Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Sharpe's Fox]

when will this government fall ffs getting impatient now. we need the left to win

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

when will this government fall ffs getting impatient now. we need the left to win

I don’t think it will be too long now tbh.

[Sharpe's Fox]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I don’t think it will be too long now tbh.

Thanks bud I needed that

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

when will this government fall ffs getting impatient now. we need the left to win

Just over 4 and a half years mate but they'll probably be re elected.

[Fox Ulike]

52 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Of course innocent people die and are made homeless when you go to war or bomb a country but that doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose evil. You cannot just diplomatically talk nutters out of power - it's a sad inevitibly of life that war sometimes is the lesser evil than sitting by and doing nothing. But you ultimately cannot know how it's all going to turn out so it's a very difficult decision, certainly not an easy one where you don't know what's going to happen.

 

The Korea and Vietnam wars were already underway. The US didn't create those wars or invade those countries those wars at all, it got involved and took sides in already ongoing conflicts.

 

US lexicon? You honestly don't think the Kim dynasty, Ho Chi Minh or Saddam Hussein were evil people who caused tyranny and mass murders on their own people's lives? And that the US wasn't going there to try and bring these regimes down and to ultimately try and make their people's lives better? Whether naive or not or successful or not - Can you please explain exactly what you think was the US' motivation was if not trying to bring down tyrannical regimes for the freedom of its people?

 

The US is the overwhelming power in NATO because it pays for almost 75% of NATO's collective miliary power on its own and was the overwhelming instigator of the Yugoslav bombing. NATO was a non-entity at the time of the Korean War - it was exactly because of the Korean War that the US wanted to build up support against the Warsaw Pact and Communist expansion that NATO really became an entity of any power. But I'm not sure on your point? Why does whether you go through an alliance body like NATO have anything to do with whether military intervention was successful or not or whether you can predict the outcomes or not?

Not sure I can answer that without largely repeating what I’ve already said.

 

let me ask you something different related to what you have said.

 

If you can’t predict outcomes, do you feel that the USSR’s attempt to liberate Afghanistan from an ‘evil regime’ in the 1980s is justified by the same terms that you use to justify the US’ attempts to ‘liberate’ Vietnam and Iraq?

[Guest MattP]

52 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Shame that mattp and webbo aren't here with the Tories having a bad day 

 

I'd love them to explain how the tory actions tonight are actually democracy in action and perfectly reasonable.

I'm a busy man at the minute.

 

Some of the stuff that has been posted over the last few days has been quite incredible though, topped off today by someone claiming the Korean War didn't go well.

[Buce]

52 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Shame that mattp and webbo aren't here with the Tories having a bad day 

 

I'd love them to explain how the tory actions tonight are actually democracy in action and perfectly reasonable.

 

Well, Webbo replied precisely as expected.

 

MattP will ignore the question, and respond with something critical of Corbyn/McDonald/Abbot.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Well, Webbo replied precisely as expected.

 

MattP will ignore the question, and respond with something critical of Corbyn/McDonald/Abbot.

What's your opinion  on the fall in unemployment? Try to avoid the the words zero hours contract and food bank.

[Sharpe's Fox]

"What is your opinion of this thing? Try to avoid pointing out the legitimate adverse effects of this thing." What the f uck

Edited 18 October 2017 by Sharpe's Fox

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Of course innocent people die and are made homeless when you go to war or bomb a country but that doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose evil. You cannot just diplomatically talk nutters out of power - it's a sad inevitibly of life that war sometimes is the lesser evil than sitting by and doing nothing. But you ultimately cannot know how it's all going to turn out so it's a very difficult decision, certainly not an easy one where you don't know what's going to happen.

 

The Korea and Vietnam wars were already underway. The US didn't create those wars or invade those countries those wars at all, it got involved and took sides in already ongoing conflicts.

 

US lexicon? You honestly don't think the Kim dynasty, Ho Chi Minh or Saddam Hussein were evil people who caused tyranny and mass murders on their own people's lives? And that the US wasn't going there to try and bring these regimes down and to ultimately try and make their people's lives better? Whether naive or not or successful or not - Can you please explain exactly what you think was the US' motivation was if not trying to bring down tyrannical regimes for the freedom of its people?

