Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
Renegotiation is on.
If you were the new PM taking over in these circumstances, would you just give up the massive leverage we have to get a new deal and instead press on with Article 50? It would be insane to give up a diplomatic hand like that.
50 letters would put a stop to that.
This.
Let's say for the moment for the sake of argument it's already clear Leaving is a hopeless option and cannot be made to work well - I'd say it was far too early to make that call, but let's accept the premise - and there's this opportunity to renegotiate. The problem is it is too soon for both sides. The mood is too raw for the hardcore of Leavers for whom its all they care about, and the millions who have been delighted by the outcome, and a moderately hostile EU getting all defensive. This government could not survive backing down on that, or being seen to back down on that, and given it is too soon for any problems to be felt nationwide, it would be too provocative for the public who as of yet would not be ready to be re-convinced, that enough has changed to renegotiate. This government would fall, and would a 'negotiate' government be elected in its place?
That's why we need to kick the can down the road. Announce a process to figure out what the answer is and we'll decide later. Meanwhile commit to the single market to reassure the FTSE. We're all to crazed to work out the answer right now.
If we can hold of a declaration for several months, a great many options are more possible. But it won't be easy to hold out that long, as there are downsides too.
Yep - this is a possible plan - it's a real fudge because it's essentially Remain with a Leave label...but it could just work...
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
Renegotiation is on.
If you were the new PM taking over in these circumstances, would you just give up the massive leverage we have to get a new deal and instead press on with Article 50? It would be insane to give up a diplomatic hand like that.
50 letters would put a stop to that.
This.
Let's say for the moment for the sake of argument it's already clear Leaving is a hopeless option and cannot be made to work well - I'd say it was far too early to make that call, but let's accept the premise - and there's this opportunity to renegotiate. The problem is it is too soon for both sides. The mood is too raw for the hardcore of Leavers for whom its all they care about, and the millions who have been delighted by the outcome, and a moderately hostile EU getting all defensive. This government could not survive backing down on that, or being seen to back down on that, and given it is too soon for any problems to be felt nationwide, it would be too provocative for the public who as of yet would not be ready to be re-convinced, that enough has changed to renegotiate. This government would fall, and would a 'negotiate' government be elected in its place?
That's why we need to kick the can down the road. Announce a process to figure out what the answer is and we'll decide later. Meanwhile commit to the single market to reassure the FTSE. We're all to crazed to work out the answer right now.
If we can hold of a declaration for several months, a great many options are more possible. But it won't be easy to hold out that long, as there are downsides too.
Yep - this is a possible plan - it's a real fudge because it's essentially Remain with a Leave label...but it could just work...
I'm not sure there's a democratic alternative. It's not Remain. But it's not leave. It's -- let's figure out how we could leave without destroying our economy.
Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
We can do this. We can prevaricate, fudge, hedge and mumble until the EU concedes. Maybe the political chaos helps us.
I honestly don't see how that would be good for the EU, and so us, in a rejoining scenario - they would be showing you can vote to leave, then get a whole bunch of things you want, and decide to stay - it would cause immense problems across the EU as plenty of places might decide to vote to leave, provoking great shocks, simply as a bargaining position.
The narrative has turned. Suddenly it's Brexit might benefit the Brits, let's keep them in....
Fascinating
Hard to know where the narrative will end up, it's been less than a week, but there's been some encouraging noises at least.
Though unfortunately for those hoping for a reprieve from brexit, the more likely it looks we could be offered a new, better deal than before, the more it is likely that's because the EU feels us leaving would not be worth the damage to them, that is it would hurt them more than us (or so it would be perceived) and so the more ok we'll perceive the brexit situation to be, and the nervous waverers will be even less likely to waver.
Thats because a UK exit is going to be damaging to them.
A reasonable sense that Brexit might be inimical to Continental interests is not as the same as a certainty it would be beneficial to ours. The latter concept is where elements of emotional pride, or paranoia, are liable to come into play.
Yes. With some promises that we will revisit it in time, to see if it has worked, and the proviso that we have a sort of emergency brake. Not ideal, but there we are.
Incidentally, the News at Ten reports Gordon Brown is tomorrow coming out for this solution: EEA with emergency brake.
A consensus is forming. i think it could command 60% of the voters. We're out, but in the single market. The EU will also want this.
The EU army thing, today, by itself, renders all dreams of continued EU membership utterly inoperable.
Unfortunately the country voted for Brexit with no free movement.
We must respect the will of the people, or Nigel Farage will become even more odious in his campaigning
This is just a lie. They voted LEAVE. That's all we know, all we can know, unless you want to make windows into men's souls.
I'm fairly certain restricting immigration and free movement was mentioned occasionally.
Sure. I bet millions voted on the grounds of immigration. I also bet millions (like me) voted because of sovereignty and freedom, and don't remotely mind Polish nurses and Romanian plumbers.
All we have in common is that we voted LEAVE, and that's the only conclusion any democrat can draw. The people said LEAVE. So we LEAVE.
Why are you making this harder? You lost. Get over it. We're out. Now let's go for what is clearly the best option: Norway EEA. We all agree, we want Britain to thrive and survive, it's the best choice, and it honours democracy. So let's crack on.
Agree with this as the way forward. Most Remainers would support it, giving such a move a formidable bloc vote.
It would be somewhat hilarious if the outcome we ended up with was made up of 40% remainers, 20% leavers (assuming in this scenario the a bit more than half of Leavers would not accept any free movement, and a hard core of remainers refused to back anything that wasn't full remaining)
The main sentiment that I got (and reported the anecdata here) was Indian doctors and filipino nurses saying "I had to jump though hoops and take exams to get work here, why shouldn't they?"
They are already finding that those folk who do not like Greeks or Portuguese like Asians even less.
Are there actually any more than a small percentage of sick people who give a stuff about where their physicians, surgeons, nurses come from? Aside from perhaps some language/communication issues (which alas do occur) how many patients have an issue?
As an aside, I note that at the Renal Unit at the RSCH all the medical staff that I have had dealings with have been white Brits. At the Brighton Eye Hospital aside from a couple of the nurses, none have been. The two establishments are on either side of the road, no more than 20 yards apart. Does the medical profession run some sort of apartheid in its specialities?
As long as their English comprehension is up to snuff, who gives a shit? I've only met one doctor who I couldn't understand, and who apparently couldn't understand me. That's not a bad record, considering the Welsh NHS is even more dependent on immigrants than the English.
Mr. M., that was my point in the first paragraph. I don't think many people give a stuff where their medicos come from. Competence is obviously important, but not I think a significant issue, and communication can be, but actual race/ethnicity, nah.
My second question to Dr. Sox was based on observation and quite genuine with no loading. In this neck of the woods all the renal people seem to be white Brits but none of the eye doctors (and precious few of their support staff are). I am not complaining just observing and wondering why.
Certain specialities are attractive to different people. Most of the difference is generational, Renal medicine is not expanding, so the specialists are rather older. Ophthalmology has expanded rapidly over the last decade, so has younger and therefore ethnic minority staff.
Most people are not bothered where their doctor or nurse comes from as they have more pressing concerns. Those people do have families, and go to the streets and shops, and it is in that non professional context that bigotry appears.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question, Doc. I am grateful for, but not wholly convinced by, your answer.
It occurs to me that, once the UK leaves, the EU can drop English as a standard language.
Well, they might very well do so Anne. What would they replace it with? English is the global lingua franca. If that's not the very definition of irony, what is?
I doubt that very much - it's the second language in 23 out of 27 states afaiaa and of course the first language in 1 other.
2 others if you include Scotland, and it takes unanimity to change it.
English is the best language in the world!
Consider: at this year's Eurovision Final, all but one song were sung wholly or partially in English!
And to think, when you first came to this country you couldn't even speak this beautiful language, IIRC
Yes, that's right! But probably because I was only four months old at the time!
I agree with Sean. We're done with the EU and all their mad plans but we'll stay in the EEA and have access to the single market. In return we'll have to accept free movement.
This won't be enough for Farage and UKIP but the Tories will get enough support to see it through the Commons and probably to win a general election.
Labour may suffer in the north at the hands of UKIP which is unfortunate but we'll get over it.
