"Did Andrew Cooper's polls lose the referendum?" "What purpose did the polling day announcement of a ten-point lead serve except to persuade Remain voters to stay at home?" "Lord Cooper has form: last year, his bullishly named ‘Populus predictor’ gave a wonderfully precise figure for the Tories’ chance of winning a majority: 0.5 per cent. On polling day, he denounced Cameron’s triumphant general election campaign as a ‘prolonged exhibition of insanity’. All of which raises a question: why put him in charge of an EU referendum campaign whose failure could (and did) destroy the Prime Minister?"
Theresa May, outlining her Conservative and prime ministerial leadership challenge says: "Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high and the public has given its verdict."
The home secretary says there should be no attempts to renege on that verdict and there should be no general election until 2020 and no emergency budget.
There should be no decision to invoke article 50 before the end of this year when Britain's negotiating terms are clear, she says.
There should be no change in Britain's trading arrangements with the EU or the legal status of overseas people living in the UK changed.
Is she saying that there will be informal discussions before ? The EU has flatly said there won't be.
No, I suspect she’s saying that her in charge the Govt will sort out what it thinks is a reasonable negotiating position, with pre-planned fall-backs in it’s back pocket, and only then write the Article 50 letter.
Negotiating with the EU has been ruled out by the EU. I don't know whether negotiating with EFTA has been ruled out by EFTA, which is something completely different.
There's no problem negotiating with EFTA, but EFTA is Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland repesenting 10 million people in total, while the EU is Germany, France and 25 other countries representing 450 million people. Those are the important guys.
Those 10 million give you access to the other 450 million. It's like walking out of your office having resigned as an employee, then rocking up a month or two later with a broad smile on your face going "I'm the new contractor".
Theresa May, outlining her Conservative and prime ministerial leadership challenge says: "Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high and the public has given its verdict."
The home secretary says there should be no attempts to renege on that verdict and there should be no general election until 2020 and no emergency budget.
There should be no decision to invoke article 50 before the end of this year when Britain's negotiating terms are clear, she says.
There should be no change in Britain's trading arrangements with the EU or the legal status of overseas people living in the UK changed.
Is she saying that there will be informal discussions before ? The EU has flatly said there won't be.
No, I suspect she’s saying that her in charge the Govt will sort out what it thinks is a reasonable negotiating position, with pre-planned fall-backs in it’s back pocket, and only then write the Article 50 letter.
Negotiating with the EU has been ruled out by the EU. I don't know whether negotiating with EFTA has been ruled out by EFTA, which is something completely different.
There's no problem negotiating with EFTA, but EFTA is Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland repesenting 10 million people in total, while the EU is Germany, France and 25 other countries representing 450 million people. Those are the important guys.
Those 10 million give you access to the other 450 million. It's like walking out of your office having resigned as an employee, then rocking up a month or two later with a broad smile on your face going "I'm the new contractor".
Yes, completely free of the internal politics and at a better pay rate (lower membership fees).
Theresa May, outlining her Conservative and prime ministerial leadership challenge says: "Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high and the public has given its verdict."
The home secretary says there should be no attempts to renege on that verdict and there should be no general election until 2020 and no emergency budget.
There should be no decision to invoke article 50 before the end of this year when Britain's negotiating terms are clear, she says.
There should be no change in Britain's trading arrangements with the EU or the legal status of overseas people living in the UK changed.
Good solid speech. No change to trading arrangements means free movement continues. OK with me, but may not be universally popular.
No emergency budget? Surely if the goverment's projections til 2020 which were based on remaining will need to be revised to account for projected drop in growth figures
Statements by Tory politicians on whether an early GE is likely should be viewed through the prism of whether it looks as though Jeremy Corbyn is about to be defenestrated.
I imagine if Corbyn hangs on May would go for a snap election in October/November.
After explicitly saying none before 2020 ! But then again, she is a Tory !
The EFTA states will make helpful noises but they can't do any substantial negotiation with us until they know what our deal with the EU is going to look like.
I see the French finance minister has said that freedom of movement should be on the table at the negotiations. Perhaps those on here who are so certain of what can and cannot be achieved may not be correct.
I saw Macron a few weeks ago (and reported it directly to this board): he said EEA, no passporting. So presumably, he's now saying "EEA, no passporting, no FoM".
I think there are two different ministers, Finance Minister Michel Sapin and Economics Minister Emmanuel Macron, who have slightly different agendas. I think you are basically right except of course, EEA excluding services and freedom of movement is a different beast. It's not the EEA any more. The framework will need to be negotiated. One of the advantages of the EEA is that is off the shelf
Sparrow, snap analysis: - Last week Michael Gove’s Vote Leave campaign ended the career of David Cameron - a man that Gove has counted as a close friend for more than a decade.