 

The US is the overwhelming power in NATO because it pays for almost 75% of NATO's collective miliary power on its own and was the overwhelming instigator of the Yugoslav bombing. NATO was a non-entity at the time of the Korean War - it was exactly because of the Korean War that the US wanted to build up support against the Warsaw Pact and Communist expansion that NATO really became an entity of any power. But I'm not sure on your point? Why does whether you go through an alliance body like NATO have anything to do with whether military intervention was successful or not or whether you can predict the outcomes or not?

I'll honestly never be able to get my head around the idea of a just/necessary war and the justifications thereof, precisely because so often things spiral out of control and the body count/destruction almost always ends up much, much higher than thought. And of course such justifications are always entirely subjective - objective good and evil are storybook concepts and should stay there. And if war is going to continue to be a necessity on Earth in perpetuity then we may as well quite frankly hand over to the next species and hope they're smarter because we will have failed as a race.

 

The US motivation in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq was, as it has been with their other interventions and the interventions of most other large nation-states in history, was to project and maintain their own power in different places around the world. They wanted to make sure what they perceived to be a dangerous ideology didn't take root and that the overarching ideology chosen around the world was their own - the US isn't excepted from the rules of realpolitik through some kind of nebulous altruistic motive, after all.

 

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Absolutely. Because the anti-commumist options in Afghanistan and Iraq was considered the lesser of two evils at the time when the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and Asia which had directly murdered about 100mil of their own people were making headway in to the Middle East. It turned out horribly but no one could've known Communism would've fallen so dramatically - even if you asked people in 1986 people would've thought you mad suggesting it, it was only when Gorbachev came into power when things started to change.

 

Sometimes you have to decsend into realpolitik. I mean we allied with Stalin to bring down Hitler for heaven's sake and even though we were left with 45 years of tyranny and a division of Europe as a result of it, it was probably the right thing to do.

 

This is mentioned in the previous post too, but the idea of acting pre-emptively in the way described here doesn't really sit well either - going to war when you don't have a really good idea of how it will turn out seems like the worst type of foolhardiness.

 

And yes, realpolitik happens - the US not excepted, as said above.

[Webbo]

34 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

"What is your opinion of this thing? Try to avoid pointing out the legitimate adverse effects of this thing." What the f uck

So what's your opinion on the fall in unemployment?

 

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'll honestly never be able to get my head around the idea of a just/necessary war and the justifications thereof, precisely because so often things spiral out of control and the body count/destruction almost always ends up much, much higher than thought. And of course such justifications are always entirely subjective - objective good and evil are storybook concepts and should stay there. And if war is going to continue to be a necessity on Earth in perpetuity then we may as well quite frankly hand over to the next species and hope they're smarter because we will have failed as a race.

 

The US motivation in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq was, as it has been with their other interventions and the interventions of most other large nation-states in history, was to project and maintain their own power in different places around the world. They wanted to make sure what they perceived to be a dangerous ideology didn't take root and that the overarching ideology chosen around the world was their own - the US isn't excepted from the rules of realpolitik through some kind of nebulous altruistic motive, after all.

 

 

This is mentioned in the previous post too, but the idea of acting pre-emptively in the way described here doesn't really sit well either - going to war when you don't have a really good idea of how it will turn out seems like the worst type of foolhardiness.

 

And yes, realpolitik happens - the US not excepted, as said above.

I completely understand what you are saying because no one ever wants it to come to that and everyone wishes we lived in a world where we didn't have to go to war - but just as an example - what happens if it was on your own doorstep? What would you think if a fascist regime took control of the UK and the State was murdering people because they were the "wrong" religion or race or sexual orientation or had different political views from them? Would you be happy for all the other countries in the world to just sit by and watch or would you rather them try to intervene and throw over the state? Even though you know you or your family or friends could be killed by the conflict you also know you or your family or friends could be killed by the state at any time - would you still consider that as an unjust war then? Even though you know there's the risk that it absolutely could spiral out of control and get worse - would that still be justification for not wanting to see intervention in all this suffering you are seeing every day? What about the everyone else in this country? It's not an easy answer.

