After my MPs outrageous statement last night that it is not legitimate for Corbyn to stand and that the Labour group would not accept a Corbyn win I will definitely vote Corbyn now whoever the other candidates are.
I had said there were 2 other candidates i would prefer but after that no way am i having PLP dictating the leader.
BTW £9 spent today by the other 3 Lab voters in my house today.
I think two candidates could drop out on Tuesday even though only one will be officially eliminated. Probably Fox and Crabb.
Allowing for being 100% gobsmaked after the events of the past seven days and making some broad assumptions on the Sky News numbers we might in Round 1 end up :
May 195 .. Crabb 40 .. Gove 40 .. Leadsom 40 .. Fox 15 .. Falconer 1
Coronation ?!?
Do you think Mrs May should hold an election in September/October before she pushes the red button, aka Article 50?
I think two candidates could drop out on Tuesday even though only one will be officially eliminated. Probably Fox and Crabb.
Allowing for being 100% gobsmaked after the events of the past seven days and making some broad assumptions on the Sky News numbers we might in Round 1 end up :
May 195 .. Crabb 40 .. Gove 40 .. Leadsom 40 .. Fox 15 .. Falconer 1
Coronation ?!?
Is your ARSE4 CON* in action?
* Anonymised Random Selection of Electors for Conmen, Orators and Nastyparty?
Yes it does. A classic bait-and-switch by politicians after this referendum will not be taken well by the voters.
Your assumptions on why people voted leave are based (if at all) on polling that has already been widely discredited by the referendum itself. You cannot know with any certainty why people voted the way they did: all we have is what the leave campaigns said.
I am not 'concern trolling'. In a similar spirit: people who promoted the leave campaigns whilst they really wanted EEA or EFTA are just shyster conmen who were cynically taking the public for a ride. Bait-and-switch on an entire population.
To use the language above: only anti-democrats will want to ignore what the leave campaigns had as their core messages.
The referendum question was "Should the UK remain or leave the EU?"
"Remain" "Leave"
It was not "Should the UK stop EU immigration?"
If those who think they've been wronged want to then vote for UKIP and try and force a second referendum, that is their right, but as of now the government has a mandate only to leave the EU. I might remind you that 48% voted to remain in the EU and the single market. There must be a compromise so that the 48% aren't completely ignored, 17m vs 16m is not a landslide.
And the background to those votes was based firmly in immigration. It's telling that you cannot answer my initial question and instead attempt to deflect. So again I ask: how many time were the EEA / EFTA options mentioned in either leave campaigns' public-facing literature?
It's also quite funny to see a leaver remembering the 16m: we don't get mentioned much on here.
It's sad that you're willing to undergo bait-and-switch on an entire population. People who wanted EEA / EFTA are cynically attempting to subvert the vote just as much as those who want to ignore the result entirely. It's a shame that includes some intelligent posters on here, but there you go.
You're no better than David Lammy. Have you ever considered going on Mastermind?
I thought I'd answered you at least partially in terms of the leaflet.
In terms of immigration, we don't know that it would be FoM as we currently have it. That's negotiable. It's not just the UK that's looking at FoM.
If the economic shock is as bad as some Remainers are predicting, immigration will fall naturally.
I'm not going to try and persuade you that it's not bait and switch. I just don't know what the outcome of the negotiation will be.
With the declarations at 94 Theresa + 22 Crabb and the likelyhood most of those would go to Theresa it is to be hoped that wise heads in the party put the National interest first and nominate Theresa unopposed so that we can have a cabinet and government in place by the end of this month. Would be well received by the Country and the markets. The nonsense that has been going on needs to be put behind us
Hear, hear.
Yep, get on with it. If she has a commanding lead she's obviously going to win, this is not the time for three months of enjoyable dicking about.
Unopposed, what in all f**k? What is WRONG with you people?
See my other post. I mean just have one round and if she's way ahead (surely she will be) then that's good enough, the others should withdraw.
The only real rival was Boris, and now he's gone. None of the others have a chance, I don't think.
So the members, already pissed off with their MPs because a lot of them are careerists that lied about their euroscepticism are going to be happy to see the PCP stitch up a "remain" PM without asking them ? Seems optimistic.
I find it unbelievable that Leavers here are proposing to throw their hands up and give it to May without a membership vote. I mean, why? If she's well in the lead, good for her - she'll win. That's the idea. The testicular shrinkage on show here would baffle the medical profession.
Yes it does. A classic bait-and-switch by politicians after this referendum will not be taken well by the voters.
Your assumptions on why people voted leave are based (if at all) on polling that has already been widely discredited by the referendum itself. You cannot know with any certainty why people voted the way they did: all we have is what the leave campaigns said.
I am not 'concern trolling'. In a similar spirit: people who promoted the leave campaigns whilst they really wanted EEA or EFTA are just shyster conmen who were cynically taking the public for a ride. Bait-and-switch on an entire population.
To use the language above: only anti-democrats will want to ignore what the leave campaigns had as their core messages.
The referendum question was "Should the UK remain or leave the EU?"
"Remain" "Leave"
It was not "Should the UK stop EU immigration?"
If those who think they've been wronged want to then vote for UKIP and try and force a second referendum, that is their right, but as of now the government has a mandate only to leave the EU. I might remind you that 48% voted to remain in the EU and the single market. There must be a compromise so that the 48% aren't completely ignored, 17m vs 16m is not a landslide.
Agreed - but 17m is more than have ever voted for any single party/thing in the UK.
