I know it's a 24/7 world and so on, but I'll echo the apocryphal story of Mao when he was asked about the consequences of the French Revolution: "It's too early to tell".
We will never know if it would have been better to have voted NoBrexit. That world has flowed down a different trouser leg of time.
We won't clearly know what the true consequences of Brexit are for several years. Collectively, we're all floating somewhere between Pangloss and Jeremiah. In reality, nothing is ever an unalloyed good, and every cloud does have a silver lining.
I shall now return you to your regular diet of triumphalism and doom-mongering .
I don't entirely agree, provided the EU holds together. In that case, it will be possible to look back in five or ten years time and compare the EU economic performance with our own, both before and after Brexit (as well as the period intervening, which could be quite extended!) and draw some conclusions. For example, if the fortunes of the UK do happen now to turn downward a la the worst of Project Fear's warnings, it will be reasonably evident.
If, of course, the whole EU starts to disintegrate, then I agree it will be difficult to draw clear conclusions, since no-one will really know how things would have turned out had the UK vote gone the other way. Unless WWIII starts, of course, which would clearly be Boris's fault.
This will come over as blase I'm sure. The world is getting richer. Few, if any countries are getting poorer (Greece is probably a notable exception). I've not seen any forecast where the world suddenly starts to become poorer en masse. It's a little bit venerable, but PWC had a forecast of the World in 2050 which outlines the opportunities and risks. Sure, it's only a model, but...
Even the IFS report, much quoted by "Project Fear" was really talking about growth trend rates, i.e. the rate at which the country would become richer. I could buy an argument that we would become relatively poorer (c.f. the explosion of joy from the Doomsters when the UK momentarily became the world's 6th largest economy earlier this week), but that's mere sophistry.
There are always black swans; perhaps the City will decamp en masse to Frankfurt. That would be terrible of course. I just think it will all end up slightly worse than we hoped yet better than we feared.
John I wasn't really arguing that we would or wouldn't. I was challenging your earlier assertion that it wouldn't be possible to tell.
The Scottish economy is completely integrated with the UK economy. Any change in that will cause disruptions approximately 8x what the UK is facing at the moment. Given the facts of history and geography there is no way to avoid that.
The economic arguments are clearly significant. However if the EU referendum taught us anything, apart from the "interesting disturbance in polling accuracy", it is that financial arguments, however solidly based sometimes do not always cut through. "Experts" Hhmmm ....
Wales and Cornwall voted LEAVE despite substantial largesse from the EU. They wanted out and they didn't care. Scotland and the Union may go the same way.
I keep coming back to the fact that the vast majority of voters didn't think the result would be Leave. That is peculiar, given that the majority voted for Leave and people talked to each about the referendum a lot. While some voted Leave for coherent and legitimate, honest reasons, many did so as a protest. Better channels would have been Facebook, clicking a button on the Daily Express's website, or even voting in an EU election. Not voting somewhere that brings consequences.
I agree with Surbiton: the House of Commons should not ratify the referendum vote and it should vote against invoking Article 50. Let's see whether any PM has the gall to say it's him or her and the royal prerogative, backed by lies plebiscite, versus parliament. Of course the Speaker could say no way, Jose, royal prerogative matters aren't the business of the Commons. Well use some other word than "ratify", or have a confidence motion. And the Speaker is appointed by the Commons anyway. But fuck, bring it on. The matter of the queen's support for Brexit in the Sun on the day before the vote still needs to be resolved. Has "the Palace" complained about that yet? Right.
So, would an "independent" Scotland within the EU be a net contributor, or a net recipient of taxpayers' EU money?
*innocent face*
Apparently, Scotland would be the poorest country in Europe the World but still be paying the highest per capita contribution to the EU budget.
Unionism is rarely consistent.
Looking at the stats, Scotland would slot in nicely between Croatia and Slovakia in terms of population and somewhere like 8th in terms of GDP per capita.
Forget Gordon Brown and EdM telling him to go. The most important development for removing Corbyn will be when Eddie Izzard comes out in support of him.
The Scottish economy is completely integrated with the UK economy. Any change in that will cause disruptions approximately 8x what the UK is facing at the moment. Given the facts of history and geography there is no way to avoid that.
The economic arguments are clearly significant. However if the EU referendum taught us anything, apart from the "interesting disturbance in polling accuracy", it is that financial arguments, however solidly based sometimes do not always cut through. "Experts" Hhmmm ....
Wales and Cornwall voted LEAVE despite substantial largesse from the EU. They wanted out and they didn't care. Scotland and the Union may go the same way.
But it's different, isn't it? The EU doesn't dish out benefits to people in Cornwall and Wales. If Scotland votes for independence it is voting to give up Westminster benefits. Personally I'd make them vote in public. Should Scotland vote for independence, all those that voted that way would automatically cease to be British citizens and have no right to live in rUK. That should give them something to think about.
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
Boris would be committing career suicide if he agreed to that. The Tories would lose the City, whoever loses the City of London loses the nation, in the end. As Charles the First discovered.
A poster on an earlier thread cast some shade on the importance of passporting.