 

No one thinks it's an easy decision to trade off human lives and try to work out if you're saving and enhancing more lives in the long run, but sometimes it has to descend into that - no one thinks it's a good subject but it has to happen. There absolutely are just wars and the Korean War and the intervention in Yugoslavia were 2 examples of where more good has come from them - of course not for everyone, families were destroyed by it - but we can always (and rightly) look at the people who's lives were ruined by intervention and can never understand the horror they must have gone through in a way we can't look at the people who would have gone through horror if military intervention had never happened.

 

You *always* go to war when you never know how it will work out - war is the individual decisions taken by often millions of people and what happens afterwards is impossible to determine - but no major nation goes to war without gathering all the possible intellegence and going through every possible permutation but even then there's no way of really knowing what's going to happen - not without some simulation of the brainwaves of all the millions of people directly or indirectly involved.

 

To descend into the obvious exanple - WWII was horrific and devastating and we had to ally up with one of the most evil men in history in Stalin to win it and the Cold War and the War on Terror and the devastation of millions of people are still ultimately fallout from it - but do you honestly think we should have just sat back and just see what Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan do?

 

Absolutely the US is susceptible to being on the wrong side of realpolitik as well and it absolutely has chosen the worst of 2 evils on occasions - And yes, opposing the Soviet Union in the Soviet-Afghan war was one of them - but often you can only see that in hindsight and I've certainly not seen a US conflict where they simply "invaded" a country to maintain power without good reason. They did it in the Cold War to stop the spread of Communism and it eventually worked - millions died because of those wars which was a tragedy, but 100mil of their own people were murdered because of Communist states and who knows how many more could have died because of it.

 

Personally I'd say any state which actively murders it's own people because they don't toe the right political and/or religious line to be evil - yes, of course it's subjective, no one thinks they are evil and every evil dictator has had millions of supporters but that doesn't mean we should start ignoring it - I mean how far would you go - because there's no such thing as "objective evil" we shouldn't decry Mao, Stalin, Hitler or Hideki Tojo and Emperor Hirohito as evil? You don't think the Soviet Union or North Korea or Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party or Ho Chi Minh's VC were evil?

 

Yes it's just me making subjective decisions I don't care because Fascism and Communism (as is Islamic State) were the absolute definition of storybook evil and they caused the State murder and suffering of hundreds of millions people unlucky enough to fall to the tyranny of their nation - the US opposed them to the end above all else and even though it sometimes put them getting the wrong side of realpolitik, led to the death of millions comparing them to an invading country is just silly - who knows where the world would be if we just sat back and didnt oppose the spread of Fascism and Communism without the US during the Cold War - who knows how many hundreds of millions more would have been murdered? No one does, which is exactly why this isn't an easy or predictable decision, but I'd rather we didn't just sit back and let evil spread - of course war should be the absolute last port of call and no one wants it to come to that but sometimes there's nothing left but to oppose it with force.

Edited 18 October 2017 by Sampson

[Countryfox]

2 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I completely understand what you are saying but just as an example - what happens if it was on your own doorstep? What would you think if a fascist regime took control of the UK and the State was murdering people because they were the "wrong" religion or race or sexual orientation or had different political views from them? Would you be happy for all the other countries in the world to just sit by and watch or would you rather them try to intervene and throw over the state? Even though you know you or your family or friends could be killed by the conflict you also know you or your family or friends could be killed by the state at any time - would you still consider that as an unjust war then? Even though you know there's the risk that it absolutely could spiral out of control and get worse - would that still be justification for not wanting to see intervention in all this suffering you are seeing every day?

 

No one thinks it's an easy decision to trade off human lives and try to work out if you're saving and enhancing more lives in the long run, but sometimes it has to descend into that - no one thinks it's a good subject but it has to happen. There absolutely are just wars and the Korean War and the intervention in Yugoslavia were 2 examples of where more good has come from them.

 

To descend into the obvious exanple - WWII was horrific and devastating and we had to ally up with one of the most evil men in history in Stalin to win it and the Cold War and the War on Terror and the devastation of millions of people are still ultimately fallout from it - but do you honestly think we should have just sat back and just see what Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan do?