I still think no-one will be brave enough to invoke Article 50 for months if not a year or two. The EU will then throw us a few bones (after they have got over the anger stage) which we'll put to a Referendum and the status quo endures.
Probably not the most likely outcome but definitely not a complete outsider.
It's very, very, very unlikely that any politician will risk another EU referendum this side of 2100...
Please never again. There is something weird about Article 50 though - it's like the unwanted gift at a very nervous game of pass the parcel
Corbyn isn't a decent man, he's a terrorist fanboy and a weed of a man who cares more for some kind of loser 'project' more than he cares for actually achieving anything useful.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
Not sure. It's a conceptual thing. The hard left do not think parliamentary representatives are of any special importance - just party members like thousands of others. The hard left are not going to give up their hold on the party -that is not especially stupid it's just the game they are playing.
The main sentiment that I got (and reported the anecdata here) was Indian doctors and filipino nurses saying "I had to jump though hoops and take exams to get work here, why shouldn't they?"
They are already finding that those folk who do not like Greeks or Portuguese like Asians even less.
Are there actually any more than a small percentage of sick people who give a stuff about where their physicians, surgeons, nurses come from? Aside from perhaps some language/communication issues (which alas do occur) how many patients have an issue?
As an aside, I note that at the Renal Unit at the RSCH all the medical staff that I have had dealings with have been white Brits. At the Brighton Eye Hospital aside from a couple of the nurses, none have been. The two establishments are on either side of the road, no more than 20 yards apart. Does the medical profession run some sort of apartheid in its specialities?
As long as their English comprehension is up to snuff, who gives a shit? I've only met one doctor who I couldn't understand, and who apparently couldn't understand me. That's not a bad record, considering the Welsh NHS is even more dependent on immigrants than the English.
Mr. M., that was my point in the first paragraph. I don't think many people give a stuff where their medicos come from. Competence is obviously important, but not I think a significant issue, and communication can be, but actual race/ethnicity, nah.
My second question to Dr. Sox was based on observation and quite genuine with no loading. In this neck of the woods all the renal people seem to be white Brits but none of the eye doctors (and precious few of their support staff are). I am not complaining just observing and wondering why.
Certain specialities are attractive to different people. Most of the difference is generational, Renal medicine is not expanding, so the specialists are rather older. Ophthalmology has expanded rapidly over the last decade, so has younger and therefore ethnic minority staff.
Most people are not bothered where their doctor or nurse comes from as they have more pressing concerns. Those people do have families, and go to the streets and shops, and it is in that non professional context that bigotry appears.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question, Doc. I am grateful for, but not wholly convinced by, your answer.
Individual departments often have founder effects too. A strong personality attracts like minds.
I think some remainers are still in the denial phase - there is no way we won't leave the EU. Article 50 to be invoked by end of 2016 for sure. As much as I would prefer it not to be the case, we have made our choice. I don't doubt that our parliament would keep us in if they thought they could get away with it, but we are no longer wanted by the important players in the EU. Doesn't matter what Lithuania says, the only one in our corner that matters is Merkel, and she is not as omnipotent in Europe as people portray. The rest will want us gone quick and getting on with their ever closer union.
Our future is now Britzerland (or Brorway, Briceland, Briechtenstein , take your pick!) the EU will integrate into a federation a lot quicker without us. There won't be contagion. We are the most eurosceptic country in Europe and we only voted out by 52-48, with a rabidly anti Eu press and mainstream politicians campaigning to leave - in other EU states it's just a secondary part of your bog standard far right platform. Not gonna happen.
As I started reading that sentence, I got as far as "South-West Norfolk MP Elizabeth Truss, tipped as a possible Conservative leadership contender, has come out..." and I thought "Good for her!".
Then I carried on reading and found "...in support of Boris Johnson." and I thought "Bad for her!"
The narrative has turned. Suddenly it's Brexit might benefit the Brits, let's keep them in....
Fascinating
Hard to know where the narrative will end up, it's been less than a week, but there's been some encouraging noises at least.
Though unfortunately for those hoping for a reprieve from brexit, the more likely it looks we could be offered a new, better deal than before, the more it is likely that's because the EU feels us leaving would not be worth the damage to them, that is it would hurt them more than us (or so it would be perceived) and so the more ok we'll perceive the brexit situation to be, and the nervous waverers will be even less likely to waver.
Thats because a UK exit is going to be damaging to them.
*Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "£8.5 billion net".*
Corbyn isn't a decent man, he's a terrorist fanboy and a weed of a man who cares more for some kind of loser 'project' more than he cares for actually achieving anything useful.
You've all heard my (one and only) encounter with Nadine. She had also put a few away when I met her, so I'm not sure she should be throwing around that particular insult.
Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
We can do this. We can prevaricate, fudge, hedge and mumble until the EU concedes. Maybe the political chaos helps us.
I honestly don't see how that would be good for the EU, and so us, in a rejoining scenario - they would be showing you can vote to leave, then get a whole bunch of things you want, and decide to stay - it would cause immense problems across the EU as plenty of places might decide to vote to leave, provoking great shocks, simply as a bargaining position.
Lithuanian president asked what would happen if Article 50 isn't invoked. Answer: "Welcome back".
I don't believe them. Or rather, even if they would, the others as a whole would not.
They would have no choice as unless we invoke Article 50 we are in, simple as that. Won't happen - I'm sure someone will step up, eventually.
I can picture the scene in 2030 as all the other leaders once again try to trick the British Prime Minister into talking about it and accidently invoking it..
As I started reading that sentence, I got as far as "South-West Norfolk MP Elizabeth Truss, tipped as a possible Conservative leadership contender, has come out..." and I thought "Good for her!".
Then I carried on reading and found "...in support of Boris Johnson." and I thought "Bad for her!"
Who knew someone could experience so many emotions in such a short period of time
You've all heard my (one and only) encounter with Nadine. She had also put a few away when I met her, so I'm not sure she should be throwing around that particular insult.
She's deleted it after Miss Soubry said it was defamatory
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
Not sure. It's a conceptual thing. The hard left do not think parliamentary representatives are of any special importance - just party members like thousands of others. The hard left are not going to give up their hold on the party -that is not especially stupid it's just the game they are playing.
Corbyn isn't a decent man, he's a terrorist fanboy and a weed of a man who cares more for some kind of loser 'project' more than he cares for actually achieving anything useful.
According to the Telegraph, Brexit has caused a possible collapse of the Italian banking system. That was in the print edition, don't know what the latest is.
Ummm: this is the opposite of a Brexit domino falling. This is a Eurozone country taking advantage of the fact that Germany is panicked about the impact of Brexit, and therefore getting permission to ignore state aid rules.
The Italian banks were the best performing stocks in Europe today.
I think some remainers are still in the denial phase - there is no way we won't leave the EU. Article 50 to be invoked by end of 2016 for sure. As much as I would prefer it not to be the case, we have made our choice. I don't doubt that our parliament would keep us in if they thought they could get away with it, but we are no longer wanted by the important players in the EU. Doesn't matter what Lithuania says, the only one in our corner that matters is Merkel, and she is not as omnipotent in Europe as people portray. The rest will want us gone quick and getting on with their ever closer union.
Our future is now Britzerland (or Brorway, Briceland, Briechtenstein , take your pick!) the EU will integrate into a federation a lot quicker without us. There won't be contagion. We are the most eurosceptic country in Europe and we only voted out by 52-48, with a rabidly anti Eu press and mainstream politicians campaigning to leave - in other EU states it's just a secondary part of your bog standard far right platform. Not gonna happen.
I think some remainers are still in the denial phase - there is no way we won't leave the EU. Article 50 to be invoked by end of 2016 for sure. As much as I would prefer it not to be the case, we have made our choice. I don't doubt that our parliament would keep us in if they thought they could get away with it, but we are no longer wanted by the important players in the EU. Doesn't matter what Lithuania says, the only one in our corner that matters is Merkel, and she is not as omnipotent in Europe as people portray. The rest will want us gone quick and getting on with their ever closer union.