"4) FX is London's largest market and is irrelevant to being in the EU or "Passported", It is London's Largest cash source and it can be traded anywhere in the world. It is traded in London for reasons of skill sets, language, history, infrastructure. The Infrastructure would take at least 10 years to replicate, theoretically it could be but why?
5) Passporting wasn't perfect anyway. It didn't work which is why you saw announcements of banks moving some operations to Europe/Philippines/Bombay. You don't plan this on a whim."
I accept that as PB's tribune for bipolarity I'm hardly one to talk about confidence.
It must be exhausting being you.
Right now, yes, it is.
I've noticed a weird pattern in my thinking.
I wake up and get anxious and depressed about Brexit almost immediately. This lasts through the day (preventing me from working, much of the time). But around 7 or 8pm my mood calms, and by 9 I am almost confident, if nervous, and I think we will manage somehow
And this is independent of whether I am drinking or not. Even if I don't touch a drop, it happens anyway. Most odd!
The Scottish economy is completely integrated with the UK economy. Any change in that will cause disruptions approximately 8x what the UK is facing at the moment. Given the facts of history and geography there is no way to avoid that.
The economic arguments are clearly significant. However if the EU referendum taught us anything, apart from the "interesting disturbance in polling accuracy", it is that financial arguments, however solidly based sometimes do not always cut through. "Experts" Hhmmm ....
Wales and Cornwall voted LEAVE despite substantial largesse from the EU. They wanted out and they didn't care. Scotland and the Union may go the same way.
Substantial largess from the EU my ARSE!
The UK as a whole is a net contributor to Brussels coffers!
Remember:
There is no such thing as "EU money"! There is only taxpayers' money!
What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
Scotland is not a sovereign state. That's all there is to it. Nicola should stop wasting her own and everyone else's time.
That's very naïve.
Firstly, the politics of whether the EU might be willing to support separate status for Scotland, or even provide a nudge towards independence, isn't yet clear. There are obvious pros and cons which PB'ers will already know. Spain doesn't like it, but Spain is well down the list of EU power brokers. Best case for Sturgeon, she secures in principle agreement to continuity of EU membership provided Scotland goes independent.
Secondly, even if she fails, there is political capital for Sturgeon in having been seen to a) have a plan, and b) done everything possible to maintain Scotland's membership. She is already remarkably popular and respected in Scotland, across the spectrum. Now she's exposing all the leading English politicians (possibly excepting Farron) as hopeless numpties. Once her voters think she can walk on water then she just needs to find a way through to another Indy vote.
The list voters will know exactly how to vote next time too. Glasgow will be a sea of SNP/Green.
A big Green surge like that will hurt the Tories too. They could easily lose 4 seats while Labour lose 5 or 6 on these numbers.
A snap election (which I have no idea if it is possible) in Scotland could be a real benefit to Independence. Ruth is currently holed below the waterline and Kezia is struggling to keep her head above water. It would also provided a re-strengthened mandate for Independence.
Re Scotland, and this may be lawyerly semantics on my part, but can we assume that 61% wanting "the UK to remain in the EU" equates to 61% wanting "Scotland to remain in the EU"?
Sturgeon et al say that 61% of Scots wanted Scotland to remain in the EU, but that's not strictly true is it?
Wanting Scotland to be in the EU as part of the UK is very different to wanting Scotland to be in the EU when the rest of the UK has left it.
The latter brings into play: 1. Currency issues, just as in 2014. 2. Border issues, much more so than in 2014. And I can't see how a vote on secession could still be framed around "independence" unless it was in terms of loss of independence. i.e. "Should Scots cease to live in an independent country" would be a vote to leave the UK.
Whats the timetable for the Tory leadership, I've laid the snot out of Crabb and am keen to know how quickly my money will be returned with 10% interest.
The Scottish economy is completely integrated with the UK economy. Any change in that will cause disruptions approximately 8x what the UK is facing at the moment. Given the facts of history and geography there is no way to avoid that.
The economic arguments are clearly significant. However if the EU referendum taught us anything, apart from the "interesting disturbance in polling accuracy", it is that financial arguments, however solidly based sometimes do not always cut through. "Experts" Hhmmm ....
Wales and Cornwall voted LEAVE despite substantial largesse from the EU. They wanted out and they didn't care. Scotland and the Union may go the same way.
Yep - this is it. Brexit has shown that other issues trump economics. The death of the Labour party is another example.
Shocked that people are suggesting the referendum can be ignored and we carry on as before.
If that happens I can see a UKIP government and Farage (or his successor) as Prime Minister in ten years.
The political class seem not to have realized the anger that is engulfing them in vast swathe's of the population. That anger will turn to revolution if nothing is done.
They have been warned,
Let's try it, then. Let the Commons say they won't allow the government to Brexit. Most people won't vote for Leave/UKIP where they know it will matter. That's why UKIP have done well in EU elections but crap in British GEs. That's why many - probably most - who voted Leave did so in the belief that Leave wouldn't win.
The Scottish economy is completely integrated with the UK economy. Any change in that will cause disruptions approximately 8x what the UK is facing at the moment. Given the facts of history and geography there is no way to avoid that.
