Stephen Crabb, the work and pensions secretary, has confirmed that he is standing for the Conservative leadership in an email to Tory MPs, Politico reports.
Would Boris even be able to command a majority if he won? Soubry would surely resign the Tory whip and there may be others. He may become leader but never become PM.
I think some people on here have got themselves into a pseudo-denial PB Intelligentsia comfort zone with the EEA and what we can and can't do in it.
It was mentioned to me some time ago (ie about three weeks) that the EU simply did not believe that it was appropriate for an economy the size of the UK to be in the EEA, which, broadly, takes its instructions or many of them, from the EU. To say nothing of whether it would be acceptable for the current EEA countries (ie Norway).
And then to say we can apply the emergency brake (found the interesting article here) again, is more wishful thinking than cold hard analysis.
That said, of course, we are in a hugely different position now that we have voted to leave, rather than being about to vote to leave, so perhaps EU positions have changed. But I would beware the butterfly and the hurricane; a small change in initial conditions can lead to hugely different outcomes and at the moment some have convinced themselves that EEA, emergency brake is all done bar the shouting (of which of course there will be lots).
An important point to remember is that whatever deal is done eventually will be as binding as the current one. It will not be something that a future government can just walk away from.
We'd be a contracting party to the EEA agreement, so it would be binding in a sense, but really who is going to tell HMG to pay up for a contract dispute judged by a court we no longer recognise if we left. In the same way Parliament is sovereign within the EU because we could leave at any time, it would also be sovereign within the EEA.
That's exactly what we are going to think and it is exactly the reason why the EEA won't work for us. I am getting mixed signals from other EU countries whether will support an EEA solution for us. I don't think they trust us.
Look, I know I'm an illiterate LEAVER, but why on earth would it take 4 years to negotiate a trade deal? What do they chat about? The weather?
Sunil Prasannan, BSc. (Hons.), ARCS, PhD, DIC*
(*that's Diploma of Imperial College, NOT Drunk in Charge )
Non-tariff barriers. Things like agreeing that South Korea's automotive regulatory authority can type-approve car parts instead of having to submit to the EU (and vice versa). Pharma is another similar area with high barriers to trade, food safety another.
Also the weather. Everyone talks about the weather.
Cameron never secured opt outs of the CAP or the CFP, a substantial reduction to our budget payment, eliminating free movement for non-workers, or an emergency brake as part of his rubbish deal.
Of course not. No-one even remotely sensible ever thought he would.
If we go for the EEA option, as buyers'-remorse Leavers are now suggesting, we'll indeed be out of the CAP and CFP, but we won't get much of a reduction in contributions, we won't get any change to freedom of movement, and we won't get an emergency brake in any meaningful sense. On the downside we'll have given up our veto on Treaty changes (such as accession of Turkey), we'll have no say in the rules which affect us, and we'll have lost the institutional protection for the City against Eurozone hegemony.
Personally I think that's worse than what we had. It's certainly at best only a small incremental improvement if you give a lot of weight to certain items (but not immigration, the main Leave argument) - for which we'll have paid a huge price in economic disruption.
Not true. Freedom of movement does not exist for non-workers in the EEA, they have an emergency brake under the safeguard measures and we have say in EU laws at the consultation stage and at EEA joint committee. Plus we can sign our own trade deals, scrap 3/4 of EU law and remove the 2-year ejector seat.
Is there any speculation on how the EU plans to tackle its circa E12bn budget hole after we leave?
Are you genuinely bothered or do you just a kick out of the thought of causing economic problems to other countries?
I wanted to dip into the knowledge base of folk on PB. The purpose being to better understand the pressures that exist within the EU on its funding, which will affect their negotiating strategies. Sorry OllyT that you view this as some attack or stirring but do please understand that I am not in the mode of REMAINers who want to talk down economies and forecast the End of Days.
Accusing people of talking down the economy is simply a clumsy attempt to shut down debate and criticism of the downsides of Brexit.
I know a number of people who voted Leave in the hope it would cause chaos all over the EU - I don't believe for a second that you care how the EU resolves the issue other than hoping it causes upset for others.