Our future is now Britzerland (or Brorway, Briceland, Briechtenstein , take your pick!) the EU will integrate into a federation a lot quicker without us. There won't be contagion. We are the most eurosceptic country in Europe and we only voted out by 52-48, with a rabidly anti Eu press and mainstream politicians campaigning to leave - in other EU states it's just a secondary part of your bog standard far right platform. Not gonna happen.
Shilly shallying over invoking Article 50 is just adding to the air of uncertainty Drag it on too long and increasing damage is done to the City for no purpose.
The narrative has turned. Suddenly it's Brexit might benefit the Brits, let's keep them in....
Fascinating
Hard to know where the narrative will end up, it's been less than a week, but there's been some encouraging noises at least.
Though unfortunately for those hoping for a reprieve from brexit, the more likely it looks we could be offered a new, better deal than before, the more it is likely that's because the EU feels us leaving would not be worth the damage to them, that is it would hurt them more than us (or so it would be perceived) and so the more ok we'll perceive the brexit situation to be, and the nervous waverers will be even less likely to waver.
Thats because a UK exit is going to be damaging to them.
*Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "£8.5 billion net".*
"In this case, trade!"...said Mallow. "Trade alone! Korell is now at war with us. Consequently our trade with her has stopped. But, in the past three years she has based her economy more and more upon the techniques which only we can continue to supply. Now what do you suppose will happen once one gadget after another goes out of commission? It's going to be a stalemate. There will be no casualties, no bombardments, no battles.
Sutt said slowly, wonderingly, "Is that what you're setting your hopes on, man? A housewives' rebellion? A Jacquerie? A sudden uprising of butchers and grocers with their cleavers and bread-knives"
"No, sir," said Mallow "I expect, however, a general background of grumbling and dissatisfaction which will be seized on by more important figures later on. Those industries which we have changed from first to last with our new gadgets will find themselves ruined."
"The factories ran well enough before you came there, Mallow."
And Mallow laughed joyously, "You've missed, Sutt, you've missed everything, and understood nothing. The whole war is a battle between those two systems, between the Empire and the Foundation. To seize control of a world, they bribe with immense ships that can make war. We, on the other hand, bribe with little things vital to prosperity and profits. It's still the little things in life that count and Asper Argo won't stand up against the economic depression in two or three years."
Mallow said to the guards, "Take him away. He's under arrest.", and never looked up.
KORELL...And so after three years of a war which was certainly the most unfought war on record, the Republic of Korell surrendered unconditionally, and Hober Mallow took his place next to Hari Seldon and Salvor Hardin in the hearts of the people of the Foundation.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
The gag has probably already been made, but did Soubry just reveal why Remain lost? She said we made a terrible mistake on friday by voting to leave, but of course the vote was on Thursday. Poor remainers didn't realise what day the vote was, the silly buggers.
Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
We can do this. We can prevaricate, fudge, hedge and mumble until the EU concedes. Maybe the political chaos helps us.
I honestly don't see how that would be good for the EU, and so us, in a rejoining scenario - they would be showing you can vote to leave, then get a whole bunch of things you want, and decide to stay - it would cause immense problems across the EU as plenty of places might decide to vote to leave, provoking great shocks, simply as a bargaining position.
Lithuanian president asked what would happen if Article 50 isn't invoked. Answer: "Welcome back".
I don't believe them. Or rather, even if they would, the others as a whole would not.
They would have no choice as unless we invoke Article 50 we are in, simple as that. Won't happen - I'm sure someone will step up, eventually.
I can picture the scene in 2030 as all the other leaders once again try to trick the British Prime Minister into talking about it and accidently invoking it..
How does one actually invoke this thing? Is it a spell, or some sort of glowing button?
As I started reading that sentence, I got as far as "South-West Norfolk MP Elizabeth Truss, tipped as a possible Conservative leadership contender, has come out..." and I thought "Good for her!".
Then I carried on reading and found "...in support of Boris Johnson." and I thought "Bad for her!"
has come out in support of Boris I didnt know Boris was even gay
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
Quite right Nick.
Jeremy should stick to his guns, the leadership is a matter for the members - that is the rulebook !
Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
Renegotiation is on.
If you were the new PM taking over in these circumstances, would you just give up the massive leverage we have to get a new deal and instead press on with Article 50? It would be insane to give up a diplomatic hand like that.
50 letters would put a stop to that.
This.
Let's say for the moment for the sake of argument it's already clear Leaving is a hopeless option and cannot be made to work well - I'd say it was far too early to make that call, but let's accept the premise - and there's this opportunity to renegotiate. The problem is it is too soon for both sides. The mood is too raw for the hardcore of Leavers for whom its all they care about, and the millions who have been delighted by the outcome, and a moderately hostile EU getting all defensive. This government could not survive backing down on that, or being seen to back down on that, and given it is too soon for any problems to be felt nationwide, it would be too provocative for the public who as of yet would not be ready to be re-convinced, that enough has changed to renegotiate. This government would fall, and would a 'negotiate' government be elected in its place?
That's why we need to kick the can down the road. Announce a process to figure out what the answer is and we'll decide later. Meanwhile commit to the single market to reassure the FTSE. We're all to crazed to work out the answer right now.
If we can hold of a declaration for several months, a great many options are more possible. But it won't be easy to hold out that long, as there are downsides too.
Here's the issue: the longer we hold out, the better the deal we can negotiate.
But the longer we hold out, the more investment in the UK will be deferred, and the bigger the risk that our financial services industry ends up shared out between Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt and Warsaw.
It's why the 10 years of EFTA/EEA option is so attractive: it stops the disappearance of firms now, and allows us the window to negotiate more down the road
Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
We can do this. We can prevaricate, fudge, hedge and mumble until the EU concedes. Maybe the political chaos helps us.
I honestly don't see how that would be good for the EU, and so us, in a rejoining scenario - they would be showing you can vote to leave, then get a whole bunch of things you want, and decide to stay - it would cause immense problems across the EU as plenty of places might decide to vote to leave, provoking great shocks, simply as a bargaining position.
Lithuanian president asked what would happen if Article 50 isn't invoked. Answer: "Welcome back".
I don't believe them. Or rather, even if they would, the others as a whole would not.
They would have no choice as unless we invoke Article 50 we are in, simple as that. Won't happen - I'm sure someone will step up, eventually.
I can picture the scene in 2030 as all the other leaders once again try to trick the British Prime Minister into talking about it and accidently invoking it..
How does one actually invoke this thing? Is it a spell, or some sort of glowing button?
BoJo will do a countdown in his weekly Telegraph column.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
Quite right Nick.
Jeremy should stick to his guns, the leadership is a matter for the members - that is the rulebook !
If the MPs had followed the spirit of the rulebook in the first place they woudn't be suffering because of it now - they agreed an MP threshold for just this sort of situation, if that rule was important to them, they shouldn't have ignored it at the time, in spirit, by having people who didn't support him nominate him.
Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
We can do this. We can prevaricate, fudge, hedge and mumble until the EU concedes. Maybe the political chaos helps us.
I honestly don't see how that would be good for the EU, and so us, in a rejoining scenario - they would be showing you can vote to leave, then get a whole bunch of things you want, and decide to stay - it would cause immense problems across the EU as plenty of places might decide to vote to leave, provoking great shocks, simply as a bargaining position.
Lithuanian president asked what would happen if Article 50 isn't invoked. Answer: "Welcome back".
I don't believe them. Or rather, even if they would, the others as a whole would not.
They would have no choice as unless we invoke Article 50 we are in, simple as that. Won't happen - I'm sure someone will step up, eventually.
I can picture the scene in 2030 as all the other leaders once again try to trick the British Prime Minister into talking about it and accidently invoking it..
How does one actually invoke this thing? Is it a spell, or some sort of glowing button?
It's why the 10 years of EFTA/EEA option is so attractive: it stops the disappearance of firms now, and allows us the window to negotiate more down the road
But once we're in EFTA it won't be any easier to change that status than it has been to get us out of the EU. You'd need a whole new referendum and all the associated disruption.
Yes. With some promises that we will revisit it in time, to see if it has worked, and the proviso that we have a sort of emergency brake. Not ideal, but there we are.
Incidentally, the News at Ten reports Gordon Brown is tomorrow coming out for this solution: EEA with emergency brake.