The economic arguments are clearly significant. However if the EU referendum taught us anything, apart from the "interesting disturbance in polling accuracy", it is that financial arguments, however solidly based sometimes do not always cut through. "Experts" Hhmmm ....
Wales and Cornwall voted LEAVE despite substantial largesse from the EU. They wanted out and they didn't care. Scotland and the Union may go the same way.
Its possible and I have met a number of Unionists who are extremely ticked that England and Wales voted to leave the EU. But the Unionists won the last time when Yes were offering a land of milk and honey based on a fabulous oil price. Scots are very well aware that the situation in Scotland is massively worse now than it was the last time.
The GERS numbers are key to this. Scotland is simply not in a position to become independent at the present time. If the SNP want to change that they better stop the constitutional nonsense and start focussing on rebuilding our economy.
Whats the timetable for the Tory leadership, I've laid the snot out of Crabb and am keen to know how quickly my money will be returned with 10% interest.
Rounds of voting Tuesday/Thursday in the next fortnight, if Crabb falls then. Final ballot decision will be 9 September.
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
In order to be able to damage our economy by cutting immigration we will damage it by losing passporting. Cunning.
That's the choice Boris will get. He'll have to turn it down. But he'll be turning down immigration controls to save bankers.
Boris bats for the bankers
Boris boosts the bankers
Boris says no to immigration controls to save the bankers
And so on.
Leave has totally misread the balance of strength in this negotiation. You take out free trade - both sides want that- and what levers does the UK have left? The square root of none, I'd say.
The worrying thing is, would he make that choice?
No Tory PM could walk away from the City like that. Frankly, no PM could. But it's only a Tory one that could get us into this ridiculous position in the first place.
In those circumstances isn't it going to very easy to portray the Tory that does it as the person who threw away the chance to control immigration for the sake of the bankers and the city?
The Scottish economy is completely integrated with the UK economy. Any change in that will cause disruptions approximately 8x what the UK is facing at the moment. Given the facts of history and geography there is no way to avoid that.
The economic arguments are clearly significant. However if the EU referendum taught us anything, apart from the "interesting disturbance in polling accuracy", it is that financial arguments, however solidly based sometimes do not always cut through. "Experts" Hhmmm ....
Wales and Cornwall voted LEAVE despite substantial largesse from the EU. They wanted out and they didn't care. Scotland and the Union may go the same way.
I'm not sure who would make the No case anyway. The Scottish Conservatives and.... anyone?
The guy racially abused recently on a Manchester tram sounds a top bloke.
Mr Jasso was on a tram at Shudehill when he challenged the boys for "swearing profusely" and "visibly upsetting" other commuters.
He responded to the insults saying some people were "extremely ignorant and not very intelligent". Accent and appearance
He can then be heard saying: "Seven years in the military," as other commuters told the alleged perpetrators "you are an absolute disgrace. A disgrace to England".
Mr Jasso, a sport lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University, said: "I didn't do anything that was disrespectful. I literally just asked them to watch their language.
"I don't think my accent was a part of that [abuse], I think it was more just my appearance."
He said he did not blame anyone else for not commenting until the youths had left the tram, saying "it's for every individual to judge and decide, they shouldn't put themselves in harm's way".
"I challenge people a lot on different things when I'm out, if people are littering, language, loads of different things. If I don't feel comfortable I'll say something," he added.
"I know that when I challenge somebody I'm going to be on my own and I'm still prepared to do that."
Mr Jasso, from Todmorden, West Yorkshire, who was a signals intelligence analyst for the US Army, said it was only the second incident of its type he had experienced in his 18 years in the UK.
"As a whole this country is very tolerant," he said.
"There are pockets in any society where people may not agree with the government or may not like individuals who are not from their area originally, but I like it here and I think this country has a history of tolerance."
Two men, aged 20 and 18, and a boy, 16, were arrested on suspicion of affray following the incident.
The men have been bailed until 10 August while the teenager remains in custody for questioning.
The Scottish economy is completely integrated with the UK economy. Any change in that will cause disruptions approximately 8x what the UK is facing at the moment. Given the facts of history and geography there is no way to avoid that.
The economic arguments are clearly significant. However if the EU referendum taught us anything, apart from the "interesting disturbance in polling accuracy", it is that financial arguments, however solidly based sometimes do not always cut through. "Experts" Hhmmm ....
Wales and Cornwall voted LEAVE despite substantial largesse from the EU. They wanted out and they didn't care. Scotland and the Union may go the same way.
Substantial largess from the EU my ARSE!
The UK as a whole is a net contributor to Brussels coffers!
Remember:
There is no such thing as "EU money"! There is only taxpayers' money!
If you really believe that I suggest you relocate to somewhere where you can live without any requirement to share your money with the state institutions (council, GLA, UK and EU) with which, by living here, you de facto agree to yield a proportion of your income/wealth in return for the services they provide.
Anyway, there is no such thing as "your money", it comes from your employer (or bank, or deceased relatives, or wherever)... lol
Ms Sturgeon was trying to get EU membership as step 1, then have the indyref as step 2.
Wouldn't it be a major breach of diplomatic protocol for EU representatives or foreign diplomats to negotiate matters with Nicola Sturgeon that are dependent on Scottish independence, unless they are given the OK by the Foreign Office? Keeping informed is one thing; negotiating is another.