I would go some way further than that. I really think that most people would live with exit provided that there was a next steps plan with a clear destination. That would allow effective corporate and personal planning. It would allow legal and economic risk to be quantified and priced.
What we've had instead is the two year old smashing the toy and expecting somebody else to sort it out. The risk can't be priced so people retreat to safety. The consequences for the employed, the bill payers, are real. Perhaps it will work out acceptably but we appear to be some way off that point.
In the meantime the Labour party engages in doctrinaire warfare.
It will be interesting to see if this is 1848 or 1917. The risk is that even those currently revelling in the chaos lose out. It would be just retribution, I suppose.
Would Boris even be able to command a majority if he won? Soubry would surely resign the Tory whip and there may be others. He may become leader but never become PM.
Depends what kind of majority he recieved.
"Crisis" elections can go two ways... Indecisive (Feb 1974 one example) or landslide (1931 good example)
If he had a 100 seat majority Ms. Soubry and others could do what wanted and it wouldn't make any difference...
If London gets devolution, Yorkshire and Cornwall will want it. Within a decade England will be riddled with political division that will be entrenched by the political system itself. Demagogues will, sooner or later, rise to power (complaining about London taxes being exported, or spending per head in Yorkshire being too low). Entirely possible England will cease to be a single political entity.
Hasn't Scottish devolution taught them anything?
And why should Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland been kept whole with single devolved bodies, whereas England has been neglected in this regard?
Mr. Lowlander, what currency a country uses is quite important...
Mr. Alistair, the situation is better for the SNP today than yesterday, but the currency question remains.
In 2014, Sterling would be the currency, the only actual unresolved issue is whether Scotland would be involved in BoE policy, .
That's not unresolved - you would not be part of the BoE policy or have any input to the pound.
You would be "dollarised" - similar to Panama and hence the cost of borrowing would be higher for Scotland - and of course to maintain the high cost "progressive" lifestyle which is currently funded by rUK you would have to borrow a lot.
I think some people on here have got themselves into a pseudo-denial PB Intelligentsia comfort zone with the EEA and what we can and can't do in it.
It was mentioned to me some time ago (ie about three weeks) that the EU simply did not believe that it was appropriate for an economy the size of the UK to be in the EEA, which, broadly, takes its instructions or many of them, from the EU. To say nothing of whether it would be acceptable for the current EEA countries (ie Norway).
And then to say we can apply the emergency brake (found the interesting article here) again, is more wishful thinking than cold hard analysis.
That said, of course, we are in a hugely different position now that we have voted to leave, rather than being about to vote to leave, so perhaps EU positions have changed. But I would beware the butterfly and the hurricane; a small change in initial conditions can lead to hugely different outcomes and at the moment some have convinced themselves that EEA, emergency brake is all done bar the shouting (of which of course there will be lots).
An important point to remember is that whatever deal is done eventually will be as binding as the current one. It will not be something that a future government can just walk away from.
We'd be a contracting party to the EEA agreement, so it would be binding in a sense, but really who is going to tell HMG to pay up for a contract dispute judged by a court we no longer recognise if we left. In the same way Parliament is sovereign within the EU because we could leave at any time, it would also be sovereign within the EEA.
That's exactly what we are going to think and it is exactly the reason why the EEA won't work for us. I am getting mixed signals from other EU countries whether will support an EEA solution for us. I don't think they trust us.
We are already a signatory to the EEA agreement. The EU can not block it. There are a couple of anomalies that we would face but nothing major.
Would Boris even be able to command a majority if he won? Soubry would surely resign the Tory whip and there may be others. He may become leader but never become PM.
Depends what kind of majority he recieved.
"Crisis" elections can go two ways... Indecisive (Feb 1974 one example) or landslide (1931 good example)
If he had a 100 seat majority Ms. Soubry and others could do what wanted and it wouldn't make any difference...
I meant after the Tory leadership election. We're assuming that person immediately becomes PM, but there's no guarantee at the moment.
Police have cleared and closed part of the Commons Library and Terrace after finding a suspicious package on Westminster Bridge.
Boris's next Telegraph article?