A consensus is forming. i think it could command 60% of the voters. We're out, but in the single market. The EU will also want this.
The EU army thing, today, by itself, renders all dreams of continued EU membership utterly inoperable.
Unfortunately the country voted for Brexit with no free movement.
We must respect the will of the people, or Nigel Farage will become even more odious in his campaigning
They also voted for the economy to carry on fine, plus a load of extra money for the NHS to boot. There's just no way to deliver what they think they've been sold, some of it is going to have to go.
Farage will of course be odious, but this is how populists work. If they blow up the economy instead he'll get them that way.
@michaelsavage: Corbyn ally on Angela Eagle: “She’s the lesser of 2 Eagles. She’s not even the best politician in her own family.” Her sister Maria's an MP.
Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
We can do this. We can prevaricate, fudge, hedge and mumble until the EU concedes. Maybe the political chaos helps us.
I honestly don't see how that would be good for the EU, and so us, in a rejoining scenario - they would be showing you can vote to leave, then get a whole bunch of things you want, and decide to stay - it would cause immense problems across the EU as plenty of places might decide to vote to leave, provoking great shocks, simply as a bargaining position.
Lithuanian president asked what would happen if Article 50 isn't invoked. Answer: "Welcome back".
I don't believe them. Or rather, even if they would, the others as a whole would not.
They would have no choice as unless we invoke Article 50 we are in, simple as that. Won't happen - I'm sure someone will step up, eventually.
I can picture the scene in 2030 as all the other leaders once again try to trick the British Prime Minister into talking about it and accidently invoking it..
How does one actually invoke this thing? Is it a spell, or some sort of glowing button?
One writes a letter and lodges it. It cannot be accidentally invoked.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
Because, as Jonathan says, the spectacle of your party going into an election with a leader now openly despised by most of his MPs, and roundly condemned by those MPs, a leader who cannot even fill the ranks of his Shadow Cabinet, and at the same time a leader who has a pro-immigration, pro-IRA, pro-jihadist philosophy which makes much of Britain puke its lunch is a recipe for the final termination of your party, just as you have already died in your heartland, Scotland.
The hilarious bit is that NAFTA is far more dominated by the US, than the US is by Germany. The number of successful ISDS claims against the US by Canadian or Mexican firms...
It's why the 10 years of EFTA/EEA option is so attractive: it stops the disappearance of firms now, and allows us the window to negotiate more down the road
But once we're in EFTA it won't be any easier to change that status than it has been to get us out of the EU. You'd need a whole new referendum and all the associated disruption.
Oh, we'd never leave EFTA/EEA. Why would we? It's popular with something like 85% of Norwegians.
Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
We can do this. We can prevaricate, fudge, hedge and mumble until the EU concedes. Maybe the political chaos helps us.
I honestly don't see how that would be good for the EU, and so us, in a rejoining scenario - they would be showing you can vote to leave, then get a whole bunch of things you want, and decide to stay - it would cause immense problems across the EU as plenty of places might decide to vote to leave, provoking great shocks, simply as a bargaining position.
Lithuanian president asked what would happen if Article 50 isn't invoked. Answer: "Welcome back".
I don't believe them. Or rather, even if they would, the others as a whole would not.
They would have no choice as unless we invoke Article 50 we are in, simple as that. Won't happen - I'm sure someone will step up, eventually.
I can picture the scene in 2030 as all the other leaders once again try to trick the British Prime Minister into talking about it and accidently invoking it..
How does one actually invoke this thing? Is it a spell, or some sort of glowing button?
One writes a letter and lodges it. It cannot be accidentally invoked.
Didn't the EU say a speech to the Council mentioning it would do it?
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
Because, as Jonathan says, the spectacle of your party going into an election with a leader now openly despised by most of his MPs, and roundly condemned by those MPs, a leader who cannot even fill the ranks of his Shadow Cabinet, and at the same time a leader who has a pro-immigration, pro-IRA, pro-jihadist philosophy which makes much of Britain puke its lunch is a recipe for the final termination of your party, just as you have already died in your heartland, Scotland.
But go ahead, knock yourself out.
It also removes the only plausible (if still improbable) route for Remainers to block Article 50 - by electing a Europhile Labour leader on a 'stay in the EU' ticket. But this isn't about the nine million Labour voters - most of whom think Corbyn should resign, says today's Times poll - but about the party's members, which command, what, 0.5% of the electorate.
Corbyn isn't a decent man, he's a terrorist fanboy and a weed of a man who cares more for some kind of loser 'project' more than he cares for actually achieving anything useful.
The hilarious bit is that NAFTA is far more dominated by the US, than the US is by Germany. The number of successful ISDS claims against the US by Canadian or Mexican firms...
Zero
How many unemployed auto workers in Michigan (10pt Democrat win in 2012) are going to know that. Or even care, frankly. To them, Mexico took their jobs, Trump is telling them they will get them back.
Again, like Brexit, the truth of the argument is immaterial.
That's not the actual story. I know we've all got axes to grind, but we deserve better. Like a lot of things, it's conditional on the UK's final agreement with the EU.
Vodaphone thinking about leaving VISA thinking about leaving Morgan Stanley not leaving Bloomberg not leaving People 'freezing' big investment
In other words - companies considering their options when a country makes a big political and economic change.
Hardly fighting for places on the last boat to get away from broken racist Britain.
The narrative will come unstuck because no sensible company will actually be prepared to DO any of this stuff on the basis of this flimsy hand-flapping episode.
I'd rather have a balanced narrative. It's bound to have an impact, as businesses don't like uncertainty. Post exit, there may be legal, regulatory or even commercial reasons why a company might need to relocate some, or all, of their operations to EU states.
Brexit will have Brexit related unemployment. Markets will be volatile. Based on the IMF report, we're highly likely to have a shallow recession (-.8%) next year. And so on. There has been a measurable increase in unacceptable racist and intimidatory behaviour. People are still upset and worried. There's no point in being in denial over it.
PB has been very unpleasant for at least the last fortnight. I thought we were doing very well today. I'm just appealing for a bit more civility and a bit less one-eyed posting. Except if I'm doing it, when it's naturally ok .
If the 'increase' in racist attacks is measurable, I'd like to see the measurement. I'd be surprised if you have verified year on year statistics, but go for it, I stand to be corrected.
Woah, calm down there Tonto. I voted Leave. It's just a fact that people who might have let an incident go by last week, will be highlighting it this week. We are all, rightly, very sensitive about the issue - any plonkers who think the Brexit vote is carte blanche to insult or otherwise attack immigrants need to be squashed pronto.
As I've said before, British tolerance of immigrants is longstanding and is part of the reason that so many people like to come here. Given a population of 65 million we're bound to have a small proportion of giant cocks. We just need to keep on being decent and reassuring.
Yes, but we also need to be aware of when events that sadly happen quite frequently are being gussied up into a narrative that Brexit has turned the lower orders into racist yahoos. Such a narrative is highly divisive and dangerous.
It's why the 10 years of EFTA/EEA option is so attractive: it stops the disappearance of firms now, and allows us the window to negotiate more down the road
But once we're in EFTA it won't be any easier to change that status than it has been to get us out of the EU. You'd need a whole new referendum and all the associated disruption.
Oh, we'd never leave EFTA/EEA. Why would we? It's popular with something like 85% of Norwegians.
Well if your analysis is correct, the EU will need an institutional framework for a two speed Europe which will ultimately subsume EFTA into the outer core. At some point we'd inevitably face a choice between rejoining the EU as an associate member or quitting.
Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
Renegotiation is on.
If you were the new PM taking over in these circumstances, would you just give up the massive leverage we have to get a new deal and instead press on with Article 50? It would be insane to give up a diplomatic hand like that.
50 letters would put a stop to that.
This.
Let's say for the moment for the sake of argument it's already clear Leaving is a hopeless option and cannot be made to work well - I'd say it was far too early to make that call, but let's accept the premise - and there's this opportunity to renegotiate. The problem is it is too soon for both sides. The mood is too raw for the hardcore of Leavers for whom its all they care about, and the millions who have been delighted by the outcome, and a moderately hostile EU getting all defensive. This government could not survive backing down on that, or being seen to back down on that, and given it is too soon for any problems to be felt nationwide, it would be too provocative for the public who as of yet would not be ready to be re-convinced, that enough has changed to renegotiate. This government would fall, and would a 'negotiate' government be elected in its place?