Over the dining room table Scottish voters talk of little else than "diplomatic protocol" as they tuck into Deep Fried Mars Bars En Croute.
Re Scotland, and this may be lawyerly semantics on my part, but can we assume that 61% wanting "the UK to remain in the EU" equates to 61% wanting "Scotland to remain in the EU"?
Sturgeon et al say that 61% of Scots wanted Scotland to remain in the EU, but that's not strictly true is it?
I voted Remain in Scotland and if Britain leaves the EU I would want Scotland to stay in Britain rather than leave Britain and join the EU.
He or she makes good points, but it's not a binary choice between the fears being hogwash and the worst fears being 100% certain. No-one is claiming that, even in the worst case, the City is doomed by Brexit (well, actually a senior banker friend of mine did say that). What people are saying is that the City will be severely damaged, especially if financial passporting is not available.
I suspect the issue isn't whether London or another location in the EU is better in isolation. It's that people making financial transactions prefer to do so in their own jurisdiction. Without the Passport, the UK will be an external jurisdiction to those that contract for many of these transactions, when it isn't now.
More evidence for my view that Boris is the pro-EU candidate and Theresa the anti.
How is that more evidence?
Because - if the simple narrative "Boris is the genuine Leaver, Theresa is a Remainer" (which is still the focus of many Tory members - go read posts on ConHome) is true, why on earth would a long-time anti-EU bod like Fox be toying with signing up with Theresa?
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
Boris would be committing career suicide if he agreed to that. The Tories would lose the City, whoever loses the City of London loses the nation, in the end. As Charles the First discovered.
A poster on an earlier thread cast some shade on the importance of passporting.
"4) FX is London's largest market and is irrelevant to being in the EU or "Passported", It is London's Largest cash source and it can be traded anywhere in the world. It is traded in London for reasons of skill sets, language, history, infrastructure. The Infrastructure would take at least 10 years to replicate, theoretically it could be but why?
5) Passporting wasn't perfect anyway. It didn't work which is why you saw announcements of banks moving some operations to Europe/Philippines/Bombay. You don't plan this on a whim."
Labour MPs yell 'resign!' at Jeremy Corbyn as David Cameron mocks him in Parliament
Toby Perkins @tobyperkinsmp 3h3 hours ago Before anyone says different NO Labour members cheered PM calling for Corbyn to go. Not a matter for Tories to interfere in. #pmqs
Labour MPs yell 'resign!' at Jeremy Corbyn as David Cameron mocks him in Parliament
Toby Perkins @tobyperkinsmp 3h3 hours ago Before anyone says different NO Labour members cheered PM calling for Corbyn to go. Not a matter for Tories to interfere in. #pmqs
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
In order to be able to damage our economy by cutting immigration we will damage it by losing passporting. Cunning.
That's the choice Boris will get. He'll have to turn it down. But he'll be turning down immigration controls to save bankers.
Boris bats for the bankers
Boris boosts the bankers
Boris says no to immigration controls to save the bankers
And so on.
Leave has totally misread the balance of strength in this negotiation. You take out free trade - both sides want that- and what levers does the UK have left? The square root of none, I'd say.
The worrying thing is, would he make that choice?
No Tory PM could walk away from the City like that. Frankly, no PM could. But it's only a Tory one that could get us into this ridiculous position in the first place.
In those circumstances isn't it going to very easy to portray the Tory that does it as the person who threw away the chance to control immigration for the sake of the bankers and the city?
That is precisely the point. It's a trap. And one that is impossible to get out of.
< I can say with confidence that Salmond would have at least have had a fucking plan which would be being enacted right now.
Even Baldrick had a fucking plan...
And while I agree with you Alex was slightly more prepared than Boris, he would still be winging it.
Euro Sterling Sterlingisation
There is no effective difference between a Sterling zone and sterlingisation. Both offer a future Scottish government the same level of control over currency and interest rates as the UK government currently has - which is virtually none.
Same level of control but with significant disadvantages - Scotland will be not able to borrow at the same rate as the Uk as a sterlingised country . And Scotland would need to borrow a lot to maintain its "progressive" benefits and handouts.
And how many FI will base themselves in Scotland without a lender of last resort ?
The lending is moot because you don't know the answer. Its also moot what level that borrowing would be.
As for FIs, Panama has the biggest financial sector in the Americas outside of the US. Its banks (of which it has a huge number) are also the best capitalised in the world. Not that there is even a need for Scotland not to institute a similar Insurance scheme to the BoE Lender of Last Resort scheme. Its just a commercial contract after all.
Name a dollarised country that can borrow at a cheaper rate than the nation of the home currency ?
And Panama has FI's because of lack of tax. End of - is that what Nicola is offering Scotland up as to the EU - a tax haven ? Bon chance..
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
Boris would be committing career suicide if he agreed to that. The Tories would lose the City, whoever loses the City of London loses the nation, in the end. As Charles the First discovered.
A poster on an earlier thread cast some shade on the importance of passporting.