Leaving the EU is popular - the desires of the 52% should not be forgotten either.
Absolutely and by leaving the EU we would be leaving the EU. No one, especially not me, is suggesting we shouldn't leave the EU. I voted to leave, I just don't think we should be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Thing is - an awful lot of people want to leave the EU to end freedom of movement of labour....
Yes, and if we end up driving them to UKIP then we'll have to deal with that, but the PM will get a fig leaf on immigration that will be "good enough" to win the support of enough people that they will consider the matter settled. As I said just now, if we want to solve immigration then lets do what we can on our side by reforming education and benefits.
The problem in both cases is the microscopic majority. The Tories can't afford to lose 10 seats to the kippers over immigration or they are f**ked, neither can they afford to lose 10 seats to Labour or the LD because they annoy a load of handwringers with their benefits reforms, otherwise they are still f**ked.
Yes it does. A classic bait-and-switch by politicians after this referendum will not be taken well by the voters.
Your assumptions on why people voted leave are based (if at all) on polling that has already been widely discredited by the referendum itself. You cannot know with any certainty why people voted the way they did: all we have is what the leave campaigns said.
I am not 'concern trolling'. In a similar spirit: people who promoted the leave campaigns whilst they really wanted EEA or EFTA are just shyster conmen who were cynically taking the public for a ride. Bait-and-switch on an entire population.
To use the language above: only anti-democrats will want to ignore what the leave campaigns had as their core messages.
The referendum question was "Should the UK remain or leave the EU?"
"Remain" "Leave"
It was not "Should the UK stop EU immigration?"
If those who think they've been wronged want to then vote for UKIP and try and force a second referendum, that is their right, but as of now the government has a mandate only to leave the EU. I might remind you that 48% voted to remain in the EU and the single market. There must be a compromise so that the 48% aren't completely ignored, 17m vs 16m is not a landslide.
And the background to those votes was based firmly in immigration. It's telling that you cannot answer my initial question and instead attempt to deflect. So again I ask: how many time were the EEA / EFTA options mentioned in either leave campaigns' public-facing literature?
It's also quite funny to see a leaver remembering the 16m: we don't get mentioned much on here.
It's sad that you're willing to undergo bait-and-switch on an entire population. People who wanted EEA / EFTA are cynically attempting to subvert the vote just as much as those who want to ignore the result entirely. It's a shame that includes some intelligent posters on here, but there you go.
You're no better than David Lammy. Have you ever considered going on Mastermind?
Actually, in the last week Carswell and others on the Leave side repeatedly said that a small lead for leave was not a mandate for big change in our relationship. That sounds pretty much *exactly* like a pitch for EFTA/EEA.
After my MPs outrageous statement last night that it is not legitimate for Corbyn to stand and that the Labour group would not accept a Corbyn win I will definitely vote Corbyn now whoever the other candidates are.
I had said there were 2 other candidates i would prefer but after that no way am i having PLP dictating the leader.
BTW £9 spent today by the other 3 Lab voters in my house today.
4 Jezza votes from us.
Actually apparently they have paid about £50 between them apparently
OK. Let's force May to spend all of July and August negotiating Brexit in public with her opponent and Tory activists and special Question Time audiences and Nigel Farage. When she's been hopelessly pinned down on every nuance she can start with 27 other governments who now know what her Redl lines are. Assuming that is her Leaver opponents campaign doesn't ignite and she is her self swept away by a populist insurgency. Good Luck.
Parliament will recess by the end of July and doesn't return until the Autumn, so your comments are not going to happen
The scenario were discussing is a contested election. A summer holiday all member postal ballot of Conservative Party members ending on September 9th. Are you suggesting they'll be no hustings for party members to attend ? No TV debates or events ? No polling ? No in depth interviews of the candidates ? No campaign groups pushing agendas all summer long ? How odd.
If it becomes apparent when it is down to two and an accommodation can be made there is no need to draw it out into the Autumn and those responsible members will overwhelmingly agree to putting the Country first
As I said just now, if we want to solve immigration then lets do what we can on our side by reforming education and benefits.
If only the Eurosceptic tendency hadn't spent the last decade saying that there was nothing we could do about EU migration then we might have made more progress on shifting those levers.
Plenty of us have been seeing we need to move to a contributory system of benefits, for years. It is the only way to solve mass migration, if you must have Free Movement.
It not that there is nothing that could be done about EU migration , its that there was nothing that Dave was prepared to do about EU migration, partly because he was a closet europhile, and partly because he never would have got a contributory benefits policy past Clegg in the first parliament, or passed his thin majority and the Lords in the second parliament. Benefit reform needs a sizeable majority.
ok. I may have over-reached on the tory family coming back together
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorriesMP 2m2 minutes ago I am utterly astounded to discover that some MPs are actually backing Gove. Clearly, honesty and honour not a consideration for some.
The old girl needs a holiday, - before she says/does anything more stupid.
With the declarations at 94 Theresa + 22 Crabb and the likelyhood most of those would go to Theresa it is to be hoped that wise heads in the party put the National interest first and nominate Theresa unopposed so that we can have a cabinet and government in place by the end of this month. Would be well received by the Country and the markets. The nonsense that has been going on needs to be put behind us
Hear, hear.
Yep, get on with it. If she has a commanding lead she's obviously going to win, this is not the time for three months of enjoyable dicking about.
Unopposed, what in all f**k? What is WRONG with you people?
See my other post. I mean just have one round and if she's way ahead (surely she will be) then that's good enough, the others should withdraw.