 

Absolutely the US is susceptible to being on the wrong side of realpolitik as well and it absolutely has chosen the worst of 2 evils on occasions - but often you can only see that in hindsight and I've certainly not seen a US conflict where they simply "invaded" a country to maintain power without good reason. They did it in the Cold War to stop the spread of Communism and it eventually worked - millions died because of those wars which was a tragedy, but 100mil of their own people were murdered because of Communist states and who knows how many more could have died because of it.

 

Personally I'd say any state which actively murders it's own people because they don't toe the right political and/or religious line to be evil - yes, of course it's subjective, no one thinks they are evil and every evil dictator has had millions of supporters but that doesn't mean we should start ignoring it - I mean how far would you go - because there's no such thing as "objective evil" we shouldn't decry Mao, Stalin, Hitler or Hideki Tojo and Emperor Hirohito as evil? You don't think the Soviet Union or North Korea or Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party or Ho Chi Minh's VC were evil?

 

Yes it's just me making subjective decisions I don't care because Fascism and Communism (as is Islamic State) were the absolute definition of storybook evil and they caused the State murder and suffering of hundreds of millions people unlucky enough to fall to the tyranny of their nation - the US opposed them to the end above all else and even though it sometimes put them getting the wrong side of realpolitik, led to the death of millions comparing them to an invading country is just silly - who knows where the world would be if we just sat back and didnt oppose the spread of Fascism and Communism without the US during the Cold War - who knows how many hundreds of millions more would have been murdered? No one does, which is exactly why this isn't an easy or predictable decision, but I'd rather we didn't just sit back and let evil spread - of course war shpuld be thr absolute last port of call and no one wants it ti come to that but sometimes there's nothing left but to oppose it with force.

 

Could you just clarify that please ...     

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

What's your opinion  on the fall in unemployment? Try to avoid the the words zero hours contract and food bank.

but as my graphs earlier showed, the fall in unemployment is mainly (though in the last few months not entirely) down to people going self employed or accepting ZHC. Only in the last year that employers have started really taking anybody on and it still only accounts for about 1/3 of the new jobs. And as we know, wages are only increasing in 2 sectors of the economy and falling for the vast majority.

[Guest]

Really do need to stop the hard Brexiters trashing negotiations.

 

EU leaders aim to let Theresa May down gently over trade talks

PM’s counterparts at summit will refuse to widen Brexit negotiations but talk up her efforts for fear of weakening her further.

European Union leaders at a crunch summit dinner are set to rebuff Theresa May’s appeal for trade talks while they seek to publicly talk up her efforts in the Brexit negotiations because they fear that the prime minister’s domestic weakness will leave her unable to make vital concessions on Britain’s divorce bill.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, will lead European leaders in Brussels on Thursday in seeking to put the best gloss on their refusal to widen the talks, according to diplomatic sources. “There are ways to say it kindly and encouragingly or less kindly and less encouraging,” said one senior EU diplomat.

Brexit plan 'in paralysis' with ministers set to delay EU withdrawal bill

The member states are acutely aware that the prime minister needs to come out of the summit with her dignity intact if she is to get her cabinet and party to accept concessions on the divorce bill, estimates of which vary from about €60bn to €100bn (£54bn to £90bn.

One diplomat said they feared it was “50-50” whether there would be an agreement at the next key European council summit, in December, that sufficient progress had been made in the Brexit talks, amid some concern in Brussels about the stability of May’s premiership.

May has asked to take the floor at a dinner at the European council summit on Thursday evening where she will emphasise the concessions made in her Florence speech, including the €20bn pledge to ensure no member state loses out in the years immediately after the UK leaves the bloc. She will call for both negotiating teams to show greater ambition in the coming weeks. However, she is not likely to make any additional offer.

A Downing Street source said: “The PM will reiterate her commitment to a successful Europe with the UK as a strong and committed partner. She will urge fellow leaders to focus on the shared opportunities and challenges ahead and encourage them to move the conversation on to focus on the future partnership and implementation period so that they are ready to engage in that discussion as soon as possible.”

May’s address is unlikely to receive an immediate response from the leaders around the table, who are determined to maintain their position that the Brexit talks must go through the the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier. Draft conclusions insisting that there has been insufficient progress, in particular on the financial settlement, are also unlikely to be changed by the leaders.