"4) FX is London's largest market and is irrelevant to being in the EU or "Passported", It is London's Largest cash source and it can be traded anywhere in the world. It is traded in London for reasons of skill sets, language, history, infrastructure. The Infrastructure would take at least 10 years to replicate, theoretically it could be but why?
5) Passporting wasn't perfect anyway. It didn't work which is why you saw announcements of banks moving some operations to Europe/Philippines/Bombay. You don't plan this on a whim."
It's an encouraging post, for sure. But I think he ignores the issue of confidence. If that goes then who knows.
I accept that as PB's tribune for bipolarity I'm hardly one to talk about confidence.
I think the skill set requirement is incredibly important to this debate. People with those skill sets tend to be very well remunerated, and hence tend to have some input into where they want to be based. London is an extremely attractive place to live if you are affluent - it is hard to think of many better places. If there is a shift from London to some other centre, it will take a long time to get to critical mass.
Honest question. Is the business that is totally reliant on the passport sufficient to get banks seriously thinking of moving the entire shop, or just that part that requires the passport?
Re Scotland, and this may be lawyerly semantics on my part, but can we assume that 61% wanting "the UK to remain in the EU" equates to 61% wanting "Scotland to remain in the EU"?
Sturgeon et al say that 61% of Scots wanted Scotland to remain in the EU, but that's not strictly true is it?
I'd imagine the proportion of remainer unionists that put UK over EU is less than the proportion of remainer unionists that put EU over UK - at least it appears that way from the change of tone within Scotland, so i'd say it's not a far off accurate statement.
R.e Rajoy's comments - he is likely to be PM now, and the C's party as his likely partners are vehemently anti-catalan independence, and so it's a concern for Sturgeons plan. OTOH, he won't necessarily have a veto if it's not treated as a new accession but continuance of a current membership - QMV rules would then be in play I imagine (and really, that's the EU's call to make, so they could go either way if they wanted to)
I think the worse the UK's relationship with the EU, the more they are likely to warm to Scotland. If we roll over and take EEA off the shelf, they won't bother with Scotland. If we piss them off and delay article 50 too long, they have more incentive to let the UK breakup and invite Scotland in to discredit the entire brexit approach (it won't seem worth it to other countries if leaving the EU means the break up of your country).
Understand Corbyn's office considering the "nuclear option" of openly calling for Blair to be prosecuted for war crimes to "reset" debate.
They just keep on giving. The biggest crisis in the last 50 years and all we can talk about is what hare brained idea Labour will come up with to continue the distraction....
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
In order to be able to damage our economy by cutting immigration we will damage it by losing passporting. Cunning.
That's the choice Boris will get. He'll have to turn it down. But he'll be turning down immigration controls to save bankers.
Boris bats for the bankers
Boris boosts the bankers
Boris says no to immigration controls to save the bankers
And so on.
Leave has totally misread the balance of strength in this negotiation. You take out free trade - both sides want that- and what levers does the UK have left? The square root of none, I'd say.
The worrying thing is, would he make that choice?
No Tory PM could walk away from the City like that. Frankly, no PM could. But it's only a Tory one that could get us into this ridiculous position in the first place.
In those circumstances isn't it going to very easy to portray the Tory that does it as the person who threw away the chance to control immigration for the sake of the bankers and the city?
That is precisely the point. It's a trap. And one that is impossible to get out of.
Who would be prepared to do it though? The Corbynites have no interest in ending free movement and I'm not sure most of the PLP would be opposed to the Tory approach either.
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
Boris would be committing career suicide if he agreed to that. The Tories would lose the City, whoever loses the City of London loses the nation, in the end. As Charles the First discovered.
A poster on an earlier thread cast some shade on the importance of passporting.
"4) FX is London's largest market and is irrelevant to being in the EU or "Passported", It is London's Largest cash source and it can be traded anywhere in the world. It is traded in London for reasons of skill sets, language, history, infrastructure. The Infrastructure would take at least 10 years to replicate, theoretically it could be but why?
5) Passporting wasn't perfect anyway. It didn't work which is why you saw announcements of banks moving some operations to Europe/Philippines/Bombay. You don't plan this on a whim."
I accept that as PB's tribune for bipolarity I'm hardly one to talk about confidence.
It must be exhausting being you.
Right now, yes, it is.
I've noticed a weird pattern in my thinking.
I wake up and get anxious and depressed about Brexit almost immediately. This lasts through the day (preventing me from working, much of the time). But around 7 or 8pm my mood calms, and by 9 I am almost confident, if nervous, and I think we will manage somehow
And this is independent of whether I am drinking or not. Even if I don't touch a drop, it happens anyway. Most odd!
I was wondering if there was a correlation with the vino.
Liam Fox hoped to be in a stronger position right now. He realises he has no chance of making the final ballot and his weak hand is only going to get weaker from now on.
Theresa would be silly to offer anything concrete.
Unless there's some kind of last minute surprise entry (I'm still holding out for Hammond!) it'll be May v Boris, with both teams hoping to face Crabb - rather than each other - when it goes out to the members.
The Scottish economy is completely integrated with the UK economy. Any change in that will cause disruptions approximately 8x what the UK is facing at the moment. Given the facts of history and geography there is no way to avoid that.