He was tired and emotional in the last one. From Sam Coates' Twitter feed
I'm told Boris Johnson has made clear to Tory right he WILL end EU free movement after Telegraph column y'day angered ppl.
Boris Telegraph y'day column was "written too quickly" and he's tired. Friends agree sloppy & sent mixed messages & will be vetted in future
So today Boris is in favour of ending the single market, that should steady the financial markets. Heaven help us if he gets anywhere near the negotiations.
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
For the people who just voted leave, the primary expression of lack of sovereignty is immigration. They are seriously playing with fire if this is on the table.
We're already playing with fire. The economy might burn down. Our choices are dwindling, as I say
I have never seen such panic as these latest posts on PB. It's frantic; it's manic, and SeanT, who should know better, is leader of the pack.
While Mr T is capable of speaking for himself, of course, I am running hours behind, but I thought he was all about emotional reactions to things.
If London gets devolution, Yorkshire and Cornwall will want it. Within a decade England will be riddled with political division that will be entrenched by the political system itself. Demagogues will, sooner or later, rise to power (complaining about London taxes being exported, or spending per head in Yorkshire being too low). Entirely possible England will cease to be a single political entity.
Hasn't Scottish devolution taught them anything?
And why should Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland been kept whole with single devolved bodies, whereas England has been neglected in this regard?
Mr. Lowlander, what currency a country uses is quite important...
A more federal England would be a wonderful thing. It's too large to be treated as a single unit.
If the loss of the EU as a single market was mitigated by deals with US, Canada, Australia, Korea, Japan - would Scotland vote to stick with Latvia, Croatia and tariffs with England?
This isn't just about the EU deal; it's about the global ones that Europe has failed to deliver.
To be fair, it's delivered quite a few (50ish countries?) - including Korea and Canada. I've no idea if the deals are any good or not, mind. It's not just about saying "hey, no tariffs" and shaking hands, it's also about making sure that our fine Scotch Whiskey doesn't fall foul of some rule about using caramel in it (for example).
The EU Canada deal is still not ratified. Meanwhile the EFTA/Canada deal has been operating since 2009.
The EU-Canada one does seem to be significantly more wide ranging, covering things of more importance to our economy such as professional qualifications, copyright (so says Wikipedia at least).
Outside the EU of course we may not need something so complicated, and I'm sure some areas of it we could live without. But we would probably benefit more from one like the EU one than from one like the EFTA one.
I think some people on here have got themselves into a pseudo-denial PB Intelligentsia comfort zone with the EEA and what we can and can't do in it.
It was mentioned to me some time ago (ie about three weeks) that the EU simply did not believe that it was appropriate for an economy the size of the UK to be in the EEA, which, broadly, takes its instructions or many of them, from the EU. To say nothing of whether it would be acceptable for the current EEA countries (ie Norway).
And then to say we can apply the emergency brake (found the interesting article here) again, is more wishful thinking than cold hard analysis.
That said, of course, we are in a hugely different position now that we have voted to leave, rather than being about to vote to leave, so perhaps EU positions have changed. But I would beware the butterfly and the hurricane; a small change in initial conditions can lead to hugely different outcomes and at the moment some have convinced themselves that EEA, emergency brake is all done bar the shouting (of which of course there will be lots).
An important point to remember is that whatever deal is done eventually will be as binding as the current one. It will not be something that a future government can just walk away from.
We'd be a contracting party to the EEA agreement, so it would be binding in a sense, but really who is going to tell HMG to pay up for a contract dispute judged by a court we no longer recognise if we left. In the same way Parliament is sovereign within the EU because we could leave at any time, it would also be sovereign within the EEA.
That's exactly what we are going to think and it is exactly the reason why the EEA won't work for us. I am getting mixed signals from other EU countries whether will support an EEA solution for us. I don't think they trust us.
We are already a signatory to the EEA agreement. The EU can not block it. There are a couple of anomalies that we would face but nothing major.
That's what I originally thought, but without going into the longwinded explanation, the EU will need to sign a new version of the Treaty and it is inconceivable in practice that the UK could join the EEA as an EFTA member against the wishes of the EU.