However, the member states believe the instability of the British government makes it vital for them to soften the blow for the prime minister, who will need to take the political risk of further major concessions on the financial settlement in the weeks to come if she is to unlock what Barnier described as a deadlock in the talks.

It is believed the Dutch government, led by Mark Rutte, has particularly championed a warm welcome for May.

On Wednesday it emerged that Downing Street had once again been forced to delay bringing the EU withdrawal bill back to the House of Commons as it struggles to respond to hundreds of hostile amendments, which are said to have sufficient support among Tory MPs to potentially inflict a defeat on the government.

Aleš Chmelař, the Czech state secretary for European affairs, told the Guardian the EU needed a strong negotiating partner and that recent signs of economic instability in the UK, which could affect the political situation, were particularly concerning.

“We have been looking at the economic news, that looks quite worrying,” he said. “Economic growth is behind that of the eurozone. We want a strong partner in the talks. It is not in our interests for the political situation to get more difficult.

“We need stable leadership so we can have clear statements in the negotiations. And someone who can convince the political sphere as well as the public.”

In unusually candid remarks on British political uncertainty, Finland’s secretary of state, Samuli Virtanen, admitted this week that May’s position was “one of the things that makes this [Brexit] process more difficult because it seems at the moment the EU27 is more unanimous than UK one”.

A London-based EU diplomat said: “It is Germany not France that is taking the toughest line. It is partly they have a more legalistic approach, but they also think British politics is so unstable, concessions at this stage are premature. They think Theresa May’s position is not very strong.”

The sources confirmed they feared the dynamic of any Conservative leadership battle would lead to a push for a harder line on Brexit, and a new Tory prime minister would pocket any concessions and then demand more.

Phil Hogan, the Irish commissioner for agriculture, warned on Wednesday of the malign influence of the Brexiters within the Conservative party.

“What becomes more obvious day-by-day is that the Brexiteers are hooked on brinkmanship – and have been since the beginning. Unfortunately, their only approach is the tough-guy approach. The hardliners cannot get out of their head the idea that if they bully their way towards the wire, the ‘Union’s nerve will crack’,” he said.

“I fear that in the UK debate, common sense left the building a long time ago. Unfortunately, facts and details are derided by the Brexiteers.”

Brexit deadlock means time is running out fast for businesses

On Wednesday, officials in Berlin and Paris were already seeking to talk up May’s efforts to break the impasse in the negotiations.

A German government source said: “We believe that a whole lot has already happened and, regarding an issue which is of particular importance to us, that of the rights of citizens, we’ve advanced considerably.

“I believe that the big questions about the future relationship between Britain and the European Union are of far more importance than the current dispute about finances.”

A French source said of Emmanuel Macron’s attitude: “We must not give in to a confrontational mindset. We are not in a mood for punishment or presents. Our goal is that the requirements are met before moving to phase two. Keep calm and maintain the mandate. It is in the interest of the British and 27. We will be a demanding partner, transparent and predictable.”

A summit on 14 December is now the deadline when EU leaders will judge whether the UK has made sufficient progress on the divorce issues that will allow talks to progress to trade.

Between this week’s European council summit and then, the EU member states are set to prepare their vision for a transition period and a mandate for Barnier to talk trade with the UK should sufficient progress on citizens’ rights, the Irish border and the financial settlement be made.

EU’s collective hope and expectation is for a deal in December, but diplomats insisted this need not be the end of the road. “If not, no one will be ready to throw in the towel, but we will be ready to think of another milestone, another threshold of time to move on.”

[Webbo]

19 minutes ago, toddybad said:

but as my graphs earlier showed, the fall in unemployment is mainly (though in the last few months not entirely) down to people going self employed or accepting ZHC. Only in the last year that employers have started really taking anybody on and it still only accounts for about 1/3 of the new jobs. And as we know, wages are only increasing in 2 sectors of the economy and falling for the vast majority.

What's wrong with being self employed?

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Really do need to stop the hard Brexiters trashing negotiations.