The economic arguments are clearly significant. However if the EU referendum taught us anything, apart from the "interesting disturbance in polling accuracy", it is that financial arguments, however solidly based sometimes do not always cut through. "Experts" Hhmmm ....
Wales and Cornwall voted LEAVE despite substantial largesse from the EU. They wanted out and they didn't care. Scotland and the Union may go the same way.
Substantial largess from the EU my ARSE!
The UK as a whole is a net contributor to Brussels coffers!
Remember:
There is no such thing as "EU money"! There is only taxpayers' money!
If you really believe that I suggest you relocate to somewhere where you can live without any requirement to share your money with the state institutions (council, GLA, UK and EU) with which, by living here, you de facto agree to yield a proportion of your income/wealth in return for the services they provide.
Anyway, there is no such thing as "your money", it comes from your employer (or bank, or deceased relatives, or wherever)... lol
Employers get profits from people buying their products/using their services, no?
I can understand Dave falling on his sword, as the referendum was his baby, thus triggering the Tory Party contest.
But why is there carnage in the Labour Party less than a week after the result?
It’s been brewing since Corbyn’s election as Leader – why this week? god only knows, but if you are going to balls things up, then it’s best to balls things up spectacularly.
He or she makes good points, but it's not a binary choice between the fears being hogwash and the worst fears being 100% certain. No-one is claiming that, even in the worst case, the City is doomed by Brexit (well, actually a senior banker friend of mine did say that). What people are saying is that the City will be severely damaged, especially if financial passporting is not available.
Travelgall distils into some succinct bullet points a persuasive case that London is still well positioned, with or without the EU and passporting.
I know little about the world of city finance, so it is tempting to defer.
I do however mix with a lot of City bods and it is true that a) most of them are strongly pro-EU and b) most of them genuinely believe that leaving the EU will significantly damage the City's position in world finance.
So now I am left wondering how to square these two seemingly contradictory positions?
I see Sarah Vine has written a long piece in the Mail today...
Interesting that we've heard more from Mrs Micheael Gove than we've heard from Mr Michael Gove himself?
I would have thought that now will be the time that all the planning gets really fleshed out and initial contacts are made globally regarding alternative trade arrangements.
Re Scotland, and this may be lawyerly semantics on my part, but can we assume that 61% wanting "the UK to remain in the EU" equates to 61% wanting "Scotland to remain in the EU"?
Sturgeon et al say that 61% of Scots wanted Scotland to remain in the EU, but that's not strictly true is it?
They were voting for the UK to remain, not iScotland.
I can understand Dave falling on his sword, as the referendum was his baby, thus triggering the Tory Party contest.
But why is there carnage in the Labour Party less than a week after the result?
It’s been brewing since Corbyn’s election as Leader – why this week? god only knows, but if you are going to balls things up, then it’s best to balls things up spectacularly.
Because the anti-Corbyn MPs thought that they had four years to pick a moment to get rid of him, then thought that they were staring at the prospect of a general election on October 13th...
He or she makes good points, but it's not a binary choice between the fears being hogwash and the worst fears being 100% certain. No-one is claiming that, even in the worst case, the City is doomed by Brexit (well, actually a senior banker friend of mine did say that). What people are saying is that the City will be severely damaged, especially if financial passporting is not available.
Travelgall distils into some succinct bullet points a persuasive case that London is still well positioned, with or without the EU and passporting.
I know little about the world of city finance, so it is tempting to defer.
I do however mix with a lot of City bods and it is true that a) most of them are strongly pro-EU and b) most of them genuinely believe that leaving the EU will significantly damage the City's position in world finance.
So now I am left wondering how to square these two seemingly contradictory positions?
Emotion vs cool head? Details are way out of my league, but that’s the impression I’m given.
The Scottish economy is completely integrated with the UK economy. Any change in that will cause disruptions approximately 8x what the UK is facing at the moment. Given the facts of history and geography there is no way to avoid that.
The economic arguments are clearly significant. However if the EU referendum taught us anything, apart from the "interesting disturbance in polling accuracy", it is that financial arguments, however solidly based sometimes do not always cut through. "Experts" Hhmmm ....
Wales and Cornwall voted LEAVE despite substantial largesse from the EU. They wanted out and they didn't care. Scotland and the Union may go the same way.
Substantial largess from the EU my ARSE!
The UK as a whole is a net contributor to Brussels coffers!
Remember:
There is no such thing as "EU money"! There is only taxpayers' money!
If you really believe that I suggest you relocate to somewhere where you can live without any requirement to share your money with the state institutions (council, GLA, UK and EU) with which, by living here, you de facto agree to yield a proportion of your income/wealth in return for the services they provide.
Anyway, there is no such thing as "your money", it comes from your employer (or bank, or deceased relatives, or wherever)... lol
Employers get profits from people buying their products/using their services, no?
Yes, so money goes round in a circle, or doesn't, in which case we are all in trouble.
My last point was only 10% serious.
I know that you like your point, but honestly it seems rather trite to me!
So, would an "independent" Scotland within the EU be a net contributor, or a net recipient of taxpayers' EU money?
*innocent face*
Apparently, Scotland would be the poorest country in Europe the World but still be paying the highest per capita contribution to the EU budget.