The question is whether they do wish. They might do because it's easier for them.
I think some people on here have got themselves into a pseudo-denial PB Intelligentsia comfort zone with the EEA and what we can and can't do in it.
It was mentioned to me some time ago (ie about three weeks) that the EU simply did not believe that it was appropriate for an economy the size of the UK to be in the EEA, which, broadly, takes its instructions or many of them, from the EU. To say nothing of whether it would be acceptable for the current EEA countries (ie Norway).
And then to say we can apply the emergency brake (found the interesting article here) again, is more wishful thinking than cold hard analysis.
That said, of course, we are in a hugely different position now that we have voted to leave, rather than being about to vote to leave, so perhaps EU positions have changed. But I would beware the butterfly and the hurricane; a small change in initial conditions can lead to hugely different outcomes and at the moment some have convinced themselves that EEA, emergency brake is all done bar the shouting (of which of course there will be lots).
An important point to remember is that whatever deal is done eventually will be as binding as the current one. It will not be something that a future government can just walk away from.
We'd be a contracting party to the EEA agreement, so it would be binding in a sense, but really who is going to tell HMG to pay up for a contract dispute judged by a court we no longer recognise if we left. In the same way Parliament is sovereign within the EU because we could leave at any time, it would also be sovereign within the EEA.
That's exactly what we are going to think and it is exactly the reason why the EEA won't work for us. I am getting mixed signals from other EU countries whether will support an EEA solution for us. I don't think they trust us.
We are already a signatory to the EEA agreement. The EU can not block it. There are a couple of anomalies that we would face but nothing major.
That's what I originally thought, but without going into the longwinded explanation, the EU will need to sign a new version of the Treaty and it is inconceivable in practice that the UK could join the EEA as an EFTA member against the wishes of the EU.
The question is whether they do wish. They might do because it's easier for them.
Can you please go into the long winded explanation?
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
For the people who just voted leave, the primary expression of lack of sovereignty is immigration. They are seriously playing with fire if this is on the table.
We're already playing with fire. The economy might burn down. Our choices are dwindling, as I say
I have never seen such panic as these latest posts on PB. It's frantic; it's manic, and SeanT, who should know better, is leader of the pack.
While Mr T is capable of speaking for himself, of course, I am running hours behind, but I thought he was all about emotional reactions to things.
Sean's just the poster child for a bunch of people here who, like pinballs, carom off the day's political and economic events. It's hard to tell where the ball is going, what kind of score it'll rack up, and whether it'll end up in the gutter.
Mr. Fire, disagree entirely. Regional assemblies and such nonsense will permanently entrench division. An English Parliament is necessary, but we may end up with the political class carving England up into petty fiefdoms.
In other news: Corbyn is neither in office nor in power.
Not true. Freedom of movement does not exist for non-workers in the EEA, they have an emergency brake under the safeguard measures and we have say in EU laws at the consultation stage and at EEA joint committee. Plus we can sign our own trade deals, scrap 3/4 of EU law and remove the 2-year ejector seat.
For about the zillionth time, the Freedom of Movement Directive applies in EXACTLY the same way for EEA and EU countries. It's the same effing directive. Not a jot of difference.
You are right that EEA members, like I believe other organisation, are consulted before regulations are drawn up. Big deal. They still have zero votes on the matter and are not in on the decision-taking meetings.
Yes, they can sign their own trade deals. Just as well, because they don't benefit from the ones the EU signs. Of course they have less clout when they do negotiate them. I consider that neutral overall.
Maybe those 172 should leave the Labour party. Surely if they were so confident and able in their own abilities as an MP they could win their seat without needing the Labour rosette ? Particularly the ones in places like Sunderland and Stoke......
According to my maths, assuming 36 shadow cabinet members, that still allows 91,390 possible permutations. Jezza can keep shuffling his loyalists around a while yet .
"... We have to be in the single market, to save the economy"
Remarkably there are lots of successful economies around the world that are not in the single market and yet seem to have no problem selling into it. Look around your own home.
The idea that one has to be a part of this Single-Market, with all its fees and downsides) to prosper is, frankly, preposterous.