That's why we need to kick the can down the road. Announce a process to figure out what the answer is and we'll decide later. Meanwhile commit to the single market to reassure the FTSE. We're all to crazed to work out the answer right now.
If we can hold of a declaration for several months, a great many options are more possible. But it won't be easy to hold out that long, as there are downsides too.
Here's the issue: the longer we hold out, the better the deal we can negotiate.
But the longer we hold out, the more investment in the UK will be deferred, and the bigger the risk that our financial services industry ends up shared out between Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt and Warsaw.
It's why the 10 years of EFTA/EEA option is so attractive: it stops the disappearance of firms now, and allows us the window to negotiate more down the road
The UK doesn't have a lot choice but to accept whatever the EU offers. Not "no choice" in the sense that if the offer is really, really bad, we might choose to dispense with any deal. But it won't be as bad as that. if continued membership is no longer an option then the EU will propose that half way house - shades of discomfort, but just about inhabitable.
The hilarious bit is that NAFTA is far more dominated by the US, than the US is by Germany. The number of successful ISDS claims against the US by Canadian or Mexican firms...
Zero
How many unemployed auto workers in Michigan (10pt Democrat win in 2012) are going to know that. Or even care, frankly. To them, Mexico took their jobs, Trump is telling them they will get them back.
Again, like Brexit, the truth of the argument is immaterial.
Median real wages in the US vs the UK since 1988:
That's why Trump is surging. But I tell you in all candour, the idea that increasing trade barriers will make us all richer is ridiculous.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
Someone who has spent his life fighting unpopular and you might say lost causes probably isn't going to walk away.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
Quite right Nick.
Jeremy should stick to his guns, the leadership is a matter for the members - that is the rulebook !
If the MPs had followed the spirit of the rulebook in the first place they woudn't be suffering because of it now - they agreed an MP threshold for just this sort of situation, if that rule was important to them, they shouldn't have ignored it at the time, in spirit, by having people who didn't support him nominate him.
That's true but equally if Corbyn has followed the spirit of the Labour constitution he would have resigned having lost the backing of 80% OF HIS OWN MPS. When the rules were changed, no-one saw it necessary to say that one in such a position must resign, assuming that no-one would ever carry on in such circumstances.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
I disagree. After forty years of terrier-like adherence to unpopular causes, and obtaining Ph.Ds in "The Rulebook and Standing Orders: a Revolutionary Perspective", Corbyn and his mates are battle-hardened from wars of attrition fought through 1970s General Management Committees and on the GLC, and were fully expecting and prepared for this counter-revolution...
The careerists up against them think a few tears, pleas and walk-outs will induce collapse, as if they are blancmanges in their own image.
They really don't know what they're dealing with. And never did...
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
No, he's a stupid man who has not changed his way of seeing the world since the 1980s and is incapable of processing any opinions that do not coincide with his own. Whispering in his ear is a coterie of hard left advisers who have always seen the Labour party as a bourgeois abomination to be destroyed and replaced by a true anti-capitalist workers party. Aided by a membership that would prefer a Tory government to a Labour party led by anyone but Corbyn they are now close to achieving their aim.
Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
Renegotiation is on.
If you were the new PM taking over in these circumstances, would you just give up the massive leverage we have to get a new deal and instead press on with Article 50? It would be insane to give up a diplomatic hand like that.
50 letters would put a stop to that.
This.
Let's say for the moment for the sake of argument it's already clear Leaving is a hopeless option and cannot be made to work well - I'd say it was far too early to make that call, but let's accept the premise - and there's this opportunity to renegotiate. The problem is it is too soon for both sides. The mood is too raw for the hardcore of Leavers for whom its all they care about, and the millions who have been delighted by the outcome, and a moderately hostile EU getting all defensive. This government could not survive backing down on that, or being seen to back down on that, and given it is too soon for any problems to be felt nationwide, it would be too provocative for the public who as of yet would not be ready to be re-convinced, that enough has changed to renegotiate. This government would fall, and would a 'negotiate' government be elected in its place?
That's why we need to kick the can down the road. Announce a process to figure out what the answer is and we'll decide later. Meanwhile commit to the single market to reassure the FTSE. We're all to crazed to work out the answer right now.
If we can hold of a declaration for several months, a great many options are more possible. But it won't be easy to hold out that long, as there are downsides too.
Here's the issue: the longer we hold out, the better the deal we can negotiate.
But the longer we hold out, the more investment in the UK will be deferred, and the bigger the risk that our financial services industry ends up shared out between Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt and Warsaw.
It's why the 10 years of EFTA/EEA option is so attractive: it stops the disappearance of firms now, and allows us the window to negotiate more down the road
Ten years, Mr, Robert? Really? In UK politics?
Getting our politicians to think beyond the next set of headlines is hard enough. Getting them to think about the effect of policy to be adopted now at the General Election after next is absurd.
If UK politicians and industry management were capable of thinking of even a decade in advance, and planning for the same then we would not be in the mess we are today.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
Because, as Jonathan says, the spectacle of your party going into an election with a leader now openly despised by most of his MPs, and roundly condemned by those MPs, a leader who cannot even fill the ranks of his Shadow Cabinet, and at the same time a leader who has a pro-immigration, pro-IRA, pro-jihadist philosophy which makes much of Britain puke its lunch is a recipe for the final termination of your party, just as you have already died in your heartland, Scotland.
But go ahead, knock yourself out.
It also removes the only plausible (if still improbable) route for Remainers to block Article 50 - by electing a Europhile Labour leader on a 'stay in the EU' ticket. But this isn't about the nine million Labour voters - most of whom think Corbyn should resign, says today's Times poll - but about the party's members, which command, what, 0.5% of the electorate.
You havent seen tonights YG sampling the 9 million voters then.
Interesting from YouGov. 54% of Labour voters think Jeremy should stay, while 35% think he should resign. And that's voters, not members...
I think some remainers are still in the denial phase - there is no way we won't leave the EU. Article 50 to be invoked by end of 2016 for sure. As much as I would prefer it not to be the case, we have made our choice. I don't doubt that our parliament would keep us in if they thought they could get away with it, but we are no longer wanted by the important players in the EU. Doesn't matter what Lithuania says, the only one in our corner that matters is Merkel, and she is not as omnipotent in Europe as people portray. The rest will want us gone quick and getting on with their ever closer union.
Our future is now Britzerland (or Brorway, Briceland, Briechtenstein , take your pick!) the EU will integrate into a federation a lot quicker without us. There won't be contagion. We are the most eurosceptic country in Europe and we only voted out by 52-48, with a rabidly anti Eu press and mainstream politicians campaigning to leave - in other EU states it's just a secondary part of your bog standard far right platform. Not gonna happen.
Shilly shallying over invoking Article 50 is just adding to the air of uncertainty Drag it on too long and increasing damage is done to the City for no purpose.
Exactly. we should indicate Asap and certainly before September that we will go down eea route without special negotiations on FoM. Giving some clarity on direction is what businesses need now.
The hilarious bit is that NAFTA is far more dominated by the US, than the US is by Germany. The number of successful ISDS claims against the US by Canadian or Mexican firms...
Zero
How many unemployed auto workers in Michigan (10pt Democrat win in 2012) are going to know that. Or even care, frankly. To them, Mexico took their jobs, Trump is telling them they will get them back.
Again, like Brexit, the truth of the argument is immaterial.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
Because, as Jonathan says, the spectacle of your party going into an election with a leader now openly despised by most of his MPs, and roundly condemned by those MPs, a leader who cannot even fill the ranks of his Shadow Cabinet, and at the same time a leader who has a pro-immigration, pro-IRA, pro-jihadist philosophy which makes much of Britain puke its lunch is a recipe for the final termination of your party, just as you have already died in your heartland, Scotland.
But go ahead, knock yourself out.
We elect our leader not you Mr T
but thanks for your input.
We will bear your views in mind when we vote.
But I'm right and you know it.