The only real rival was Boris, and now he's gone. None of the others have a chance, I don't think.
So the members, already pissed off with their MPs because a lot of them are careerists that lied about their euroscepticism are going to be happy to see the PCP stitch up a "remain" PM without asking them ? Seems optimistic.
I find it unbelievable that Leavers here are proposing to throw their hands up and give it to May without a membership vote. I mean, why? If she's well in the lead, good for her - she'll win. That's the idea. The testicular shrinkage on show here would baffle the medical profession.
A doctor writes:
The cremasteric reflex is a well documented response to fear:
Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, is urging colleagues to step back from the brink in challenging Jeremy Corbyn, warning that a leadership election in which the incumbent stands again could cause untold damage to the party.
Watson is seeking to organise a meeting with Corbyn’s closest advisers to try to agree a negotiated settlement that would see the Labour leader step down voluntarily, thus avoiding an acrimonious and drawn-out battle.
Bottlers. They took it to the brink and he did not blink, if they step back now they are declaring themselves beaten and should leave the party or serve Corbyn loyally from now.
Er no. Under normal constitutional precedent Corbyn would be long gone.
ok. I may have over-reached on the tory family coming back together
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorriesMP 2m2 minutes ago I am utterly astounded to discover that some MPs are actually backing Gove. Clearly, honesty and honour not a consideration for some.
The old girl needs a holiday, - before she says/does anything more stupid.
Seems fair enough to me.
And that's from someone who thought Gove would have been good.
Yes it does. A classic bait-and-switch by politicians after this referendum will not be taken well by the voters.
Your assumptions on why people voted leave are based (if at all) on polling that has already been widely discredited by the referendum itself. You cannot know with any certainty why people voted the way they did: all we have is what the leave campaigns said.
I am not 'concern trolling'. In a similar spirit: people who promoted the leave campaigns whilst they really wanted EEA or EFTA are just shyster conmen who were cynically taking the public for a ride. Bait-and-switch on an entire population.
To use the language above: only anti-democrats will want to ignore what the leave campaigns had as their core messages.
The referendum question was "Should the UK remain or leave the EU?"
"Remain" "Leave"
It was not "Should the UK stop EU immigration?"
If those who think they've been wronged want to then vote for UKIP and try and force a second referendum, that is their right, but as of now the government has a mandate only to leave the EU. I might remind you that 48% voted to remain in the EU and the single market. There must be a compromise so that the 48% aren't completely ignored, 17m vs 16m is not a landslide.
And the background to those votes was based firmly in immigration. It's telling that you cannot answer my initial question and instead attempt to deflect. So again I ask: how many time were the EEA / EFTA options mentioned in either leave campaigns' public-facing literature?
It's also quite funny to see a leaver remembering the 16m: we don't get mentioned much on here.
It's sad that you're willing to undergo bait-and-switch on an entire population. People who wanted EEA / EFTA are cynically attempting to subvert the vote just as much as those who want to ignore the result entirely. It's a shame that includes some intelligent posters on here, but there you go.
You're no better than David Lammy. Have you ever considered going on Mastermind?
Actually, in the last week Carswell and others on the Leave side repeatedly said that a small lead for leave was not a mandate for big change in our relationship. That sounds pretty much *exactly* like a pitch for EFTA/EEA.
EFTA is pretty big change - and good enough for now
May 94 .. Crabb 22 .. Gove 18 .. Leadsom 18 .. Fox 7
As posted earlier it is time for the party to elect Teresa unopposed and get on running the Country.
Agreed. Time to stop this nonsense.
A coronation is hardly a democratic debate.
Methinks the May supporters are a little too afraid of an open contest. Upstarts can be surprisingly popular....
If it goes to a membership ballot May vs A Leaver have to spend two months having a public debate about what renegotiation will look like. We just can't have that. We need a PM and we need one with some room for manoeuvre. This is a very, very dangerous situation.
Indeed. God forbid we actually talk about what type of Leave we want. In public. Ye Gods!
Lets get in the EEA and then discuss what we want our out to look like in the long term. I'm not alarmist by nature, but the uncertainty of our single market status will begin to cause damage soon. We need the issue resolved and May is the only one who will do it in the immediacy (Crabb too, but he won't win).
I don't see the rush - it is not as if we've triggered article 50.
I was initially of the same mind Max - but now see the benefit of having a 2 month cooling off period in which Europe gets itchy feet and starts to wonder out loud if we can be pro cake and pro eating it.
The price will be passporting rights. It's not an offer we want on the table because the PM will be forced to consider it and banker popularity is not exactly high.
We have been hearing quite a lot from people in the last day or two that passporting was not all it was cracked up to be, and that the Forex market for example couldnt give a damn about it.
Forex does not require passporting. But - to put this in context - Goldman Sachs has 6,000 staff in London. Including support staff and back-office, fewer than 50 are in forex.
With the declarations at 94 Theresa + 22 Crabb and the likelyhood most of those would go to Theresa it is to be hoped that wise heads in the party put the National interest first and nominate Theresa unopposed so that we can have a cabinet and government in place by the end of this month. Would be well received by the Country and the markets. The nonsense that has been going on needs to be put behind us
Hear, hear.
Yep, get on with it. If she has a commanding lead she's obviously going to win, this is not the time for three months of enjoyable dicking about.
Unopposed, what in all f**k? What is WRONG with you people?
See my other post. I mean just have one round and if she's way ahead (surely she will be) then that's good enough, the others should withdraw.