Quite so. And in an ideal world we'd have the five or ten or fifteen years that are required to secure all these trade deals at our leisure, and really nail the details.
We don't. We have months. As confidence flows down the drain, and companies disinvest, the months will shorten.
That is absolutely the problem. The government did no contingency planning. They have done no secret negotiations with the US or Australia just in case we voted to leave so on Monday they could announce that on leaving the EU we would immediately sign free trading agreements with such and such nations, we're still open for business and now we're globally competitive. It is truly lamentable how poor the planning has been for non-EU trade given that Brexit has been a 50/50 shot for over a year.
Dereliction of duty by Osborne, Hammond and Javid for the lack of planning for non-EU trade given that Brexit has been a 50/50 shot. All 3 should be fired. Javid needs to be skewered in this upcoming election.
I think we are moving past the point where it really matters which bit of the Tory party is most responsible for the clusterf*ck that this is turning out to be.
Police have cleared and closed part of the Commons Library and Terrace after finding a suspicious package on Westminster Bridge.
Boris's next Telegraph article?
He was tired and emotional in the last one. From Sam Coates' Twitter feed
I'm told Boris Johnson has made clear to Tory right he WILL end EU free movement after Telegraph column y'day angered ppl.
Boris Telegraph y'day column was "written too quickly" and he's tired. Friends agree sloppy & sent mixed messages & will be vetted in future
So today Boris is in favour of ending the single market, that should steady the financial markets. Heaven help us if he gets anywhere near the negotiations.
It's chaos, and that's not an emotional response I'm afraid.
Maybe those 172 should leave the Labour party. Surely if they were so confident and able in their own abilities as an MP they could win their seat without needing the Labour rosette ? Particularly the ones in places like Sunderland and Stoke......
A man has been the victim of a racist attack on a tram in Manchester with youth shouting ‘get back to Africa’, authorities have confirmed.
Witnesses have described the abuse as ‘horrendous’ as at least three youths are seen shouting abuse at a man in a tram in Central Manchester on Tuesday morning.
The man, who appeared to have an American accent and be of mixed race, is seen asking the teenagers to stop swearing in front of children.
But the youth shouted back: “F--- get off the tram now. Don’t chat s---t or get deported”.
Based on this morning, no doubt some commentators on here are grinning about that story
Wait till Plato speaks - in the wonderful world of Brexitania racism and xenophobia does not compute.
The thing that genuinely riles me up is this constant building of strawman arguments. This country has some racists. It also has some people I'll describe as giant cocks. They'll take advantage of a situation in order to be fucking horrible.
The overwhelming majority of the people in this country will not tolerate this behaviour. If the evidence is there, they should be punished. If it's not a criminal offence, it should still be challenged.
We can all go out of our way to reassure our local immigrants that we are fundamentally decent people.
I do enjoy being called a racist bigot by small minded Remainders. It says much more about them than me.
I'm a female bisexual brought up above a shop in the NE by WWC parents and my Sierra Leone uncle. In the 70s. Oh, and had a few cross-dressing boyfriends.
On the Check Your Privilege scale - I think I score quite highly. And I voted Leave. OMG!!!
I detest identity politics - but if they want to play that game - bring it on
Amongst all the panic and recriminations here, can someone explain the difference between EEA and EFTA particularily in terms of:
* Ability to agree bilateral trade deals with non EU states
* Freedom of movement of people.
* Annual membership fee.
* Obligation for domestic sales to have CE marking/follow single market related EU directives.
* CAP / CF policy.
Thanks
You can be a member of EFTA and not the EEA (like Switzerland), but most people use EFTA/EEA to mean membership of the EEA through EFTA.
* Ability to agree bilateral trade deals with non EU states - yes
* Freedom of movement of people. - yes, albeit with more freedom for a state to impose emergency restrictions, and some more flexibiity re benefits and the like.
* Annual membership fee. EFTA/EEA *probably* costs slightly more than straight EFTA. (Hard to know exactly because the Swiss hide part of their fee by allowing the EU to collect customs duties on their behalf.)
