The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Awol]

7 minutes ago, Chindie said:

He said it could take 10 years, and could still fail. I've no idea if he was contradicted by the EU itself. A lot of Leavers didn't like him saying it though.

Funnily enough a lot of Leavers seem very happy he's gone. A lot of people think it's a bad thing, he seems have a reputation as a good negotiator and also as one of a very narrow band of people who 'get' the EU in the government. Funnily enough a profile of I just read also described him quite Eurosceptic.

The clamour seems to be to put a happy clappy Brexiteer in his place. As a few commentators are putting it, it's not a bad thing to have someone in this kind of position who can tell the government when it's wrong. 

I know nothing about the bloke or his competence. BTW it was an article in the Telegraph, they got hold of leaked minutes from an EU meeting where Michel Barnier (chief EU negotiator) said  the political outline of a trade deal could be done within the two year article 50 process, with a transition process to follow where the details are thrashed out.

When his advice to the UK Gov is that wrong then Mr Ambassador was in the wrong job. 

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

You're admitting there's a problem then? What if she was?

I'm thinking my observational style of humour needs a bit more work

 

But , yes to answer the question , I think there is more anti Muslim sentiment in this country ( not just this country but also Europe / Worldwide ) , than there is anti Polish sentiment

 

[Genie]

Am I the only person who thinks that this 'negotiation' is a bit like the football transfer window?

If there was a 6 week, 6 month or 6 year deadline, the real business will only get done in the last 72 hours. The more time available then nobody will agree on anything as all sides will hold out for a better deal.

[Chindie]

26 minutes ago, Awol said:

I know nothing about the bloke or his competence. BTW it was an article in the Telegraph, they got hold of leaked minutes from an EU meeting where Michel Barnier (chief EU negotiator) said  the political outline of a trade deal could be done within the two year article 50 process, with a transition process to follow where the details are thrashed out.

When his advice to the UK Gov is that wrong then Mr Ambassador was in the wrong job. 

Could is a very important word I find. Even Leavers were talking of hoping it get's done in 5 years. I daresay they could agree an outline for a trade deal in a single meeting if everyone came to things very open and willing to concede, that doesn't mean the whole thing gets tied up. Look at the Canada deal. We could have a similar experience.

It seems a helluva leap to say his advice is wrong. I don't know if its right or wrong and wouldn't leap either way.

I hope the nice Brexiteer we get is good at his job. It seems Banks and co want some pompous clearing in the woods to stand in Brussels and shout at foreigners until they kowtow to their superiors.

[Awol]

11 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It seems Banks and co want some pompous clearing in the woods to stand in Brussels and shout at foreigners until they kowtow to their superiors.

He can want whatever he likes, he'll get no favours from the Tories.

As an aside Banks is allegedly planning to bank roll 250 odd candidates for 2020, to stand against the most "corrupt" sitting MP's. Presumably he'll be deciding exactly what corrupt means and who qualifies for that label. 

[Chindie]

36 minutes ago, Genie said:

Am I the only person who thinks that this 'negotiation' is a bit like the football transfer window?

If there was a 6 week, 6 month or 6 year deadline, the real business will only get done in the last 72 hours. The more time available then nobody will agree on anything as all sides will hold out for a better deal.

It's just like the transfer window, except it's like 27 clubs agreeing to buy 1 player in thousands of complicated slices while simultaneously that player tries to ensure those slices are the best for him with the 27 other clubs, and if at the end of it all they've not agreed the player has no contract but isn't a Bosman, and has to work with trying to sell himself to those 27 other clubs whilst having his leg cut off, while the 27 other clubs carry as they were whilst maybe being a little put out they couldn't have that striker that wanted, while the player also tries to flog himself to everywhere else.

(Obviously the above isn't entirely accurate).

So it's not like the transfer window at all. There'll be last minute stuff, there always is, but there's an awful lot of stuff that has to be agreed first and they aren't going to do all that in the final moments. It's not feasible.