 

EU leaders aim to let Theresa May down gently over trade talks

PM’s counterparts at summit will refuse to widen Brexit negotiations but talk up her efforts for fear of weakening her further.

European Union leaders at a crunch summit dinner are set to rebuff Theresa May’s appeal for trade talks while they seek to publicly talk up her efforts in the Brexit negotiations because they fear that the prime minister’s domestic weakness will leave her unable to make vital concessions on Britain’s divorce bill.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, will lead European leaders in Brussels on Thursday in seeking to put the best gloss on their refusal to widen the talks, according to diplomatic sources. “There are ways to say it kindly and encouragingly or less kindly and less encouraging,” said one senior EU diplomat.

Brexit plan 'in paralysis' with ministers set to delay EU withdrawal bill

The member states are acutely aware that the prime minister needs to come out of the summit with her dignity intact if she is to get her cabinet and party to accept concessions on the divorce bill, estimates of which vary from about €60bn to €100bn (£54bn to £90bn.

One diplomat said they feared it was “50-50” whether there would be an agreement at the next key European council summit, in December, that sufficient progress had been made in the Brexit talks, amid some concern in Brussels about the stability of May’s premiership.

May has asked to take the floor at a dinner at the European council summit on Thursday evening where she will emphasise the concessions made in her Florence speech, including the €20bn pledge to ensure no member state loses out in the years immediately after the UK leaves the bloc. She will call for both negotiating teams to show greater ambition in the coming weeks. However, she is not likely to make any additional offer.

A Downing Street source said: “The PM will reiterate her commitment to a successful Europe with the UK as a strong and committed partner. She will urge fellow leaders to focus on the shared opportunities and challenges ahead and encourage them to move the conversation on to focus on the future partnership and implementation period so that they are ready to engage in that discussion as soon as possible.”

May’s address is unlikely to receive an immediate response from the leaders around the table, who are determined to maintain their position that the Brexit talks must go through the the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier. Draft conclusions insisting that there has been insufficient progress, in particular on the financial settlement, are also unlikely to be changed by the leaders.

However, the member states believe the instability of the British government makes it vital for them to soften the blow for the prime minister, who will need to take the political risk of further major concessions on the financial settlement in the weeks to come if she is to unlock what Barnier described as a deadlock in the talks.

It is believed the Dutch government, led by Mark Rutte, has particularly championed a warm welcome for May.

On Wednesday it emerged that Downing Street had once again been forced to delay bringing the EU withdrawal bill back to the House of Commons as it struggles to respond to hundreds of hostile amendments, which are said to have sufficient support among Tory MPs to potentially inflict a defeat on the government.

Aleš Chmelař, the Czech state secretary for European affairs, told the Guardian the EU needed a strong negotiating partner and that recent signs of economic instability in the UK, which could affect the political situation, were particularly concerning.

“We have been looking at the economic news, that looks quite worrying,” he said. “Economic growth is behind that of the eurozone. We want a strong partner in the talks. It is not in our interests for the political situation to get more difficult.

“We need stable leadership so we can have clear statements in the negotiations. And someone who can convince the political sphere as well as the public.”

In unusually candid remarks on British political uncertainty, Finland’s secretary of state, Samuli Virtanen, admitted this week that May’s position was “one of the things that makes this [Brexit] process more difficult because it seems at the moment the EU27 is more unanimous than UK one”.

A London-based EU diplomat said: “It is Germany not France that is taking the toughest line. It is partly they have a more legalistic approach, but they also think British politics is so unstable, concessions at this stage are premature. They think Theresa May’s position is not very strong.”

The sources confirmed they feared the dynamic of any Conservative leadership battle would lead to a push for a harder line on Brexit, and a new Tory prime minister would pocket any concessions and then demand more.

Phil Hogan, the Irish commissioner for agriculture, warned on Wednesday of the malign influence of the Brexiters within the Conservative party.

“What becomes more obvious day-by-day is that the Brexiteers are hooked on brinkmanship – and have been since the beginning. Unfortunately, their only approach is the tough-guy approach. The hardliners cannot get out of their head the idea that if they bully their way towards the wire, the ‘Union’s nerve will crack’,” he said.

“I fear that in the UK debate, common sense left the building a long time ago. Unfortunately, facts and details are derided by the Brexiteers.”