The only real rival was Boris, and now he's gone. None of the others have a chance, I don't think.
So the members, already pissed off with their MPs because a lot of them are careerists that lied about their euroscepticism are going to be happy to see the PCP stitch up a "remain" PM without asking them ? Seems optimistic.
I find it unbelievable that Leavers here are proposing to throw their hands up and give it to May without a membership vote. I mean, why? If she's well in the lead, good for her - she'll win. That's the idea. The testicular shrinkage on show here would baffle the medical profession.
The point is simply that if Theresa May is so far ahead when down to two, and the other candidate is offered a senior position, that candidate withdraws and we then have a government to please the country and markets and rid ourselves of this dangerous vacuum
Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, is urging colleagues to step back from the brink in challenging Jeremy Corbyn, warning that a leadership election in which the incumbent stands again could cause untold damage to the party.
Watson is seeking to organise a meeting with Corbyn’s closest advisers to try to agree a negotiated settlement that would see the Labour leader step down voluntarily, thus avoiding an acrimonious and drawn-out battle.
This is one amazing slow motion car crash. Surely even Watson knows that Jeremy isn't resigning now - why go through everything that happened this week only to step down anyway?
Someone needs to actually make the challenge, but no-one dares be the one who splits the party by triggering the contest that sees Corbyn win again. The sensible wing of the PLP might as well all resign now, they're getting deselected anyway and don't have a spine between the lot of them!
You clearly have no grasp of the situation in CLPs. Mass deselections are the stuff of Corbynite/Tory fantasy.
ok. I may have over-reached on the tory family coming back together
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorriesMP 2m2 minutes ago I am utterly astounded to discover that some MPs are actually backing Gove. Clearly, honesty and honour not a consideration for some.
The old girl needs a holiday, - before she says/does anything more stupid.
Maybe join UKIP and we take back Carswell - seems a good deal
ok. I may have over-reached on the tory family coming back together
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorriesMP 2m2 minutes ago I am utterly astounded to discover that some MPs are actually backing Gove. Clearly, honesty and honour not a consideration for some.
Isn't Nadine like the mad aunt who gets locked in the attic when she gets a bit too noisy?
ok. I may have over-reached on the tory family coming back together
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorriesMP 2m2 minutes ago I am utterly astounded to discover that some MPs are actually backing Gove. Clearly, honesty and honour not a consideration for some.
The old girl needs a holiday, - before she says/does anything more stupid.
Maybe join UKIP and we take back Carswell - seems a good deal
With the declarations at 94 Theresa + 22 Crabb and the likelyhood most of those would go to Theresa it is to be hoped that wise heads in the party put the National interest first and nominate Theresa unopposed so that we can have a cabinet and government in place by the end of this month. Would be well received by the Country and the markets. The nonsense that has been going on needs to be put behind us
Hear, hear.
Yep, get on with it. If she has a commanding lead she's obviously going to win, this is not the time for three months of enjoyable dicking about.
Unopposed, what in all f**k? What is WRONG with you people?
See my other post. I mean just have one round and if she's way ahead (surely she will be) then that's good enough, the others should withdraw.
The only real rival was Boris, and now he's gone. None of the others have a chance, I don't think.
So the members, already pissed off with their MPs because a lot of them are careerists that lied about their euroscepticism are going to be happy to see the PCP stitch up a "remain" PM without asking them ? Seems optimistic.
I find it unbelievable that Leavers here are proposing to throw their hands up and give it to May without a membership vote. I mean, why? If she's well in the lead, good for her - she'll win. That's the idea. The testicular shrinkage on show here would baffle the medical profession.
The point is simply that if Theresa May is so far ahead when down to two, and the other candidate is offered a senior position, that candidate withdraws and we then have a government to please the country and markets and rid ourselves of this dangerous vacuum
Sorry but in that instance I don't see the harm in letting the democratic process play out so she's a legitimate winner.
Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, is urging colleagues to step back from the brink in challenging Jeremy Corbyn, warning that a leadership election in which the incumbent stands again could cause untold damage to the party.
Watson is seeking to organise a meeting with Corbyn’s closest advisers to try to agree a negotiated settlement that would see the Labour leader step down voluntarily, thus avoiding an acrimonious and drawn-out battle.
Bottlers. They took it to the brink and he did not blink, if they step back now they are declaring themselves beaten and should leave the party or serve Corbyn loyally from now.
The Tories have given them a very public lesson on how to perform a ruthless defenestration.
When will Labour learn?
There is nothing good or admirable in the Tory election. Nothing you would wish to emulate.
We had a candidate who could win, but had huge doubts about him.
Labour goes out of their way to put him on the ballot, the Tories make sure he doesn't even get that close.
Ask Ma Beckett.
Also at least the Labour party haven't subjected the country to a daft referendum.
Bravo.
I would have expected @TheScreamingEagles and others on here who purport to understand politics to have a rudimentary grasp of Labour Party leadership rules. Yes, the rules are insane and need to be changed to the far superior Tory system yet nevertheless those are the rules and the PLP is bound by them unless and until someone sensible can get in there and change them.
With the declarations at 94 Theresa + 22 Crabb and the likelyhood most of those would go to Theresa it is to be hoped that wise heads in the party put the National interest first and nominate Theresa unopposed so that we can have a cabinet and government in place by the end of this month. Would be well received by the Country and the markets. The nonsense that has been going on needs to be put behind us
Hear, hear.
Yep, get on with it. If she has a commanding lead she's obviously going to win, this is not the time for three months of enjoyable dicking about.
