companies try to cut carbon emissions and ship direct to their markets. Each mile at sea uses less energy than one on the congested motorway network.
Terrible
THM ,inside every golfer is a moustache and a pink v neck jumper.
Of course - at least that's as accurate as much of ^ 😀
So we just need to ignore the massive problems forecast for our busiest shipping routes.
Ignore the logistical changes and accept that this was planned to happen for other reasons?
Shipping and imports will continue to be strong to an island nation. Investment in ports will be important as we are a net importer.
The UK will just pay the price in increases to prices.
It's not a brexit good news story.
But top line of the list of things to do....
Come up with a plan that is compatible with the eu requirements.
Nobody has done that yet. I would imagine somebody wrote a list down on a white board at. Chequers of what that was but borris was too busy screwing around to read it and it's become apparent that plenty of the rest don't like reading anyway.
Momentum behind a vote on the deal is growing, support for remain is growing, key trade union support will influence the Labour Party conference.
No we adjust, plan and invest in alternatives that produce potentially better outcomes for all. Or just moan. Your choice. Glad ABP is doing the fomer.
I know fancy welcoming investment in N England to balance geographic inequality – let’s just ignore it inside and write out of date comments on Immingham instead (which is easily falsified)
But do you understand why they're making that inverstment, do you understand the consequences of it?
So you are now arguing that we roll over and accept the EU's position even though that's not the best outcome. It's great this, everyone outing themselves as each day...
I would prefer a united position to achieve a bespoke FTA. This is a unique position that requires a unique solution. That's where the momentum "should" be rather than fighting the old battles
Yes pondo
Immingham handled 183,000 container units in 2017, up from 68,000 units in 2013 and taking it close to its capacity. ABP predicted a further 50 per cent increase in traffic by 2020. Nearby Hull is growing by more than 10 per cent annually and moved 109,000 units in 2017.
DFDS, a Danish group that is the second biggest shipping line serving the UK, is also expanding its own Immingham terminal, although it did not disclose investment figures.
And transport company Unifeeder is growing its network to the north with new services recently introduced from Dunkirk and Antwerp to Teesport and from Rotterdam to the Port of Tyne.
All for investment in N of England personally especially if it brings environmental benefits too. Should be momentum there too
Not an environmental benefit as such THM
Since tbe famous kyoto cop-out shipping doesn't count toward nations CO2
So we can say we are reducing vehicle emissions & our official CO2 output. So as to get round the the backlog at Southern ports stuff will travel further at sea, so yes brexit even contributes to climate change !
You're wasting your time as a high-powered-well-connected-whatever-it-is-you-do, with your ability to cherry-pick you could single-handedly resolve the shortage of seasonal farmhands. 🙂 So yeah, massive investment - great. It's because they know Kent will shortly become the world's biggest car park (this is bad), and they aren't doing it out of charity, everything that we import by sea will become more expensive (again this is bad). So trumpet it as a Brexit success story if you will (and it seems like the only one you have), but you are turning a blind eye to reality to make it fit your agenda. You know, like you're accusing all remainers of doing.
If you would prefer that we really on one Port in the S of England with limited transport infrastructure then go ahead.
If you would prefer that we really on one Port in the S of England with limited transport infrastructure then go ahead.
Here's an idea - maybe that investment can be made WITHOUT Brexit, has that occurred to you? I know it doesn't fit your scenario, but just imagine for once that good things can happen without it.
That would be even better, true. Unfortunately....
Everyone seems to want a "bespoke" FTA.
No one can agree what that should entail.
Any attempt to define the new relationship, with the countries around us, results in pouting Brexit cheerleaders moaning that is wasn't what the people voted for.
There will not be a new relationship, with supporting FTA, that proves to be more popular with the public than remaining a member of the EU, with the bespoke and envied deal we already have.
The unpopularity of each possible form of Brexit shows how useless the vote we held on 2016 is for informing our path forward from here.
What is there exactly to unite behind? The only thing anyone can agree on, it seems, is that our politicans can not seem to deliver what ever it is they were proposing just over 2 years ago.
So you are now arguing that we roll over and accept the EU’s position even though that’s not the best outcome.
First we have to decide on our position before we can assess the options. As we appear to be too incompetent to do this perhaps we are just not ready for this level of “control”
the ABP investment is good but from the numbers you quote it has only come after the ports have hit capacity pre-Brexit. If that is correct the group would seem to not be worried about the increase under normal circumstances (which imo is short sighted) but have as their hand forced by the shitshow of planning for Brexit.
one this to also understand that port capacity is meaningless if you do not have the correct haulage infrastructure to support it. As the ports are updated the roads need to be as does the driver distribution. The government (both local and national) should be a partner in the development..