Brexit deadlock means time is running out fast for businesses

On Wednesday, officials in Berlin and Paris were already seeking to talk up May’s efforts to break the impasse in the negotiations.

A German government source said: “We believe that a whole lot has already happened and, regarding an issue which is of particular importance to us, that of the rights of citizens, we’ve advanced considerably.

“I believe that the big questions about the future relationship between Britain and the European Union are of far more importance than the current dispute about finances.”

A French source said of Emmanuel Macron’s attitude: “We must not give in to a confrontational mindset. We are not in a mood for punishment or presents. Our goal is that the requirements are met before moving to phase two. Keep calm and maintain the mandate. It is in the interest of the British and 27. We will be a demanding partner, transparent and predictable.”

A summit on 14 December is now the deadline when EU leaders will judge whether the UK has made sufficient progress on the divorce issues that will allow talks to progress to trade.

Between this week’s European council summit and then, the EU member states are set to prepare their vision for a transition period and a mandate for Barnier to talk trade with the UK should sufficient progress on citizens’ rights, the Irish border and the financial settlement be made.

EU’s collective hope and expectation is for a deal in December, but diplomats insisted this need not be the end of the road. “If not, no one will be ready to throw in the towel, but we will be ready to think of another milestone, another threshold of time to move on.”

Brilliant, let the talks burn!

[Lionator]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

So what's your opinion on the fall in unemployment?

 

Zero hour contracts. I can be officially 'employed' on a temp contract with a catering agency. Doesn't mean that it's good employment where people can make a living. Just look at the rising poverty statistics.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Zero hour contracts. I can be officially 'employed' on a temp contract with a catering agency. Doesn't mean that it's good employment where people can make a living. Just look at the rising poverty statistics.

I know, winters coming, heating or eating season.

Edited 18 October 2017 by Strokes

[Sharpe's Fox]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Brilliant, let the talks burn!

I agree mate we can't let these talks go anywhere. In my view every moderate alienated is another vote for Marxists in Downing Street. Pretty hilarious how McDonnell has convinced the vast majority of now 44% of the population Labour are against exiting the EU in some way. Great banter.

[Webbo]

7 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Zero hour contracts. I can be officially 'employed' on a temp contract with a catering agency. Doesn't mean that it's good employment where people can make a living. Just look at the rising poverty statistics.

Thats the answer I expected.

[Webbo]

Quote

 

Germany is working on proposals for the European Union’s future relations with the U.K. that include calls for a “comprehensive free-trade accord” with the British government, according to a draft paper prepared by the Foreign Ministry in Berlin.

With EU leaders due to discuss Brexit at a summit in Brussels on Thursday, the document lays out the most detailed German position yet for “future formal negotiations” about the U.K.’s relationship with Europe once it leaves the bloc in 2019, without opening the door to such talks yet.

The four-page document, dated Oct. 11, urges the EU avoid a piecemeal approach if and when talks with the U.K. get under way. It proposes instead a broad partnership that includes “at a minimum” the fields of foreign and security policy; fighting terrorism; cooperation on criminal justice; agriculture and fisheries; energy; transport, and especially air transport; research and digital issues.

“We share the U.K.’s desire to secure a close partnership with the Union after its exit that covers economic and trade relations,” the ministry states in the paper, which has been circulated to other German government departments but not approved by the Chancellery.

The Foreign Ministry declined to comment on the paper.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-16/germany-drafts-outline-of-eu-u-k-ties-post-brexit-paper-shows

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What's wrong with being self employed?

Nothing but it's hard to claim its come because of businesses taking on staff due to tory policy

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

Nothing but it's hard to claim its come because of businesses taking on staff due to tory policy

What if you're a sub contractor who is picking up lots of work because of govt policies?

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

I agree mate we can't let these talks go anywhere. In my view every moderate alienated is another vote for Marxists in Downing Street. Pretty hilarious how McDonnell has convinced the vast majority of now 44% of the population Labour are against exiting the EU in some way. Great banter.

Tbf it is quite funny.

Id still rather have a commi state outside the EU, than a fake democracy in it. Hard brexit is priority, stop the talks at any cost.