The weird thing is that you now have an open goal: a hugely divided Tory party which has just shot its reputation for economic competence. The previously delusional idea of a Labour majority is suddenly and briefly possible - if you had a vaguely competent leader with, say, a firm commitment to Britain in the Single Market (but outside the EU)
FFS this is what Norway does. You just say: Britain must be like Norway! A social democratic dream! A Polly Toynbee orgasm!
Instead you choose a leader who says: let's be like Venezuela! And who is hated by all his tribunes, like Mao.
Brilliant. Good plan. Like it. Excellent opposition, by the way.
It's why the 10 years of EFTA/EEA option is so attractive: it stops the disappearance of firms now, and allows us the window to negotiate more down the road
But once we're in EFTA it won't be any easier to change that status than it has been to get us out of the EU. You'd need a whole new referendum and all the associated disruption.
Oh, we'd never leave EFTA/EEA. Why would we? It's popular with something like 85% of Norwegians.
Well if your analysis is correct, the EU will need an institutional framework for a two speed Europe which will ultimately subsume EFTA into the outer core. At some point we'd inevitably face a choice between rejoining the EU as an associate member or quitting.
Or perhaps the EU becomes a federal state and EFTA (Britain included) becomes that federal state's neighbouring (but still sovereign) allies/economic partners... there is no need for a complex system of associate/outer membership when the inner core (which will eventually be the entirety of the EU) becomes a single country. The other countries of Europe become just that - the other countries of the Europe.
The narrative has turned. Suddenly it's Brexit might benefit the Brits, let's keep them in....
Fascinating
The complete opposite of what we were told during the campaign.
It's ALL been the total opposite. All these world leaders shunning us and telling us to stay in? Invoking article 50 on morning one; how many times did Scott repeat that one? Osborne's scare budget. Cameron at PMQs saying he wouldn't resign. Lies lies lies.
I think some remainers are still in the denial phase - there is no way we won't leave the EU. Article 50 to be invoked by end of 2016 for sure. As much as I would prefer it not to be the case, we have made our choice. I don't doubt that our parliament would keep us in if they thought they could get away with it, but we are no longer wanted by the important players in the EU. Doesn't matter what Lithuania says, the only one in our corner that matters is Merkel, and she is not as omnipotent in Europe as people portray. The rest will want us gone quick and getting on with their ever closer union.
Our future is now Britzerland (or Brorway, Briceland, Briechtenstein , take your pick!) the EU will integrate into a federation a lot quicker without us. There won't be contagion. We are the most eurosceptic country in Europe and we only voted out by 52-48, with a rabidly anti Eu press and mainstream politicians campaigning to leave - in other EU states it's just a secondary part of your bog standard far right platform. Not gonna happen.
Shilly shallying over invoking Article 50 is just adding to the air of uncertainty Drag it on too long and increasing damage is done to the City for no purpose.
Exactly. we should indicate Asap and certainly before September that we will go down eea route without special negotiations on FoM. Giving some clarity on direction is what businesses need now.
Anything that requires special negotiations cannot provide clarity because it leaves open the possibility that agreement won't be reached.
The most reassuring thing that could happen right now is to indicate that the Article 50 can will be kicked for as long as we feel like it (i.e. until we get something regarded by the government as better than the status quo).
Corbyn's stubbornness can be a good or bad thing, whether it is intellectual inflexibility or ideological and political resoluteness that causes it.
But the question remains how can Labour be an effective coalition of views if, at present, most of the elected representatives seem to virulently oppose him. It's all well and good that he may well have the support of the members still, who will wreak revenge on the plotters, but how do they manage now? I don't believe either main party will split, but if he stays around and wins, will hundreds of MPs suddenly start cooperating with him? Surely ie has to be better to stand aside and have an ally take over? If the members are that for Corbyn they'll surely be for a fellow traveller, and the MPs would have to make the pretence of giving them a fair shake at least.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
Because, as Jonathan says, the spectacle of your party going into an election with a leader now openly despised by most of his MPs, and roundly condemned by those MPs, a leader who cannot even fill the ranks of his Shadow Cabinet, and at the same time a leader who has a pro-immigration, pro-IRA, pro-jihadist philosophy which makes much of Britain puke its lunch is a recipe for the final termination of your party, just as you have already died in your heartland, Scotland.
But go ahead, knock yourself out.
It also removes the only plausible (if still improbable) route for Remainers to block Article 50 - by electing a Europhile Labour leader on a 'stay in the EU' ticket. But this isn't about the nine million Labour voters - most of whom think Corbyn should resign, says today's Times poll - but about the party's members, which command, what, 0.5% of the electorate.
You havent seen tonights YG sampling the 9 million voters then.
Interesting from YouGov. 54% of Labour voters think Jeremy should stay, while 35% think he should resign. And that's voters, not members...
So just over half of Labour voters support the party leader. We're all set for election triumph! :-)
Sigh, I wish it wouldn't be Boris. I find him entertaining, but I feel like it would be a fitting scenario for him to fall at the final hurdle, his irregular, lackadaisical style finally falling short of what he needs. But does May have the drive, passion and luck to manage it? Can Crabb be revealed as a secret political dynamo who will blow the others away? Will the 'wish we were kippers' crowd anoint Baron? Hard to see any of it. Boris is Boris, he's a big beast, was on the right side of the vote, and is lining up allies no doubt.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
Because, as Jonathan says, the spectacle of your party going into an election with a leader now openly despised by most of his MPs, and roundly condemned by those MPs, a leader who cannot even fill the ranks of his Shadow Cabinet, and at the same time a leader who has a pro-immigration, pro-IRA, pro-jihadist philosophy which makes much of Britain puke its lunch is a recipe for the final termination of your party, just as you have already died in your heartland, Scotland.
But go ahead, knock yourself out.
We elect our leader not you Mr T
but thanks for your input.
We will bear your views in mind when we vote.
But I'm right and you know it.
FFS this is what Norway does. You just say: Britain must be like Norway! A social democratic dream! A Polly Toynbee orgasm!
Instead you choose a leader who says: let's be like Venezuela! And who is hated by all his tribunes, like Mao.
Brilliant. Good plan. Like it. Excellent opposition, by the way.
Do you not admire a leader with such a vision?
Polly wants him out BTW
I think i might vote for him again despite your helpful thoughts.
I'm still struggling to understand those who still think Trump won't become president. It's hard to see how he can't win at the moment.
Because his coalition is about 40% of the US, and he's really pissed off large chunks of the other 60%.
The NAFTA stuff is good, populist red meat. If he hadn't managed to monumentally upset women, and hispanics, he might have stood a chance.
Yeah but the other way of looking at it is that he only needs 17% of the others as things stand.
I think you need to think of it like this: which Democrat states can Trump flip, and which Republican states are threatened?
Trump can win a bunch of rustbelt states from Hillary: Ohio and Michigan being the major ones.
But: Florida, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada are unwinnable for Trump and Arizona and Utah could flip the other way. That means that even if Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio all fall to Trump, he probably falls short.
I think some remainers are still in the denial phase - there is no way we won't leave the EU. Article 50 to be invoked by end of 2016 for sure. As much as I would prefer it not to be the case, we have made our choice. I don't doubt that our parliament would keep us in if they thought they could get away with it, but we are no longer wanted by the important players in the EU.
Unfortunately it is likely, for reasons of inertia if nothing else, that article 50 will be invoked. But it's still not clear to me why (apart from wanting to avoid responsibility) parliament is not considering the referendum result before making a decision on whether it's in the interests of the UK to leave the EU. It seems obvious to me that the addition of a referendum into the usual democratic process does not remove the role of parliament and the government in the matter.
It's why the 10 years of EFTA/EEA option is so attractive: it stops the disappearance of firms now, and allows us the window to negotiate more down the road
But once we're in EFTA it won't be any easier to change that status than it has been to get us out of the EU. You'd need a whole new referendum and all the associated disruption.
Oh, we'd never leave EFTA/EEA. Why would we? It's popular with something like 85% of Norwegians.
Well if your analysis is correct, the EU will need an institutional framework for a two speed Europe which will ultimately subsume EFTA into the outer core. At some point we'd inevitably face a choice between rejoining the EU as an associate member or quitting.