The exact bill is up for negotiation, but would be in the range of £2bn at the low-end to £5bn at the high end. (The high estimate includes a bunch of projects that are not compulsory.)
* Obligation for domestic sales to have CE marking/follow single market related EU directives. Neither has that.
* CAP / CF policy. CAP is easy-peasy, we'd be out. CFP is a bit more complicated because the most sensible long-term solution is to recreate the 'box' with Ireland. We'd definitely leave it, but there's probably a long-term negotiation there needed.
Police have cleared and closed part of the Commons Library and Terrace after finding a suspicious package on Westminster Bridge.
Boris's next Telegraph article?
He was tired and emotional in the last one. From Sam Coates' Twitter feed
I'm told Boris Johnson has made clear to Tory right he WILL end EU free movement after Telegraph column y'day angered ppl.
Boris Telegraph y'day column was "written too quickly" and he's tired. Friends agree sloppy & sent mixed messages & will be vetted in future
So today Boris is in favour of ending the single market, that should steady the financial markets. Heaven help us if he gets anywhere near the negotiations.
Is there ANYONE on this board who thinks Boris would make a good PM?
Police have cleared and closed part of the Commons Library and Terrace after finding a suspicious package on Westminster Bridge.
Boris's next Telegraph article?
He was tired and emotional in the last one. From Sam Coates' Twitter feed
I'm told Boris Johnson has made clear to Tory right he WILL end EU free movement after Telegraph column y'day angered ppl.
Boris Telegraph y'day column was "written too quickly" and he's tired. Friends agree sloppy & sent mixed messages & will be vetted in future
So today Boris is in favour of ending the single market, that should steady the financial markets. Heaven help us if he gets anywhere near the negotiations.
Is there ANYONE on this board who thinks Boris would make a good PM?
Don't all rush at once.
Plato....she thinks the suns shines out of his arse
Police have cleared and closed part of the Commons Library and Terrace after finding a suspicious package on Westminster Bridge.
Boris's next Telegraph article?
He was tired and emotional in the last one. From Sam Coates' Twitter feed
I'm told Boris Johnson has made clear to Tory right he WILL end EU free movement after Telegraph column y'day angered ppl.
Boris Telegraph y'day column was "written too quickly" and he's tired. Friends agree sloppy & sent mixed messages & will be vetted in future
So today Boris is in favour of ending the single market, that should steady the financial markets. Heaven help us if he gets anywhere near the negotiations.
Is there ANYONE on this board who thinks Boris would make a good PM?
Don't all rush at once.
Boris Johnson has leadership qualities.
Bold, confident, clever, charismatic, a winner, a team leader and demonstartaed these qualities as London Mayor and leader of the LEAVE campaign.
Note how he consulted with Leadsom and Stuart as they were participating in the live debate. The opponents didn't show any team working.
Police have cleared and closed part of the Commons Library and Terrace after finding a suspicious package on Westminster Bridge.
Boris's next Telegraph article?
He was tired and emotional in the last one. From Sam Coates' Twitter feed
I'm told Boris Johnson has made clear to Tory right he WILL end EU free movement after Telegraph column y'day angered ppl.
Boris Telegraph y'day column was "written too quickly" and he's tired. Friends agree sloppy & sent mixed messages & will be vetted in future
So today Boris is in favour of ending the single market, that should steady the financial markets. Heaven help us if he gets anywhere near the negotiations.
Is there ANYONE on this board who thinks Boris would make a good PM?
Don't all rush at once.
That depends on your definition of good. It also depends on his ability to delegate and get people pulling in the same direction. I suspect he might surprise a few should he get the gig.
I still expect to vote for May in the leadership contest but if it's Boris v Fox then I'd go with Boris.
Comments
Also the weather. Everyone talks about the weather.
What we've had instead is the two year old smashing the toy and expecting somebody else to sort it out. The risk can't be priced so people retreat to safety. The consequences for the employed, the bill payers, are real. Perhaps it will work out acceptably but we appear to be some way off that point.
In the meantime the Labour party engages in doctrinaire warfare.
It will be interesting to see if this is 1848 or 1917. The risk is that even those currently revelling in the chaos lose out. It would be just retribution, I suppose.