Unopposed, what in all f**k? What is WRONG with you people?
See my other post. I mean just have one round and if she's way ahead (surely she will be) then that's good enough, the others should withdraw.
The only real rival was Boris, and now he's gone. None of the others have a chance, I don't think.
So the members, already pissed off with their MPs because a lot of them are careerists that lied about their euroscepticism are going to be happy to see the PCP stitch up a "remain" PM without asking them ? Seems optimistic.
I find it unbelievable that Leavers here are proposing to throw their hands up and give it to May without a membership vote. I mean, why? If she's well in the lead, good for her - she'll win. That's the idea. The testicular shrinkage on show here would baffle the medical profession.
The point is simply that if Theresa May is so far ahead when down to two, and the other candidate is offered a senior position, that candidate withdraws and we then have a government to please the country and markets and rid ourselves of this dangerous vacuum
Sorry but in that instance I don't see the harm in letting the democratic process play out so she's a legitimate winner.
The harm is being done to UK PLC - that must come first
Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, is urging colleagues to step back from the brink in challenging Jeremy Corbyn, warning that a leadership election in which the incumbent stands again could cause untold damage to the party.
Watson is seeking to organise a meeting with Corbyn’s closest advisers to try to agree a negotiated settlement that would see the Labour leader step down voluntarily, thus avoiding an acrimonious and drawn-out battle.
This is one amazing slow motion car crash. Surely even Watson knows that Jeremy isn't resigning now - why go through everything that happened this week only to step down anyway?
Someone needs to actually make the challenge, but no-one dares be the one who splits the party by triggering the contest that sees Corbyn win again. The sensible wing of the PLP might as well all resign now, they're getting deselected anyway and don't have a spine between the lot of them!
You clearly have no grasp of the situation in CLPs. Mass deselections are the stuff of Corbynite/Tory fantasy.
You're right that I'm not an expert in CLP Kremlinology, but the dissenters are clearly weakened if they half-challenge the leader and lose the membership vote again.
Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, is urging colleagues to step back from the brink in challenging Jeremy Corbyn, warning that a leadership election in which the incumbent stands again could cause untold damage to the party.
Watson is seeking to organise a meeting with Corbyn’s closest advisers to try to agree a negotiated settlement that would see the Labour leader step down voluntarily, thus avoiding an acrimonious and drawn-out battle.
Bottlers. They took it to the brink and he did not blink, if they step back now they are declaring themselves beaten and should leave the party or serve Corbyn loyally from now.
The Tories have given them a very public lesson on how to perform a ruthless defenestration.
When will Labour learn?
There is nothing good or admirable in the Tory election. Nothing you would wish to emulate.
We had a candidate who could win, but had huge doubts about him.
Labour goes out of their way to put him on the ballot, the Tories make sure he doesn't even get that close.
Ask Ma Beckett.
Also at least the Labour party haven't subjected the country to a daft referendum.
Bravo.
I would have expected @TheScreamingEagles and others on here who purport to understand politics to have a rudimentary grasp of Labour Party leadership rules. Yes, the rules are insane and need to be changed to the far superior Tory system yet nevertheless those are the rules and the PLP is bound by them unless and until someone sensible can get in there and change them.
May 94 .. Crabb 22 .. Gove 18 .. Leadsom 18 .. Fox 7
As posted earlier it is time for the party to elect Teresa unopposed and get on running the Country.
Agreed. Time to stop this nonsense.
A coronation is hardly a democratic debate.
Methinks the May supporters are a little too afraid of an open contest. Upstarts can be surprisingly popular....
If it goes to a membership ballot May vs A Leaver have to spend two months having a public debate about what renegotiation will look like. We just can't have that. We need a PM and we need one with some room for manoeuvre. This is a very, very dangerous situation.
Indeed. God forbid we actually talk about what type of Leave we want. In public. Ye Gods!
Lets get in the EEA and then discuss what we want our out to look like in the long term. I'm not alarmist by nature, but the uncertainty of our single market status will begin to cause damage soon. We need the issue resolved and May is the only one who will do it in the immediacy (Crabb too, but he won't win).
I don't see the rush - it is not as if we've triggered article 50.
I was initially of the same mind Max - but now see the benefit of having a 2 month cooling off period in which Europe gets itchy feet and starts to wonder out loud if we can be pro cake and pro eating it.
The price will be passporting rights. It's not an offer we want on the table because the PM will be forced to consider it and banker popularity is not exactly high.
We have been hearing quite a lot from people in the last day or two that passporting was not all it was cracked up to be, and that the Forex market for example couldnt give a damn about it.
Forex does not require passporting. But - to put this in context - Goldman Sachs has 6,000 staff in London. Including support staff and back-office, fewer than 50 are in forex.
Actually, in the last week Carswell and others on the Leave side repeatedly said that a small lead for leave was not a mandate for big change in our relationship. That sounds pretty much *exactly* like a pitch for EFTA/EEA.
We've also been repeatedly told that 'leave means leave'. It seems fairly clear from the campaigns what that meant wrt immigration. And it was not EEA / EFTA fudges.
I might be wrong: the public might just shrug and accept EFTA / EEA. But there will be many people who will not, and we will just go through the same thing again, with a UKIP-style campaign that blames all the ills of UK society on the 'others' because we did not adequately control immigration.
If we're going to take responsibility for our own country, then we need to do exactly that, without putting ourselves in a position where scum can continue to blame immigrants, the EU or 'others' for our own failures. And if that hurts your industry then so be it: it's already hurting the one I used to work in.