Or perhaps the EU becomes a federal state and EFTA (Britain included) becomes that federal state's neighbouring (but still sovereign) allies/economic partners... there is no need for a complex system of associate/outer membership when the inner core (which will eventually be the entirety of the EU) becomes a single country. The other countries of Europe become just that - the other countries of the Europe.
The philosophical challenge is that even in the fully developed version of a federal superstate, it will still always be made up of sovereign entities with the theoretical power to secede unilaterally. As such it will never be 'one country' in the sense you imply.
The institutions are fundamentally designed to cater for multiple countries pooling their sovereignty, and it's completely unsatisfactory to have a significant group of nations being beholden to the decisions made by the core, but having no real way to take part in the decision making process.
Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
Renegotiation is on.
If you were the new PM taking over in these circumstances, would you just give up the massive leverage we have to get a new deal and instead press on with Article 50? It would be insane to give up a diplomatic hand like that.
50 letters would put a stop to that.
This.
Let's say for the moment for the sake of argument it's already clear Leaving is a hopeless option and cannot be made to work well - I'd say it was far too early to make that call, but let's accept the premise - and there's this opportunity to renegotiate. The problem is it is too soon for both sides. The mood is too raw for the hardcore of Leavers for whom its all they care about, and the millions who have been delighted by the outcome, and a moderately hostile EU getting all defensive. This government could not survive backing down on that, or being seen to back down on that, and given it is too soon for any problems to be felt nationwide, it would be too provocative for the public who as of yet would not be ready to be re-convinced, that enough has changed to renegotiate. This government would fall, and would a 'negotiate' government be elected in its place?
That's why we need to kick the can down the road. Announce a process to figure out what the answer is and we'll decide later. Meanwhile commit to the single market to reassure the FTSE. We're all to crazed to work out the answer right now.
If we can hold of a declaration for several months, a great many options are more possible. But it won't be easy to hold out that long, as there are downsides too.
I really think we are too divided as a nation to agree on a solution. Town against country; england against scotland; young against old; and of course corbyn against the entire plp. If we make a call early, we risk alienating and enraging a massive swathe of the population.
Yes. That's why we had a referendum about it. One side won; one side lost. That's how it works. You don't get a rematch because you don't like the outcome.
Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
Renegotiation is on.
If you were the new PM taking over in these circumstances, would you just give up the massive leverage we have to get a new deal and instead press on with Article 50? It would be insane to give up a diplomatic hand like that.
50 letters would put a stop to that.
This.
Let's say for the moment for the sake of argument it's already clear Leaving is a hopeless option and cannot be made to work well - I'd say it was far too early to make that call, but let's accept the premise - and there's this opportunity to renegotiate. The problem is it is too soon for both sides. The mood is too raw for the hardcore of Leavers for whom its all they care about, and the millions who have been delighted by the outcome, and a moderately hostile EU getting all defensive. This government could not survive backing down on that, or being seen to back down on that, and given it is too soon for any problems to be felt nationwide, it would be too provocative for the public who as of yet would not be ready to be re-convinced, that enough has changed to renegotiate. This government would fall, and would a 'negotiate' government be elected in its place?
That's why we need to kick the can down the road. Announce a process to figure out what the answer is and we'll decide later. Meanwhile commit to the single market to reassure the FTSE. We're all to crazed to work out the answer right now.
If we can hold of a declaration for several months, a great many options are more possible. But it won't be easy to hold out that long, as there are downsides too.
I really think we are too divided as a nation to agree on a solution. Town against country; england against scotland; young against old; and of course corbyn against the entire plp. If we make a call early, we risk alienating and enraging a massive swathe of the population.
Yes. That's why we had a referendum about it. One side won; one side lost. That's how it works. You don't get a rematch because you don't like the outcome.
You get a rematch if it suits the powers that be to give you a rematch and not if it doesn't. It has nothing to do with 'how it works'.
Corbyn's stubbornness can be a good or bad thing, whether it is intellectual inflexibility or ideological and political resoluteness that causes it.
But the question remains how can Labour be an effective coalition of views if, at present, most of the elected representatives seem to virulently oppose him. It's all well and good that he may well have the support of the members still, who will wreak revenge on the plotters, but how do they manage now? I don't believe either main party will split, but if he stays around and wins, will hundreds of MPs suddenly start cooperating with him? Surely ie has to be better to stand aside and have an ally take over? If the members are that for Corbyn they'll surely be for a fellow traveller, and the MPs would have to make the pretence of giving them a fair shake at least.
Problem is unless McDonnell or Lewis gets nominated Corbyn wont stand aside. Once he stands aside those 2 wont get nominated.
Newsnight very clear that the British mustn't Brexit and we can renegotiate - according to Germany
Renegotiation is on.
If you were the new PM taking over in these circumstances, would you just give up the massive leverage we have to get a new deal and instead press on with Article 50? It would be insane to give up a diplomatic hand like that.
50 letters would put a stop to that.
This.
Let's say for the moment for the sake of argument it's already clear Leaving is a hopeless option and cannot be made to work well - I'd say it was far too early to make that call, but let's accept the premise - and there's this opportunity to renegotiate. The problem is it is too soon for both sides. The mood is too raw for the hardcore of Leavers for whom its all they care about, and the millions who have been delighted by the outcome, and a moderately hostile EU getting all defensive. This government could not survive backing down on that, or being seen to back down on that, and given it is too soon for any problems to be felt nationwide, it would be too provocative for the public who as of yet would not be ready to be re-convinced, that enough has changed to renegotiate. This government would fall, and would a 'negotiate' government be elected in its place?
That's why we need to kick the can down the road. Announce a process to figure out what the answer is and we'll decide later. Meanwhile commit to the single market to reassure the FTSE. We're all to crazed to work out the answer right now.
If we can hold of a declaration for several months, a great many options are more possible. But it won't be easy to hold out that long, as there are downsides too.
I really think we are too divided as a nation to agree on a solution. Town against country; england against scotland; young against old; and of course corbyn against the entire plp. If we make a call early, we risk alienating and enraging a massive swathe of the population.
Yes. That's why we had a referendum about it. One side won; one side lost. That's how it works. You don't get a rematch because you don't like the outcome.
Correction - you don't automatically deserve a rematch because you don't like the outcome. But you can arrange a rematch if you dare - one side won and one lost, but nothing formal said it was forever and ever (it's just politically impossible to see how it could not be).
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
I disagree. After forty years of terrier-like adherence to unpopular causes, and obtaining Ph.Ds in "The Rulebook and Standing Orders: a Revolutionary Perspective", Corbyn and his mates are battle-hardened from wars of attrition fought through 1970s General Management Committees and on the GLC, and were fully expecting and prepared for this counter-revolution...
The careerists up against them think a few tears, pleas and walk-outs will induce collapse, as if they are blancmanges in their own image.
They really don't know what they're dealing with. And never did...
Corbyn's educational qualifications extend to 2 E's at A Level. How the heck did he get to be leader of the opposition?
Yes. That's why we had a referendum about it. One side won; one side lost. That's how it works. You don't get a rematch because you don't like the outcome.
If Leave was a single platform, that would be great. But we're not. We contain people that see the EU as a capitalist plot and want to use our exit to increase tariffs on steel to protect Port Talbot. We have people who want us to sign an FTA with China, so we'll never be able to impose a penny of tariffs on Chinese steel. We contain people who want WTO, who want Canada, and who want EFTA/EEA.
I don't know what the answer is; I only know that nobody knows it.
So to summarise. We're leaving the EU but staying in the EEA with unchanged Single Market access, full financial services passporting and continued trading of Euro denominated products. We'll be allowed to turn the exceptions in FoM into proper restrictions with no reciprocal restrictions on us. Our long term interests won't suffer from the loss of Commissioner, MEP's and council members. All the other EFTA states and the European Parliament will agree to this. All Leave voters will accept continued large annual migratory flows and the multi billion £ annual budget contributions we'll have to continue paying.
I'm still struggling to understand those who still think Trump won't become president. It's hard to see how he can't win at the moment.
Because his coalition is about 40% of the US, and he's really pissed off large chunks of the other 60%.