Every day just highlights the shower we have in charge. And no credible opposition makes it worse
Like the M20?
Like the M20?
It's not my favourite, to be honest. Why do you ask?
The entire transport “policy” for the UK is a testament to how not to apply “joined up thinking”
"bespoke" is just the politically acceptable word for "unicorn"
A bit unfair … "bespoke" is just taken to mean "something that doesn't currently exist" … this includes the unpopular and possible, as well as the popular and impossible. Importantly though, it is utterly undefined. May has given it a go… her version is unpopular and impossible… still, we should all unite behind what no one wants, and can't be achieved.
Maybe but the important point is that it still means all things to all people so we can all agree it's what we want, without any of us agreeing on anything at all. And it sounds very high quality like a custom-made suit, rather than rubbish and inadequate and not fit for purpose like it will actually be in reality (if we ever get as far as a negotiated agreement).
We already have a bespoke membership of the EU of course.
As long as you don't write down anything that can be scrutinised, you can get a large minority of the public to back you. At least May has released that can't go on much longer. Unlike others.
Tick. Tock.
Getting the most popular option, our current bespoke membership deal, back on the table is a near impossible task, that is also running out of time.
Tick. Tock.
And people chose to give that membership up, of course.
They voted that way in the referendum, but it is not in their (our) power to give up membership. That's for the govt to do, or not.
And both major parties are committed to doing that. One even has a leader who believes in it. #forthemajoirynotthefew
Sure, but a week is a long time in politics. Let's see if Labour can avoid committing to another referendum....
Aye who would have thought it. Unions and blairites (spit) on the same side but the momentum with the old bloke on the other one.
And both major parties are committed to doing that.
Both major parties were committed to staying in the EU, but then the "people" told them they wanted something else. They then started down a new route. Now, they might well have to change tack again. They need to listen. And, yes, hence all the "noise" now to get them to listen. That noise will get louder. It needs to ramp up much faster than it is though. Much faster. Much louder.
Tick. Tock.
Sure, but a week is a long time in politics. Let’s see if Labour can avoid committing to another referendum….
They have avoided saying anything meaningful for the last 2 years almost so another week won’t be too hard.
in any event any vote will be too late. The “deal” needs to be agreed in October for ratification in the member states. So let’s say a deal is reached then put to Parliament, the organisation of a vote takes place obviously avoiding Christmas, we have a vote in jan? For what reason? So politicians can blame the public and wash their hands.
If you are a member state why would you devote any effort to ratification until we have all our cards on the table and our house in order?
If you are a member state why would you devote any effort to ratification until we have all our cards on the table and our house in order?
Because, they will not be ratifying a deal on our future relationship at all, they'll just be approving the transition really… which is where we pay our way, do as we're told, and give up our seat at the table. No reason to vote against that, if the EU pin us down to a withdrawal agreement that means we stick to the rules, but don't set them, while the can kicking continues.
I see trollhurtmore has posted 15 times in the last 15 hours,a pretty sad way for a city highflyer to spend his weekend,mind you tutors in minor public schools have lots of spare time at weekends,don't they ?
Minor?? How very dare you. That's so rude...
I can't help but thinking THM responses are an adult version of the play school retort of "I know you are, you said you are but what am I?"
Ok,very minor !!
Because, they will not be ratifying a deal on our future relationship at all, they’ll just be approving the transition really…
as I understand it we are negotiating for the final deal not what happens in the transition. I thought that was agreed we stop paying, still complying with the rules with movement of good stuff etc, we can start negotiations with other countries and after 12-24 months out we pop.
we have spent 2 years to get to here. We need to engage an extra 160 odd countries so can't waist time on restarting negotiations with the EU. Even if they give a **** about us by then..
So you are now arguing that we roll over and accept the EU’s position even though that’s not the best outcome. It’s great this, everyone outing themselves as each day…
And you say people pay for your flawed comprehension and misrepresentation....
The UK doesn't get to choose, we get to agree and say thank you. We can't get a better deal than the one we have.
Yes, you only get the free version. But puzzling, when you conclude with a sentence that makes sense, why precede it with one that doesn't at all?
Makes perfect sense to me - what are you struggling with, THM?
Yeh I wondered that. It’s perfectly clear what Mike meant to communicate.
The bit that's untrue
Oh wise one you are so gnomic and inscrutable. We are truly honoured to have such an intellectual giant amongst us.
The bit that’s untrue
That wasn't what you said, though, was it? You make obfuscation an art form - I presume that's at least partly because you're aware how weak your argument is.