Today the Gove career-destroying machine has turned on Boris Johnson, who until about half an hour ago was the favourite to win the Conservative leadership. Gove, who is respected by colleagues, Tory members and the media, has just published a damning character reference about the man with whom he jointly ran the victorious Vote Leave campaign. Here it is again:
" I respect and admire all the candidates running for the leadership. In particular, I wanted to help build a team behindBoris Johnson so that a politician who argued for leaving the European Union could lead us to a better future.
But I have come, reluctantly, to the conclusion that Boris cannot provide the leadership or build the team for the task ahead."
Bojo is shafted.
That is brutal. Did Boris not guarantee him the Treasury? Foolish if he didn't.
I think it's more that Gove believes that Boris will water down the pure wine of a Brexit in favour of some fudge or other. Destroying Boris is just a desirable second order effect.
I'm definitely behind Gove, May isn't what I want in policy terms.
What's good with Gove standing is he'll be great during the campaign, and will force promises out of May (and the others) on Article 50 etc.
Good move too from May on ditching the budget surplus. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures and boxing herself in on the finances would've been silly.
Theresa May, outlining her Conservative and prime ministerial leadership challenge says: "Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high and the public has given its verdict."
The home secretary says there should be no attempts to renege on that verdict and there should be no general election until 2020 and no emergency budget.
There should be no decision to invoke article 50 before the end of this year when Britain's negotiating terms are clear, she says.
There should be no change in Britain's trading arrangements with the EU or the legal status of overseas people living in the UK changed.
Good solid speech. No change to trading arrangements means free movement continues. OK with me, but may not be universally popular.
No emergency budget? Surely if the goverment's projections til 2020 which were based on remaining will need to be revised to account for projected drop in growth figures
Theresa May, outlining her Conservative and prime ministerial leadership challenge says: "Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high and the public has given its verdict."
The home secretary says there should be no attempts to renege on that verdict and there should be no general election until 2020 and no emergency budget.
There should be no decision to invoke article 50 before the end of this year when Britain's negotiating terms are clear, she says.
There should be no change in Britain's trading arrangements with the EU or the legal status of overseas people living in the UK changed.
Good solid speech. No change to trading arrangements means free movement continues. OK with me, but may not be universally popular.
No emergency budget? Surely if the goverment's projections til 2020 which were based on remaining will need to be revised to account for projected drop in growth figures
Statements by Tory politicians on whether an early GE is likely should be viewed through the prism of whether it looks as though Jeremy Corbyn is about to be defenestrated.
Very dangerous way to approach this. IMO May will need a personal mandate to get through what will be a brutal parliament.
Clearly a delay is very good for Labour, who need time to sort their shit out.
i'm not making many shrewd political betting calls recently but Boris price now looks value to me and May shouldn't be odds on. It will be May versus ANOTHER and she still has to beat the ANOTHER in the membership ballot.
I've backed Boris! 6.4-6.6.
That's pretty much the price at which I baled out of my remaining BoJo. He could well be 1000 in an hour
Theresa May, outlining her Conservative and prime ministerial leadership challenge says: "Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high and the public has given its verdict."
The home secretary says there should be no attempts to renege on that verdict and there should be no general election until 2020 and no emergency budget.
There should be no decision to invoke article 50 before the end of this year when Britain's negotiating terms are clear, she says.
There should be no change in Britain's trading arrangements with the EU or the legal status of overseas people living in the UK changed.
Good solid speech. No change to trading arrangements means free movement continues. OK with me, but may not be universally popular.
No emergency budget? Surely if the goverment's projections til 2020 which were based on remaining will need to be revised to account for projected drop in growth figures
Theresa May, outlining her Conservative and prime ministerial leadership challenge says: "Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high and the public has given its verdict."
The home secretary says there should be no attempts to renege on that verdict and there should be no general election until 2020 and no emergency budget.
There should be no decision to invoke article 50 before the end of this year when Britain's negotiating terms are clear, she says.
There should be no change in Britain's trading arrangements with the EU or the legal status of overseas people living in the UK changed.
Is she saying that there will be informal discussions before ? The EU has flatly said there won't be.
No, I suspect she’s saying that her in charge the Govt will sort out what it thinks is a reasonable negotiating position, with pre-planned fall-backs in it’s back pocket, and only then write the Article 50 letter.
Negotiating with the EU has been ruled out by the EU. I don't know whether negotiating with EFTA has been ruled out by EFTA, which is something completely different.
There's no problem negotiating with EFTA, but EFTA is Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland repesenting 10 million people in total, while the EU is Germany, France and 25 other countries representing 450 million people. Those are the important guys.