[Genie]

7 minutes ago, Chindie said:

 

It's just like the transfer window, except it's like 27 clubs agreeing to buy 1 player in thousands of complicated slices while simultaneously that player tries to ensure those slices are the best for him with the 27 other clubs, and if at the end of it all they've not agreed the player has no contract but isn't a Bosman, and has to work with trying to sell himself to those 27 other clubs whilst having his leg cut off, while the 27 other clubs carry as they were whilst maybe being a little put out they couldn't have that striker that wanted, while the player also tries to flog himself to everywhere else.

(Obviously the above isn't entirely accurate).

So it's not like the transfer window at all. There'll be last minute stuff, there always is, but there's an awful lot of stuff that has to be agreed first and they aren't going to do all that in the final moments. It's not feasible.

I'm not really sure its anything like that at all tbh.

If the motor industry was asked "how long would it take to reduce fleet average emissions by 50%, they'd probably say 10-20 years... the law makers say, you've got 5 years otherwise your vehicles will become illegal and unsaleable. Guess what, they get it done.

Its like any negotiation, its just a shame the early rounds here seem to spent on managing peoples expectations that its going to go on forever.

It needs a firm deadline to focus people to work to. The uncertainty will be the thing that brings down the British economy. Start now, finish in 2 years maximum. I bet that whenever the deadline is, the final 72 hours will involve round the clock talks with 90% of the decisions being made.

[Chindie]

The motor industry isn't an allegory for a supranational entity agreeing a trade deal with another nation that includes thousands upon thousands of clauses for everything to do with trade, in extreme minutiae. EDIT - unless we turn up in Brussels and say 'We'll keep everything as it is, and pay you a little less, and take a little less in return and accept what we're given from now on' - in which case what was the **** point?

If it was the case everything gets done in 72 hours, put Article 50 in now and we'll be dandy on Friday.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Chindie

[StefanAVFC]

8 minutes ago, Chindie said:

what was the **** point?

Five words that will sum up this sorry mess for years to come.

[Chindie]

Even what Barnier is (apparently) talking about isn't doing 'the deal'. He's apparently talking about having an agreement in principle of the ultimate path the deal takes, to try to smooth the bumps, but bashing out all the details will take years. It took 40 to get where it is, you aren't undoing that and agreeing it all again in 2 years.

We have the same thing our end alone. We're going to fudge it because we can't review and untangle 40 years of legislation that has been made with the EU in mind, so we're doing a single reform bill to kick the can down the round while we get everything in order, IIRC.

[darrenm]

21 minutes ago, Genie said:

If the motor industry was asked "how long would it take to reduce fleet average emissions by 50%, they'd probably say 10-20 years... the law makers say, you've got 5 years otherwise your vehicles will become illegal and unsaleable. Guess what, they get it done.

This is a great analogy for proving the opposite of what you're saying. When the law makers say you've got 5 years otherwise your vehicles are illegal and you can't sell them, the manufacturers can't get it done. They find ways to cheat the system because, in actuality, what they said was right, it would take 10-20 years and setting the arbitrarily low timescales doesn't magic resource and research out of nowhere. Manufacturers said 'we can't hit those limits', regulators said 'well you have to', manufacturers didn't hit the limits, regulators gave them another 5 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/23/diesel-cars-pollution-limits-nox-emissions

Ninety-seven percent of all modern diesel cars emit more toxic nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution on the road than the official limit, according to the most comprehensive set of data yet published, with a quarter producing at least six times more than the limit.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/02/12-vehicle-emissions-in-real-driving-conditions-2nd-package/

However, analysis has shown that vehicles produced in line with existing EU standards generate substantially higher emissions on the road than in laboratory conditions. This problem was detected in particular in relation to emissions of diesel vehicles of the pollutant substance NOx. That is why new procedures to measure emissions in real driving conditions are needed.  

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

He can want whatever he likes, he'll get no favours from the Tories.

As an aside Banks is allegedly planning to bank roll 250 odd candidates for 2020, to stand against the most "corrupt" sitting MP's.

Assuming most of the people he's bankrolling are UKIP-affiliated, he'll have no problem finding plenty of odd candidates to pick from.