Correct - I referred to the bit that didn't make sense. It didnt make sense latgely because it was untrue.
capn, nothing to the privilege of being in the middle of literary and comic genius
OK so it is untrue. The UK does have a choice,
But then so does a condemned man when asked to choose between the firing squad or the gallows!
EDIT: Plus, if you don't fancy execution, there is the cliff, feel free to jump..
That wasn’t what you said, though, was it? You make obfuscation an art form – I presume that’s at least partly because you’re aware how weak your argument is.
I'm beginning to think he's actually a politician. All filler, no killer.
We can’t get a better deal than the one we have.
Precisely. But the electorate weren't aware of that when they voted, and some may have changed their mind as a result. If they are asked again, and enough have changed their mind, (or not) that's democracy as currently defined. I'd much prefer that our democratically elected Government (or Parliament, either will do) actually did the job they were elected to do, realised that we're flying into an avoidable crash and took evasive action themselves but, if they insist on running the country by referendum, we need another one.
Bob and that started so well and then you blew it 😏
as I understand it we are negotiating for the final deal not what happens in the transition
But, @cornholio98, you talked about ratification before we leave… only the withdrawal agreement can be ratified before march next year… a new "bespoke FTA" will take years… so, unless a wise politician asks to extend our membership… or we take an off the shelf option… all that can be ratified before we leave is the withdrawal deal… we're no longer members… but negotiations with the EU on our new relationship carry on, with them having the upper hand because either…
a) transition period is agreed and entered into, we're playing by their rules, to keep market access as it currently is, but we're the nodding dog in the room… no say over anything… and the EU has control over when transition ends
b) a disorderly exit happens, meaning we need trade deals yesterday, and new trade deals with every other trading block in the world still won't come close to matching what we'd have lost in Europe… or at least that's what our government's people say
The withdrawal agreement is supposed to include a vague idea of what we will be transitioning to… but it is not a FTA, or any other form of agreement as to the rules and conditions of our new relationship that we are to transition to. All that has to be hammered out over the years… and the UK government has had to deliberately avoid stating the direction it want this to go in, because it knew that no direction is more popular than continued membership, and any direction they chose would be opposed by a significant proportion of those who campaigned and voted to Leave. As has happened.
The only way to Leave was to set out what relationship we want, affirm this with "the people", with a referendum, then start preparations for both the agreed direction and for a no deal scenario… and then, when we knew we had a plan for both of those outcomes, knew the timescales (roughly) and the government had a direction for its own people to be pushing for… trigger A50 and begin negotiations.
Untrue on several counts. First the referendum was about membership of the EU not how we may or may not secure access to the single market. Membership of the EU and the SM are inseperable. Of course many have deliberately chosen to confuse the issue in order to obstruct the result. Second the U.K. giov set out it’s objectives twice in 2017 including both the defensive and offensive interests. Anyone can assess these interests and objectives against the various off the shelf options for accessing the single market. Hence we know exactly what the negotiating points are against the existing options. Tables summarily these issues have been posted here several times.
Since then our internal fights have meant that we have weakened our position in relation to some of these interests as part of negotiations. We have made the chances of securing an attractive FTA more difficult as a result
There will never be a consensus on the final agreement in exactly the same way that there was never a consensus on the form of our membership throughout its history. Of course obstructiers ignore this deliberately so that they can split the leave vote and distort the process. So far they have done a pretty good job of it too
Membership of the EU and the SM are inseperable.
That's not correct.
Norway is *not* in the EU, and had a referendum to confirm that - they rejected joining the EU because it was too right-wing for their tastes.
But Norway *is* in the SM.
Of course many have deliberately chosen to confuse the issue in order to obstruct the result.
No we are just trying to stop the UK leaving the eu. No need to confuse things there.
Of course obstructiers ignore this deliberately so that they can split the leave vote and distort the process. So far they have done a pretty good job of it too
Until I can hear 2 leavers come up with the same vision I'll leave them to it. No need to try a d split them they were shattered from the day of the result.
But if whatever you think we are doing is working then we shall continue.
No there is a difference between being members and having access to the SM.
Your motives are very clear mike are the means - pages of evidence ^
still Salzburg meetings this weekend look like another step towards a fudge - unless this is another bluff and the SDs close to 20% in Sweden
split the leave vote
Genuine LOLs here. When are the tories going to come up with a credible plan that they can agree on? The brexiteers have just pulled their alternative to chequers cos even they realised it was laughable. That's before you even consider the alternative labour, erm, "vision" for brexit.
Most of the brexit visions from the true believers need the daffy duck gif to realise how the faithful read them.
Are you the peoples front of..... And so on.