The NAFTA stuff is good, populist red meat. If he hadn't managed to monumentally upset women, and hispanics, he might have stood a chance.
The US can join our new five eyes free trade area
A UKUSA (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ) free trade area (...even to some extent political union) should have happened post-WWII.
There is now a new chance that, once we get EFTA membership sorted, we can arrange something with the other four Anglo nations.
Why do people cling to the fantasy that the USA would be interested in such a thing? It is a global power with its own interests.
Erm, care to explain then why it *wouldn't* be interested in a free trade area with the other four main English-speaking nations?
The EU has embedded into your mind that you can only be a member of a single bloc... but that's only true with blocs that are actually political unions rather than economic areas. There should be nothing stopping a country being a member of more than one trade bloc.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
I disagree. After forty years of terrier-like adherence to unpopular causes, and obtaining Ph.Ds in "The Rulebook and Standing Orders: a Revolutionary Perspective", Corbyn and his mates are battle-hardened from wars of attrition fought through 1970s General Management Committees and on the GLC, and were fully expecting and prepared for this counter-revolution...
The careerists up against them think a few tears, pleas and walk-outs will induce collapse, as if they are blancmanges in their own image.
They really don't know what they're dealing with. And never did...
Corbyn's educational qualifications extend to 2 E's at A Level. How the heck did he get to be leader of the opposition?
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
Because, as Jonathan says, the spectacle of your party going into an election with a leader now openly despised by most of his MPs, and roundly condemned by those MPs, a leader who cannot even fill the ranks of his Shadow Cabinet, and at the same time a leader who has a pro-immigration, pro-IRA, pro-jihadist philosophy which makes much of Britain puke its lunch is a recipe for the final termination of your party, just as you have already died in your heartland, Scotland.
But go ahead, knock yourself out.
It also removes the only plausible (if still improbable) route for Remainers to block Article 50 - by electing a Europhile Labour leader on a 'stay in the EU' ticket. But this isn't about the nine million Labour voters - most of whom think Corbyn should resign, says today's Times poll - but about the party's members, which command, what, 0.5% of the electorate.
You havent seen tonights YG sampling the 9 million voters then.
Interesting from YouGov. 54% of Labour voters think Jeremy should stay, while 35% think he should resign. And that's voters, not members...
So just over half of Labour voters support the party leader. We're all set for election triumph! :-)
1% think Eagle would be better but i am not sating Lab loses all but 90000 voters
Comments
Any word from Dan Hodges?! *innocent face*
Corbyn isn't a decent man, he's a terrorist fanboy and a weed of a man who cares more for some kind of loser 'project' more than he cares for actually achieving anything useful.
Our future is now Britzerland (or Brorway, Briceland, Briechtenstein , take your pick!) the EU will integrate into a federation a lot quicker without us. There won't be contagion. We are the most eurosceptic country in Europe and we only voted out by 52-48, with a rabidly anti Eu press and mainstream politicians campaigning to leave - in other EU states it's just a secondary part of your bog standard far right platform. Not gonna happen.
"South-West Norfolk MP Elizabeth Truss, tipped as a possible Conservative leadership contender, has come out..." and I thought "Good for her!".
Then I carried on reading and found "...in support of Boris Johnson." and I thought "Bad for her!"
Perhaps he will resign now
The Italian banks were the best performing stocks in Europe today.
Shilly shallying over invoking Article 50 is just adding to the air of uncertainty Drag it on too long and increasing damage is done to the City for no purpose.
Well said Cap'n Doc.
Sutt said slowly, wonderingly, "Is that what you're setting your hopes on, man? A housewives' rebellion? A Jacquerie? A sudden uprising of butchers and grocers with their cleavers and bread-knives"
"No, sir," said Mallow "I expect, however, a general background of grumbling and dissatisfaction which will be seized on by more important figures later on. Those industries which we have changed from first to last with our new gadgets will find themselves ruined."
"The factories ran well enough before you came there, Mallow."
And Mallow laughed joyously, "You've missed, Sutt, you've missed everything, and understood nothing. The whole war is a battle between those two systems, between the Empire and the Foundation. To seize control of a world, they bribe with immense ships that can make war. We, on the other hand, bribe with little things vital to prosperity and profits. It's still the little things in life that count and Asper Argo won't stand up against the economic depression in two or three years."
Mallow said to the guards, "Take him away. He's under arrest.", and never looked up.
KORELL...And so after three years of a war which was certainly the most unfought war on record, the Republic of Korell surrendered unconditionally, and Hober Mallow took his place next to Hari Seldon and Salvor Hardin in the hearts of the people of the Foundation.
Foundation, [Asimov, 1951]
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
I didnt know Boris was even gay
Jeremy should stick to his guns, the leadership is a matter for the members - that is the rulebook !
But the longer we hold out, the more investment in the UK will be deferred, and the bigger the risk that our financial services industry ends up shared out between Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt and Warsaw.
It's why the 10 years of EFTA/EEA option is so attractive: it stops the disappearance of firms now, and allows us the window to negotiate more down the road
Article 1, Article 2, Article 3...
Farage will of course be odious, but this is how populists work. If they blow up the economy instead he'll get them that way.
@michaelsavage: Corbyn ally on Angela Eagle: “She’s the lesser of 2 Eagles. She’s not even the best politician in her own family.” Her sister Maria's an MP.
https://strehlspresidentialelection2016.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/trump-will-withdrawfrom-nafta/
but thanks for your input.
We will bear your views in mind when we vote.
Zero
The NAFTA stuff is good, populist red meat. If he hadn't managed to monumentally upset women, and hispanics, he might have stood a chance.
Again, like Brexit, the truth of the argument is immaterial.
If Liam Fox became PM I suspect he might have to worry about far more significant figures than Soubry resigning.
That's why Trump is surging. But I tell you in all candour, the idea that increasing trade barriers will make us all richer is ridiculous.
The careerists up against them think a few tears, pleas and walk-outs will induce collapse, as if they are blancmanges in their own image.
They really don't know what they're dealing with. And never did...
Getting our politicians to think beyond the next set of headlines is hard enough. Getting them to think about the effect of policy to be adopted now at the General Election after next is absurd.
If UK politicians and industry management were capable of thinking of even a decade in advance, and planning for the same then we would not be in the mess we are today.
Interesting from YouGov. 54% of Labour voters think Jeremy should stay, while 35% think he should resign. And that's voters, not members...
But that doesn't mean it won't be a successful political strategy.
The most reassuring thing that could happen right now is to indicate that the Article 50 can will be kicked for as long as we feel like it (i.e. until we get something regarded by the government as better than the status quo).
But the question remains how can Labour be an effective coalition of views if, at present, most of the elected representatives seem to virulently oppose him. It's all well and good that he may well have the support of the members still, who will wreak revenge on the plotters, but how do they manage now? I don't believe either main party will split, but if he stays around and wins, will hundreds of MPs suddenly start cooperating with him? Surely ie has to be better to stand aside and have an ally take over? If the members are that for Corbyn they'll surely be for a fellow traveller, and the MPs would have to make the pretence of giving them a fair shake at least.
There is now a new chance that, once we get EFTA membership sorted, we can arrange something with the other four Anglo nations.
Polly wants him out BTW
I think i might vote for him again despite your helpful thoughts.
Trump can win a bunch of rustbelt states from Hillary: Ohio and Michigan being the major ones.
But: Florida, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada are unwinnable for Trump and Arizona and Utah could flip the other way. That means that even if Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio all fall to Trump, he probably falls short.
Trump can win, but he's the underdog.
The institutions are fundamentally designed to cater for multiple countries pooling their sovereignty, and it's completely unsatisfactory to have a significant group of nations being beholden to the decisions made by the core, but having no real way to take part in the decision making process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGrF9uLAxoo
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11957216/Jeremy-Corbyn-is-too-thick-to-be-Prime-Minister.html
I don't know what the answer is; I only know that nobody knows it.
I'm pleased that's sorted then.
The EU has embedded into your mind that you can only be a member of a single bloc... but that's only true with blocs that are actually political unions rather than economic areas. There should be nothing stopping a country being a member of more than one trade bloc.
1% think Eagle would be better but i am not sating Lab loses all but 90000 voters