At last you've got the capital to move to another country if it all falls apart.
(Sorry, I'm fairly angry about this. I predicted it would happen, and it has.)
ok. I may have over-reached on the tory family coming back together
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorriesMP 2m2 minutes ago I am utterly astounded to discover that some MPs are actually backing Gove. Clearly, honesty and honour not a consideration for some.
The old girl needs a holiday, - before she says/does anything more stupid.
Maybe join UKIP and we take back Carswell - seems a good deal
Oh to me too! (as a kipper) - Done!
Which do you see as the best bit of that deal, getting rid of Carswell or receiving Nadine? Would you prefer a free transfer?
Hopefully Gove loses in the first or second round and Leadsom can be bought off leaving May and Crabb standing, then hopefully he bows out for a promotion.
With the declarations at 94 Theresa + 22 Crabb and the likelyhood most of those would go to Theresa it is to be hoped that wise heads in the party put the National interest first and nominate Theresa unopposed so that we can have a cabinet and government in place by the end of this month. Would be well received by the Country and the markets. The nonsense that has been going on needs to be put behind us
Hear, hear.
Yep, get on with it. If she has a commanding lead she's obviously going to win, this is not the time for three months of enjoyable dicking about.
Unopposed, what in all f**k? What is WRONG with you people?
See my other post. I mean just have one round and if she's way ahead (surely she will be) then that's good enough, the others should withdraw.
The only real rival was Boris, and now he's gone. None of the others have a chance, I don't think.
So the members, already pissed off with their MPs because a lot of them are careerists that lied about their euroscepticism are going to be happy to see the PCP stitch up a "remain" PM without asking them ? Seems optimistic.
I find it unbelievable that Leavers here are proposing to throw their hands up and give it to May without a membership vote. I mean, why? If she's well in the lead, good for her - she'll win. That's the idea. The testicular shrinkage on show here would baffle the medical profession.
The point is simply that if Theresa May is so far ahead when down to two, and the other candidate is offered a senior position, that candidate withdraws and we then have a government to please the country and markets and rid ourselves of this dangerous vacuum
Sorry but in that instance I don't see the harm in letting the democratic process play out so she's a legitimate winner.
Because you risk a chain reaction in the economy, as the uncertainty is prolonged; this will crash house prices, stifle growth, throw us into recession, cause a surge in unemployment, see half the City abandon ship, and inter alia, make the public think twice about the vote, and, by Christmas, decide that after all they'd rather like to REMAIN by a factor of 70/30, at which point Saint Theresa says she's not triggering A50, and we STAY.
Is that what you want? Cause it might happen.
This excellent list of reasons why Leave was a bad idea, comes from... a prime Leaver.
Éoin @LabourEoin 2h2 hours ago Latest indication now is all 3 prospective challengers against Corbyn have chickened out. This will forever be remembered as #ChickenCoup
Hopefully Gove loses in the first or second round and Leadsom can be bought off leaving May and Crabb standing, then hopefully he bows out for a promotion.
I really hate the idea of a coronation, especially on the Tory side.
But a competition is already in progress. This is nothing like the way Mr Brown was unopposed by anyone.
Greetings from Ljubljana. Already had half a dozen people ask about Brexit. Looks of horror on their faces when I said I voted leave! Usually I'm happy to discuss all day but how a brief minute or two summary did the trick!
With the declarations at 94 Theresa + 22 Crabb and the likelyhood most of those would go to Theresa it is to be hoped that wise heads in the party put the National interest first and nominate Theresa unopposed so that we can have a cabinet and government in place by the end of this month. Would be well received by the Country and the markets. The nonsense that has been going on needs to be put behind us
Hear, hear.
Yep, get on with it. If she has a commanding lead she's obviously going to win, this is not the time for three months of enjoyable dicking about.
Unopposed, what in all f**k? What is WRONG with you people?
See my other post. I mean just have one round and if she's way ahead (surely she will be) then that's good enough, the others should withdraw.
The only real rival was Boris, and now he's gone. None of the others have a chance, I don't think.
So the members, already pissed off with their MPs because a lot of them are careerists that lied about their euroscepticism are going to be happy to see the PCP stitch up a "remain" PM without asking them ? Seems optimistic.
I find it unbelievable that Leavers here are proposing to throw their hands up and give it to May without a membership vote. I mean, why? If she's well in the lead, good for her - she'll win. That's the idea. The testicular shrinkage on show here would baffle the medical profession.
The point is simply that if Theresa May is so far ahead when down to two, and the other candidate is offered a senior position, that candidate withdraws and we then have a government to please the country and markets and rid ourselves of this dangerous vacuum
Sorry but in that instance I don't see the harm in letting the democratic process play out so she's a legitimate winner.
Because you risk a chain reaction in the economy, as the uncertainty is prolonged; this will crash house prices, stifle growth, throw us into recession, cause a surge in unemployment, see half the City abandon ship, and inter alia, make the public think twice about the vote, and, by Christmas, decide that after all they'd rather like to REMAIN by a factor of 70/30, at which point Saint Theresa says she's not triggering A50, and we STAY.
Is that what you want? Cause it might happen.
For pity's sake. Even 'Stronger' 'IN' wouldn't have given house room to this drivel.
Financial services is the most regulated business on the planet. If I want to sell you an investment product, I need to be a regulated entity, and abide by certain rules.
So, as a fund manager in the UK, I can sell to you (a person in the UK) my investment products (i.e. a mutual fund).