Unionism is rarely consistent.
Looking at the stats, Scotland would slot in nicely between Croatia and Slovakia in terms of population and somewhere like 8th in terms of GDP per capita.
Surely for everyone's sake (including Scotland's) would it not be worth waiting a while (five years?) before contemplating Sindy2?
1) Scotland "not leaving the EU" is surely unlikely to get off the ground anyway as otherwise Catalonia/the Basques would possibly be in the queue, and Spain is not going to allow that, plus whatever other odds and ends we have dotted around the map of Europe (Hungarian Transylvania?, Turkish bits of Bulgaria? South Tyrol? Flanders?) starting to raise their hands too.
2) Even if it did: is it really going to get the UK's opt outs grandfathered in (rebates?, no Schengen? - that or there would be would be a real serious no pretending border at Carlisle. The currency would surely have to be the Euro (if rUK wasn't sharing Sterling in 2014 it sure as hell isn't now).
3) Nobody yet knows what the deal will be (if any) between the UK and the EU, and we won't in all likelihood know for quite some time and it would require some time after that again to see how it would pan out. You never know it might actually work quite well.
4) What exactly would Scotland be joining/staying in? The EU status quo seems unlikely.
a) It might splinter a bit. (Greece? Sweden/Denmark?) b) It might implode (not much fun getting in a lifeboat with a great big hole in it) c) It might be a proper United States of Europe. But in that case Scots may wish (or they may not - it's their view to hold not mine) to reflect that they would be swapping being an internally self governing (to quite an extent) province of a country they make up 8% of to being a province in a newly minted multi national (but heavily German influenced) entity which they would make up about 1.1% of, which is about the weight Leeds has in the UK.
Not saying they can't do it, before I'm leapt upon, but food for thought.
Comments
"Honourable thing...", and all that.
Nick? Views?
Wales and Cornwall voted LEAVE despite substantial largesse from the EU. They wanted out and they didn't care. Scotland and the Union may go the same way.
Kezia and SLab for fourth place in Scotland
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/748150663939563520
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/748150730452774913
Pro-Corbyn protesters 'won't go out in the rain', says their chief
Not true
Have just been shopping in the heavy rain.
I agree with Surbiton: the House of Commons should not ratify the referendum vote and it should vote against invoking Article 50. Let's see whether any PM has the gall to say it's him or her and the royal prerogative, backed by lies plebiscite, versus parliament. Of course the Speaker could say no way, Jose, royal prerogative matters aren't the business of the Commons. Well use some other word than "ratify", or have a confidence motion. And the Speaker is appointed by the Commons anyway. But fuck, bring it on. The matter of the queen's support for Brexit in the Sun on the day before the vote still needs to be resolved. Has "the Palace" complained about that yet? Right.
Then we'll know he's finished.
Divorce is now inevitable - just a question of when.
The UK as a whole is a net contributor to Brussels coffers!
Remember:
There is no such thing as "EU money"! There is only taxpayers' money!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1362468/liam-fox-on-the-verge-of-withdrawing-from-tory-leadership-race-to-back-theresa-may-to-be-the-next-prime-minister/
The Black Death or Dark Ages this is not.
Firstly, the politics of whether the EU might be willing to support separate status for Scotland, or even provide a nudge towards independence, isn't yet clear. There are obvious pros and cons which PB'ers will already know. Spain doesn't like it, but Spain is well down the list of EU power brokers. Best case for Sturgeon, she secures in principle agreement to continuity of EU membership provided Scotland goes independent.
Secondly, even if she fails, there is political capital for Sturgeon in having been seen to a) have a plan, and b) done everything possible to maintain Scotland's membership. She is already remarkably popular and respected in Scotland, across the spectrum. Now she's exposing all the leading English politicians (possibly excepting Farron) as hopeless numpties. Once her voters think she can walk on water then she just needs to find a way through to another Indy vote.
A snap election (which I have no idea if it is possible) in Scotland could be a real benefit to Independence. Ruth is currently holed below the waterline and Kezia is struggling to keep her head above water. It would also provided a re-strengthened mandate for Independence.
The latter brings into play:
1. Currency issues, just as in 2014.
2. Border issues, much more so than in 2014.
And I can't see how a vote on secession could still be framed around "independence" unless it was in terms of loss of independence. i.e. "Should Scots cease to live in an independent country" would be a vote to leave the UK.
Has any politician ever been put under so much stress and resisted?
The GERS numbers are key to this. Scotland is simply not in a position to become independent at the present time. If the SNP want to change that they better stop the constitutional nonsense and start focussing on rebuilding our economy.
There are now just 15 shadow ministers left under Corbyn
(beyond Shad Cab)
30 have quit in total (again beyond Shad Cab).
Let that sink in
I am slightly concerned, personally.
Mr Jasso was on a tram at Shudehill when he challenged the boys for "swearing profusely" and "visibly upsetting" other commuters.
He responded to the insults saying some people were "extremely ignorant and not very intelligent".
Accent and appearance
He can then be heard saying: "Seven years in the military," as other commuters told the alleged perpetrators "you are an absolute disgrace. A disgrace to England".