[Genie]

2 hours ago, darrenm said:

This is a great analogy for proving the opposite of what you're saying. When the law makers say you've got 5 years otherwise your vehicles are illegal and you can't sell them, the manufacturers can't get it done. They find ways to cheat the system because, in actuality, what they said was right, it would take 10-20 years and setting the arbitrarily low timescales doesn't magic resource and research out of nowhere. Manufacturers said 'we can't hit those limits', regulators said 'well you have to', manufacturers didn't hit the limits, regulators gave them another 5 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/23/diesel-cars-pollution-limits-nox-emissions

Ninety-seven percent of all modern diesel cars emit more toxic nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution on the road than the official limit, according to the most comprehensive set of data yet published, with a quarter producing at least six times more than the limit.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/02/12-vehicle-emissions-in-real-driving-conditions-2nd-package/

However, analysis has shown that vehicles produced in line with existing EU standards generate substantially higher emissions on the road than in laboratory conditions. This problem was detected in particular in relation to emissions of diesel vehicles of the pollutant substance NOx. That is why new procedures to measure emissions in real driving conditions are needed.  

It's still half of what it was before , EGR valves, DPF etc all reduce the amount of emissions over not having them. That's a fact, problem is in the real world it's much higher than in the lab.

The laboratory tests were more to ensure all manufacturers were testing to the same sequence / procedure rather than real world which is close to impossible to replicate around the world fairly and consistently. 

Back on topic, the point I was trying to make was that whilst there is little in the way of a deadline little will get agreed. There's nothing like a deadline to focus people's attentions to get something done. Whenever the deadline appears we'll all be watching the news about how the European leaders were working through the night etc.

[StefanAVFC]

Quote

Britain's outgoing ambassador to the EU has urged his UK colleagues in Brussels to keep challenging "ill-founded arguments" and "muddled thinking".

In his resignation note, obtained by the BBC, Sir Ivan Rogers said ministers needed to hear "unvarnished" and "uncomfortable" views from Europe.

Earlier it was revealed Sir Ivan would be leaving his post early.

The government said he had quit so a successor could be in place before Brexit negotiations started.

BBC diplomatic correspondent James Landale said the clear implication of Sir Ivan's resignation note to his staff in Brussels was that he resigned because some of his advice was being ignored by his political masters in London.

Sir Ivan, who had sparked criticism from some MPs by warning ministers a UK-EU trade agreement might take 10 years to finalise, was due to leave his post in November.

His early departure was welcomed by Brexit campaigners while pro-EU politicians said it was a blow to the government's negotiations.

In his note to colleagues, Sir Ivan said: "I hope you will continue to challenge ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking and that you will never be afraid to speak the truth to those in power. I hope that you will support each other in those difficult moments where you have to deliver messages that are disagreeable to those who need to hear them."

On the UK's Brexit negotiations with the EU, which are due to begin by the end of March, he said: "Serious multilateral negotiating experience is in short supply in Whitehall, and that is not the case in the Commission or in the Council."

He said the government would only succeed if it "harnesses the best experience we have" and "negotiates resolutely".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38503020?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

[Chindie]

IDS was on the Today show earlier. He was asked what the governments objective was in the Brexit negotiations. His answer? To leave. The other guest nearly wet himself.

Edit - worth also saying he went on a very longwinded rant about Rogers going, which can basically be summed up by the sound of toys being thrown out of a pram and insults.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Chindie

[StefanAVFC]

11 minutes ago, Chindie said:

IDS was on the Today show earlier. He was asked what the governments objective was in the Brexit negotiations. His answer? To leave.

Well there we go then. Consider me appeased.

[darrenm]

Leave means leave. Simple.

Or red, white and blue leave.

[tonyh29]

20 minutes ago, Chindie said:

which can basically be summed up by the sound of toys being thrown out of a pram and insults.

never had IDS down as a leftie  

 

[StefanAVFC]

Deflect away from Brexit continuing to be a total mess and insult 'lefties' instead (yes I can see the smiley)

Ho hum.

Edited January 4, 2017 by StefanAVFC

[tonyh29]

 

 

Deflection  ..my that takes me back to a long lost poster  , thanks for the nostalgia trip