"Crisis" elections can go two ways... Indecisive (Feb 1974 one example) or landslide (1931 good example)
If he had a 100 seat majority Ms. Soubry and others could do what wanted and it wouldn't make any difference...
If London gets devolution, Yorkshire and Cornwall will want it. Within a decade England will be riddled with political division that will be entrenched by the political system itself. Demagogues will, sooner or later, rise to power (complaining about London taxes being exported, or spending per head in Yorkshire being too low). Entirely possible England will cease to be a single political entity.
Hasn't Scottish devolution taught them anything?
And why should Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland been kept whole with single devolved bodies, whereas England has been neglected in this regard?
Mr. Lowlander, what currency a country uses is quite important...
You would be "dollarised" - similar to Panama and hence the cost of borrowing would be higher for Scotland - and of course to maintain the high cost "progressive" lifestyle which is currently funded by rUK you would have to borrow a lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_as84t4Ji_w
So today Boris is in favour of ending the single market, that should steady the financial markets. Heaven help us if he gets anywhere near the negotiations.
Outside the EU of course we may not need something so complicated, and I'm sure some areas of it we could live without. But we would probably benefit more from one like the EU one than from one like the EFTA one.
Isn't that enough ?
The question is whether they do wish. They might do because it's easier for them.
*Gets towed away by the bad analogy police*
In other news: Corbyn is neither in office nor in power.
Schrodinger's Labour party
You are right that EEA members, like I believe other organisation, are consulted before regulations are drawn up. Big deal. They still have zero votes on the matter and are not in on the decision-taking meetings.
Yes, they can sign their own trade deals. Just as well, because they don't benefit from the ones the EU signs. Of course they have less clout when they do negotiate them. I consider that neutral overall.
Yes, some EU laws don't apply.
* Ability to agree bilateral trade deals with non EU states
* Freedom of movement of people.
* Annual membership fee.
* Obligation for domestic sales to have CE marking/follow single market related EU directives.
* CAP / CF policy.
Thanks
Particularly the ones in places like Sunderland and Stoke......
Kay Burley@KayBurley 9m9 minutes ago
BREAK: President of European council, Tusk, tells Sturgeon he's not interested in meeting her tomorrow
No early threat to jobs will get a good 25-35 wavering Tory MPs in marginals to his side.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Or to put it another way, enough MPs to form new party..!
I'm a female bisexual brought up above a shop in the NE by WWC parents and my Sierra Leone uncle. In the 70s. Oh, and had a few cross-dressing boyfriends.
On the Check Your Privilege scale - I think I score quite highly. And I voted Leave. OMG!!!
I detest identity politics - but if they want to play that game - bring it on
* Ability to agree bilateral trade deals with non EU states
- yes
* Freedom of movement of people.
- yes, albeit with more freedom for a state to impose emergency restrictions, and some more flexibiity re benefits and the like.
* Annual membership fee.
EFTA/EEA *probably* costs slightly more than straight EFTA. (Hard to know exactly because the Swiss hide part of their fee by allowing the EU to collect customs duties on their behalf.)
The exact bill is up for negotiation, but would be in the range of £2bn at the low-end to £5bn at the high end. (The high estimate includes a bunch of projects that are not compulsory.)
* Obligation for domestic sales to have CE marking/follow single market related EU directives.
Neither has that.
* CAP / CF policy.
CAP is easy-peasy, we'd be out.
CFP is a bit more complicated because the most sensible long-term solution is to recreate the 'box' with Ireland. We'd definitely leave it, but there's probably a long-term negotiation there needed.
Don't all rush at once.
The confidence vote has no consequences.
Shows a lack of tactical nous by the Blairites.
Arm wrestling to be the challenger. Eagle to win.
Bold, confident, clever, charismatic, a winner, a team leader and demonstartaed these qualities as London Mayor and leader of the LEAVE campaign.
Note how he consulted with Leadsom and Stuart as they were participating in the live debate. The opponents didn't show any team working.
But not enough members.
I still expect to vote for May in the leadership contest but if it's Boris v Fox then I'd go with Boris.