Mr Jasso, a sport lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University, said: "I didn't do anything that was disrespectful. I literally just asked them to watch their language.
"I don't think my accent was a part of that [abuse], I think it was more just my appearance."
He said he did not blame anyone else for not commenting until the youths had left the tram, saying "it's for every individual to judge and decide, they shouldn't put themselves in harm's way".
"I challenge people a lot on different things when I'm out, if people are littering, language, loads of different things. If I don't feel comfortable I'll say something," he added.
"I know that when I challenge somebody I'm going to be on my own and I'm still prepared to do that."
Mr Jasso, from Todmorden, West Yorkshire, who was a signals intelligence analyst for the US Army, said it was only the second incident of its type he had experienced in his 18 years in the UK.
"As a whole this country is very tolerant," he said.
"There are pockets in any society where people may not agree with the government or may not like individuals who are not from their area originally, but I like it here and I think this country has a history of tolerance."
Two men, aged 20 and 18, and a boy, 16, were arrested on suspicion of affray following the incident.
The men have been bailed until 10 August while the teenager remains in custody for questioning.
(My emphasis)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-36644699
Anyway, there is no such thing as "your money", it comes from your employer (or bank, or deceased relatives, or wherever)... lol
Understand Corbyn's office considering the "nuclear option" of openly calling for Blair to be prosecuted for war crimes to "reset" debate.
I may be wrong about this.
Oh wait...
Toby Perkins @tobyperkinsmp 3h3 hours ago
Before anyone says different NO Labour members cheered PM calling for Corbyn to go. Not a matter for Tories to interfere in. #pmqs
Somebody is fibbing
But why is there carnage in the Labour Party less than a week after the result?
Honest question. Is the business that is totally reliant on the passport sufficient to get banks seriously thinking of moving the entire shop, or just that part that requires the passport?
R.e Rajoy's comments - he is likely to be PM now, and the C's party as his likely partners are vehemently anti-catalan independence, and so it's a concern for Sturgeons plan. OTOH, he won't necessarily have a veto if it's not treated as a new accession but continuance of a current membership - QMV rules would then be in play I imagine (and really, that's the EU's call to make, so they could go either way if they wanted to)
I think the worse the UK's relationship with the EU, the more they are likely to warm to Scotland. If we roll over and take EEA off the shelf, they won't bother with Scotland. If we piss them off and delay article 50 too long, they have more incentive to let the UK breakup and invite Scotland in to discredit the entire brexit approach (it won't seem worth it to other countries if leaving the EU means the break up of your country).
I was wondering if there was a correlation with the vino.
Theresa would be silly to offer anything concrete.
Unless there's some kind of last minute surprise entry (I'm still holding out for Hammond!) it'll be May v Boris, with both teams hoping to face Crabb - rather than each other - when it goes out to the members.
I know little about the world of city finance, so it is tempting to defer.
I do however mix with a lot of City bods and it is true that a) most of them are strongly pro-EU and b) most of them genuinely believe that leaving the EU will significantly damage the City's position in world finance.
So now I am left wondering how to square these two seemingly contradictory positions?
Seems if you join Labour at the moment it spews out this tweet. So not a cult. https://t.co/NjeuR7LJnN
She apparently wants our MP kneed in the balls!!
I really do think the Labour Party doesn't mean anywhere near as much to him as Stop The War and the people he has surrounded himself with.
Corbyn = High Sparrow
I wonder if there's an analogy between Hillary's media blitz and the Brexit Project Fear campaign. There's a point where people stop listening.
My last point was only 10% serious.
I know that you like your point, but honestly it seems rather trite to me!
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/748162264771989504
May be just gossip.
A few weeks ago I was described as 'a leading polling guru'
Dem Blairites are shitting themselves.
Roll on Wednesday
1) Scotland "not leaving the EU" is surely unlikely to get off the ground anyway as otherwise Catalonia/the Basques would possibly be in the queue, and Spain is not going to allow that, plus whatever other odds and ends we have dotted around the map of Europe (Hungarian Transylvania?, Turkish bits of Bulgaria? South Tyrol? Flanders?) starting to raise their hands too.
2) Even if it did: is it really going to get the UK's opt outs grandfathered in (rebates?, no Schengen? - that or there would be would be a real serious no pretending border at Carlisle. The currency would surely have to be the Euro (if rUK wasn't sharing Sterling in 2014 it sure as hell isn't now).
3) Nobody yet knows what the deal will be (if any) between the UK and the EU, and we won't in all likelihood know for quite some time and it would require some time after that again to see how it would pan out. You never know it might actually work quite well.
4) What exactly would Scotland be joining/staying in? The EU status quo seems unlikely.
a) It might splinter a bit. (Greece? Sweden/Denmark?)
b) It might implode (not much fun getting in a lifeboat with a great big hole in it)
c) It might be a proper United States of Europe. But in that case Scots may wish (or they may not - it's their view to hold not mine) to reflect that they would be swapping being an internally self governing (to quite an extent) province of a country they make up 8% of to being a province in a newly minted multi national (but heavily German influenced) entity which they would make up about 1.1% of, which is about the weight Leeds has in the UK.
Not saying they can't do it, before I'm leapt upon, but food for thought.