Those 10 million give you access to the other 450 million. It's like walking out of your office having resigned as an employee, then rocking up a month or two later with a broad smile on your face going "I'm the new contractor".
Not really. Access to the EU is by negotiation with the EU. There is a lot of misinformation about that, including on this forum.
Is Eagle a pretty much a sure thing (c. 90% likelihood) or am I completely misreading the situation?
Eagle is in the process of collecting her 51 signatures. Were I an MP, I'd consider being the 50th person backing her, but not necessarily the 52nd. Like I said yesterday, the 172 Labour MPs should basically be setting themselves up as a papal conclave.
I just have a feeling that the Labour election will end having 3 or 4 runners. Does that increaase the danger of Corbyn squeaking over the line - slightly, but it's a risk worth taking to get a candidate who you could actually see as PM.
172 no confidence Labour MPs is not enough to have 4 x 52 nominations for the leadership.
"Did Andrew Cooper's polls lose the referendum?" "What purpose did the polling day announcement of a ten-point lead serve except to persuade Remain voters to stay at home?" "Lord Cooper has form: last year, his bullishly named ‘Populus predictor’ gave a wonderfully precise figure for the Tories’ chance of winning a majority: 0.5 per cent. On polling day, he denounced Cameron’s triumphant general election campaign as a ‘prolonged exhibition of insanity’. All of which raises a question: why put him in charge of an EU referendum campaign whose failure could (and did) destroy the Prime Minister?"
We keep speculating what won it for leave, the truth is Leave voters were just more motivated to go out and vote especially since this time there were no safe seats. Previous referendum has shown supporters of a single issue turnout more.
'Is she saying that there will be informal discussions before ? The EU has flatly said there won't be.'
Surely you know by now what the EU says and does are usually completely different.
I would imagine their main focus is how they will fill their £ 11 billion budget black hole, unless France or Italy have already volunteered to fill it.
If Boris is to have any chance he will have to promise Australian points system on immigration and that securing control over our borders is higher priority than singe market at the negotiations.
Is Eagle a pretty much a sure thing (c. 90% likelihood) or am I completely misreading the situation?
Eagle is in the process of collecting her 51 signatures. Were I an MP, I'd consider being the 50th person backing her, but not necessarily the 52nd. Like I said yesterday, the 172 Labour MPs should basically be setting themselves up as a papal conclave.
I just have a feeling that the Labour election will end having 3 or 4 runners. Does that increaase the danger of Corbyn squeaking over the line - slightly, but it's a risk worth taking to get a candidate who you could actually see as PM.
172 no confidence Labour MPs is not enough to have 4 x 52 nominations for the leadership.
2 or 3 challengers max.
If there are 3 runners I think the bar falls to 35 or 38 or something like with Corbyn's election.
'Is she saying that there will be informal discussions before ? The EU has flatly said there won't be.'
Surely you know by now what the EU says and does are usually completely different.
I would imagine their main focus is how they will fill their £ 11 billion budget black hole, unless France or Italy have already volunteered to fill it.
The real hole is smaller than that. The EU won't need to pay us a rebate or make CAP or CFP payments, or - indeed - Nigel Farage's salary or expenses. So, the theoretical hole is c. £9bn. But because we, like Switzerland, Norway, etc., will need to pay something for access to the single market (shall we say £3bn?), which brings you down to £6bn. Over 400m people, that's £1.20/month.
They can say what they like. A majority of a dozen minus the bodies and refuseniks equals a minority government. They won't be able to pass a bill that the Prime Minister blows his/her nose. Thats why there will be a general election. They couldn't get a "nothing to see here" queens speech bill through pre-referendum. What makes any of them think they can get contentious issues through post-referendum.
Is Eagle a pretty much a sure thing (c. 90% likelihood) or am I completely misreading the situation?
Eagle is in the process of collecting her 51 signatures. Were I an MP, I'd consider being the 50th person backing her, but not necessarily the 52nd. Like I said yesterday, the 172 Labour MPs should basically be setting themselves up as a papal conclave.
I just have a feeling that the Labour election will end having 3 or 4 runners. Does that increaase the danger of Corbyn squeaking over the line - slightly, but it's a risk worth taking to get a candidate who you could actually see as PM.
172 no confidence Labour MPs is not enough to have 4 x 52 nominations for the leadership.
2 or 3 challengers max.
To be precise, there are 20 MEPs with a nomination right too. But lots of members are awaiting a challenge with something interesting to say beyond the ABC three-ferrets-in-sack approach which failed so spectacularly last year. It's not really a question of numbers but of having a coherent alternative.
'Is she saying that there will be informal discussions before ? The EU has flatly said there won't be.'
Surely you know by now what the EU says and does are usually completely different.