If I wish to sell into the US or Switzerland, I need to either start a business in the US or Switzerland which does the selling (and which contains enough capital to satisfy the regulator, and abides by all the local rules) or I need to find a local partner to do the same.
So, we have an excellent Swiss partner who rebrands and sells our investment product to Swiss clients. But he takes about two-thirds of the revenue.
In the event of a Brexit vote where we went to WTO, we'd have to either find an EU based business to provide us with cover (and give up probably a third of the revenues), or we'd need to open a business in Luxemburg or Ireland, and provide it with plenty of capital. (Which would mean we wouldn't be paid for a couple of years.)
Financial passporting says: "If you are regulated by one financial services body in the EEA, you can sell to anyone, anywhere in the EEA." It makes being a small fund manager a huge amount easier.
Éoin @LabourEoin 2h2 hours ago Latest indication now is all 3 prospective challengers against Corbyn have chickened out. This will forever be remembered as #ChickenCoup
Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, is urging colleagues to step back from the brink in challenging Jeremy Corbyn, warning that a leadership election in which the incumbent stands again could cause untold damage to the party.
Watson is seeking to organise a meeting with Corbyn’s closest advisers to try to agree a negotiated settlement that would see the Labour leader step down voluntarily, thus avoiding an acrimonious and drawn-out battle.
Bottlers. They took it to the brink and he did not blink, if they step back now they are declaring themselves beaten and should leave the party or serve Corbyn loyally from now.
The Tories have given them a very public lesson on how to perform a ruthless defenestration.
When will Labour learn?
There is nothing good or admirable in the Tory election. Nothing you would wish to emulate.
We had a candidate who could win, but had huge doubts about him.
Labour goes out of their way to put him on the ballot, the Tories make sure he doesn't even get that close.
Ask Ma Beckett.
Also at least the Labour party haven't subjected the country to a daft referendum.
Bravo.
I would have expected @TheScreamingEagles and others on here who purport to understand politics to have a rudimentary grasp of Labour Party leadership rules. Yes, the rules are insane and need to be changed to the far superior Tory system yet nevertheless those are the rules and the PLP is bound by them unless and until someone sensible can get in there and change them.
May 94 .. Crabb 22 .. Gove 18 .. Leadsom 18 .. Fox 7
As posted earlier it is time for the party to elect Teresa unopposed and get on running the Country.
If May had a serious challenger I say no.
But presently it's like a 10,000 metre race with May a lap ahead and the others elbowing each off the track and looking suspiciously at Gove as he reaches for his ancestral skean dhu stuffed down his shorts.
If the Tories do give her the crown unopposed, she MUST call an election immediately, and not make the mistake Brown did. This would surely condemn Labour to their biggest ever electoral defeat.
It would be a masterstroke to have an election with Labour in the midst of a leadership contest.
A masterstroke of Osborne master strategist proportions?
Is that the same Osborne that Croby says could not strategise himself out of a paper bag?
With the declarations at 94 Theresa + 22 Crabb and the likelyhood most of those would go to Theresa it is to be hoped that wise heads in the party put the National interest first and nominate Theresa unopposed so that we can have a cabinet and government in place by the end of this month. Would be well received by the Country and the markets. The nonsense that has been going on needs to be put behind us
Hear, hear.
Yep, get on with it. If she has a commanding lead she's obviously going to win, this is not the time for three months of enjoyable dicking about.
Unopposed, what in all f**k? What is WRONG with you people?
See my other post. I mean just have one round and if she's way ahead (surely she will be) then that's good enough, the others should withdraw.
The only real rival was Boris, and now he's gone. None of the others have a chance, I don't think.
So the members, already pissed off with their MPs because a lot of them are careerists that lied about their euroscepticism are going to be happy to see the PCP stitch up a "remain" PM without asking them ? Seems optimistic.
I find it unbelievable that Leavers here are proposing to throw their hands up and give it to May without a membership vote. I mean, why? If she's well in the lead, good for her - she'll win. That's the idea. The testicular shrinkage on show here would baffle the medical profession.
The point is simply that if Theresa May is so far ahead when down to two, and the other candidate is offered a senior position, that candidate withdraws and we then have a government to please the country and markets and rid ourselves of this dangerous vacuum
Sorry but in that instance I don't see the harm in letting the democratic process play out so she's a legitimate winner.
The harm is being done to UK PLC - that must come first
I have seen less harm than I expected given the temporary uncertainty. I have seen a lot of histrionics on social and traditional media though - perhaps it's that to which you refer.
Financial services is the most regulated business on the planet. If I want to sell you an investment product, I need to be a regulated entity, and abide by certain rules.
So, as a fund manager in the UK, I can sell to you (a person in the UK) my investment products (i.e. a mutual fund).
If I wish to sell into the US or Switzerland, I need to either start a business in the US or Switzerland which does the selling (and which contains enough capital to satisfy the regulator, and abides by all the local rules) or I need to find a local partner to do the same.
So, we have an excellent Swiss partner who rebrands and sells our investment product to Swiss clients. But he takes about two-thirds of the revenue.
In the event of a Brexit vote where we went to WTO, we'd have to either find an EU based business to provide us with cover (and give up probably a third of the revenues), or we'd need to open a business in Luxemburg or Ireland, and provide it with plenty of capital. (Which would mean we wouldn't be paid for a couple of years.)
Financial passporting says: "If you are regulated by one financial services body in the EEA, you can sell to anyone, anywhere in the EEA." It makes being a small fund manager a huge amount easier.