In fact what has the eu ever done for us
Since then our internal fights have meant that we have weakened our position in relation to some of these interests as part of negotiations.
As I said, those "internal fights" needed to be resolved, arriving at a decision, which then could be approved by "the people", before we triggered A50… instead, we're just running down the clock, putting the UK in… how can I put this… the shit.
Tick. Tock.
There will never be a consensus on the final agreement
THM,, how can there ever be a consensus when apparently intelligent people such as yourself are so concerned with addressing those who disagree with you as:
Remoaners
Undemocrats
Obstructiers
Many people, myself included, wish only the best outcome for the UK and our freinds in Europe. The 27 EU nations did not suddenly become my adversaries in June 2016.
If and when the UK government presents a proposal I can believe in then I will support it. Until then I will do what I can for the best outcome for all.
Which faction of the governing party are we supposed to unite behind to avoid falling into one of the categories above?
Very well said littledave
I'm slightly bemused that 1400 pages seem to be about financial industries and almost nothing about anyone else who works.
Work wise I'm focussing on the US, South America, SE Asia and the Antipodes. None of those new workstreams are going to bring significant employment to the UK. They will bring revenue back, but that's not going to help people doing jobs that won't exist after we've dropped out of the EU next March.
I’m slightly bemused that 1400 pages seem to be about financial industries and almost nothing about anyone else who works.
I've read most of it.... We covered most things but thm's schrodinger bankers keep coming back.
its all gonne be fine, weve got the potential of a 'soviet era economy' to look forward to
split the leave vote
The 'splitting' of leavers was absolutely inevitable, because there are multiple groups of leavers wanting quite different things. Some want hard Brexit, some soft. So whichever ends up being on the cards, the other group will hate it. We tried to tell THM this, that we weren't voting for an actual plan, but he kept saying it was simple.
It's definitely not simple - that fact alone and its consequences demonstrates this.
Im not sure how THM can blame us remoaners for splitting the leave vote?
we can complain bitterly & laugh & point at the stupidity of the brexiteers, but that doesnt change the fact that none of them have a coherent plan:
they are quite happily split between those that favour the chequers deal (because they are too ashamed to admit that no deal is a disaster & theyve nothing better to offer) Gove, leadsome, Fox,
& the frothing eu haters like mogg, redwood, davis that seem to want a chaotic no deal
& then of course Borris famously wrote those 2 letters, hes obviously split (tho not really it was always about a path to no10 for him, brexit was just a means to an end)
No there is a difference between being members and having access to the SM.
No-one is threatening our place in the Single Market.....
Long time listener, first time caller
I love this thread.
I'm a bit bemused by THM's position, though.
Given that you voted Remain, presumably because you believed it would be the best outcome...
Given that you have now rallied yourself behind Leave because you are a democrat...
Given that you now find yourself forced to defend a Leave position because you are a democrat...
Do you still think it would be damaging to the democratic process to revisit the original question?
Given your stated starting position it is baffling that you have taken such a contrary stance to what is, hyperbole notwithstanding, quite a reasonable opposition.
It is difficult to understand your position outside of it being a game to you.
It is difficult to understand your position outside of it being a game to you.
Nail. Head.
Kimbers and mol - I am no doing what you claim. Both sides are spilt on their visions of life as members or non-members of the EU. True. Remember there are those still even arguing for membership of the Euro despite the havoc this has reeked. Talk about charging ahead without a plan!!! My argument is indeed simple - you cannot technically split one side of the vote (e.g. in a second referendum) while artificially presenting an single alternative. Unless of course you are merely trying to distort the voting process. Yes, mol, we have gone through this before. We have many minority positions that loosely align themselves to remain or leave but are in no way consistent on either side. Hence the narrowness of the actual result.
oldandpastit - We voted to end membership of the EU and therefore membership of the single market. Some do view that as a threat, hence they are negotiating our future access as a non member.
Vaz
1. Yes
2. Haven't rallied round, merely accepted that the majority of voters wanted a different outcome to me.
3. Don't defemd. You are confusing this with rejecting/falsifying lies promoted by those who seek solely to reject/obstruct the result.
4. Yes. Oddly enough find myself in agreement with the head of the RMT on that one.
5. Not baffling. Argue your case, accept the result, move on.
6. It's not a game which is why (5) and why we are prepared for the next phase. That's what business does.
It’s not a game which is why (5) and why we are prepared for the next phase. That’s what business does.
Businesses will move to the most advantageous location as has been seen by the outflow of manufacturing and pharmaceutical bodies. Investment banks will treat it like a game and play the numbers for profit. Trouble is next time they screw up the coffers will be empty so no bailouts