I would imagine their main focus is how they will fill their £ 11 billion budget black hole, unless France or Italy have already volunteered to fill it.
The real hole is smaller than that. The EU won't need to pay us a rebate or make CAP or CFP payments, or - indeed - Nigel Farage's salary or expenses. So, the theoretical hole is c. £9bn. But because we, like Switzerland, Norway, etc., will need to pay something for access to the single market (shall we say £3bn?), which brings you down to £6bn. Over 400m people, that's £1.20/month.
I think the bigger concern for the EU will be that they had already said there was a large black hole appearing on their accounts and they would need to increase income over the bdxt few years quite dramatically. That will now become more difficult.
In addition you are I think wrong to divide the extra cost amongst all 400 million or so citizens. In fact it will only be borne by those who are already net contributors as it is the net cost you are looking at.
To be honest though the loss of £6 billion a year will be small compared to the ever growing black hole predicted in the EU accounts if they don't seriously reform either income or spending.
'Is she saying that there will be informal discussions before ? The EU has flatly said there won't be.'
Surely you know by now what the EU says and does are usually completely different.
I would imagine their main focus is how they will fill their £ 11 billion budget black hole, unless France or Italy have already volunteered to fill it.
The real hole is smaller than that. The EU won't need to pay us a rebate or make CAP or CFP payments, or - indeed - Nigel Farage's salary or expenses. So, the theoretical hole is c. £9bn. But because we, like Switzerland, Norway, etc., will need to pay something for access to the single market (shall we say £3bn?), which brings you down to £6bn. Over 400m people, that's £1.20/month.
I think the bigger concern for the EU will be that they had already said there was a large black hole appearing on their accounts and they would need to increase income over the bdxt few years quite dramatically. That will now become more difficult.
In addition you are I think wrong to divide the extra cost amongst all 400 million or so citizens. In fact it will only be borne by those who are already net contributors as it is the net cost you are looking at.
To be honest though the loss of £6 billion a year will be small compared to the ever growing black hole predicted in the EU accounts if they don't seriously reform either income or spending.
If we pay at the same £119/per head rate as Norway cost would be £7.5bn.
'Is she saying that there will be informal discussions before ? The EU has flatly said there won't be.'
Surely you know by now what the EU says and does are usually completely different.
I would imagine their main focus is how they will fill their £ 11 billion budget black hole, unless France or Italy have already volunteered to fill it.
The real hole is smaller than that. The EU won't need to pay us a rebate or make CAP or CFP payments, or - indeed - Nigel Farage's salary or expenses. So, the theoretical hole is c. £9bn. But because we, like Switzerland, Norway, etc., will need to pay something for access to the single market (shall we say £3bn?), which brings you down to £6bn. Over 400m people, that's £1.20/month.
I think the bigger concern for the EU will be that they had already said there was a large black hole appearing on their accounts and they would need to increase income over the bdxt few years quite dramatically. That will now become more difficult.
In addition you are I think wrong to divide the extra cost amongst all 400 million or so citizens. In fact it will only be borne by those who are already net contributors as it is the net cost you are looking at.
To be honest though the loss of £6 billion a year will be small compared to the ever growing black hole predicted in the EU accounts if they don't seriously reform either income or spending.
The cost would be divided among all 400m citizens if it were deducted from the receipts of the gainers, as well as being added to the continuation of the funders. Whether this is politically deliverable or not is another matter.
Comments
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Still terrible, but at least not higher.
Clearly a delay is very good for Labour, who need time to sort their shit out.
No. The scrum half picks it up and feeds the fly half.
Unlike Crabb who puts his hand in the scrum, grabs the ball and gives away a penalty.
Boris was a Leaver because he thought that was the better option to be in to become PM. Sadly, for him, Leave actually won.
Two points:
1) what developments?
2) if two out of the three Vote Leave campaign leaders can't even work out a plan for themselves, heaven help their plan for the country.
When will they stop fibbing ?
172 no confidence Labour MPs is not enough to have 4 x 52 nominations for the leadership.
2 or 3 challengers max.
What he meant is ....
Boris has not promised me Chancellor of the Exchequer job so I have shafted him like he shafted Cameron. That's politics.
'Is she saying that there will be informal discussions before ? The EU has flatly said there won't be.'
Surely you know by now what the EU says and does are usually completely different.
I would imagine their main focus is how they will fill their £ 11 billion budget black hole, unless France or Italy have already volunteered to fill it.
In addition you are I think wrong to divide the extra cost amongst all 400 million or so citizens. In fact it will only be borne by those who are already net contributors as it is the net cost you are looking at.
To be honest though the loss of £6 billion a year will be small compared to the ever growing black hole predicted in the EU accounts if they don't seriously reform either income or spending.