Got you, thanks. EFTA therefore means that this goes away.
Looks like the small print of the EFTA renewable three monthly brake on movement and allowable changes to migrant benefits are going to be quite important.
This post is live from Aldi in Luton with Mrs Bedfordshire.
Yep, get on with it. If she has a commanding lead she's obviously going to win, this is not the time for three months of enjoyable dicking about.
Unopposed, what in all f**k? What is WRONG with you people?
See my other post. I mean just have one round and if she's way ahead (surely she will be) then that's good enough, the others should withdraw.
The only real rival was Boris, and now he's gone. None of the others have a chance, I don't think.
So the members, already pissed off with their MPs because a lot of them are careerists that lied about their euroscepticism are going to be happy to see the PCP stitch up a "remain" PM without asking them ? Seems optimistic.
I find it unbelievable that Leavers here are proposing to throw their hands up and give it to May without a membership vote. I mean, why? If she's well in the lead, good for her - she'll win. That's the idea. The testicular shrinkage on show here would baffle the medical profession.
The point is simply that if Theresa May is so far ahead when down to two, and the other candidate is offered a senior position, that candidate withdraws and we then have a government to please the country and markets and rid ourselves of this dangerous vacuum
Sorry but in that instance I don't see the harm in letting the democratic process play out so she's a legitimate winner.
Because you risk a chain reaction in the economy, as the uncertainty is prolonged; this will crash house prices, stifle growth, throw us into recession, cause a surge in unemployment, see half the City abandon ship, and inter alia, make the public think twice about the vote, and, by Christmas, decide that after all they'd rather like to REMAIN by a factor of 70/30, at which point Saint Theresa says she's not triggering A50, and we STAY.
Is that what you want? Cause it might happen.
That seems a possible outcome if UK PLC is perceived to be undergoing serious harm and that a large swing away from leaving could result in a HOC demanding that Section 50 is not served. Hollande said today on Sky that the UK would be welcomed back at anytime. Leavers need to be careful they do not overplay their hand. Anyway now to see Wales beat Belgium to add to Brussels depressiom
With the declarations at 94 Theresa + 22 Crabb and the likelyhood most of those would go to Theresa it is to be hoped that wise heads in the party put the National interest first and nominate Theresa unopposed so that we can have a cabinet and government in place by the end of this month. Would be well received by the Country and the markets. The nonsense that has been going on needs to be put behind us
Hear, hear.
Yep, get on with it. If she has a commanding lead she's obviously going to win, this is not the time for three months of enjoyable dicking about.
Unopposed, what in all f**k? What is WRONG with you people?
See my other post. I mean just have one round and if she's way ahead (surely she will be) then that's good enough, the others should withdraw.
The only real rival was Boris, and now he's gone. None of the others have a chance, I don't think.
So the members, already pissed off with their MPs because a lot of them are careerists that lied about their euroscepticism are going to be happy to see the PCP stitch up a "remain" PM without asking them ? Seems optimistic.
I find it unbelievable that Leavers here are proposing to throw their hands up and give it to May without a membership vote. I mean, why? If she's well in the lead, good for her - she'll win. That's the idea. The testicular shrinkage on show here would baffle the medical profession.
The point is simply that if Theresa May is so far ahead when down to two, and the other candidate is offered a senior position, that candidate withdraws and we then have a government to please the country and markets and rid ourselves of this dangerous vacuum
Sorry but in that instance I don't see the harm in letting the democratic process play out so she's a legitimate winner.
The harm is being done to UK PLC - that must come first
So why not skip all this tedious elections in the parliamentary party and just draw straws ? Clearly because you are not confident the straws would come up with the right answer. You seem equally concerned that the party membership wouldn't come up with the right answer!
Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, is urging colleagues to step back from the brink in challenging Jeremy Corbyn, warning that a leadership election in which the incumbent stands again could cause untold damage to the party.
Watson is seeking to organise a meeting with Corbyn’s closest advisers to try to agree a negotiated settlement that would see the Labour leader step down voluntarily, thus avoiding an acrimonious and drawn-out battle.
This is one amazing slow motion car crash. Surely even Watson knows that Jeremy isn't resigning now - why go through everything that happened this week only to step down anyway?
Someone needs to actually make the challenge, but no-one dares be the one who splits the party by triggering the contest that sees Corbyn win again. The sensible wing of the PLP might as well all resign now, they're getting deselected anyway and don't have a spine between the lot of them!
You clearly have no grasp of the situation in CLPs. Mass deselections are the stuff of Corbynite/Tory fantasy.
I dont think it will come to that. No need to deselect someone who has buggered off to SDP2.
With the declarations at 94 Theresa + 22 Crabb and the likelyhood most of those would go to Theresa it is to be hoped that wise heads in the party put the National interest first and nominate Theresa unopposed so that we can have a cabinet and government in place by the end of this month. Would be well received by the Country and the markets. The nonsense that has been going on needs to be put behind us
Hear, hear.
Yep, get on with it. If she has a commanding lead she's obviously going to win, this is not the time for three months of enjoyable dicking about.
Unopposed, what in all f**k? What is WRONG with you people?
See my other post. I mean just have one round and if she's way ahead (surely she will be) then that's good enough, the others should withdraw.
The only real rival was Boris, and now he's gone. None of the others have a chance, I don't think.
So the members, already pissed off with their MPs because a lot of them are careerists that lied about their euroscepticism are going to be happy to see the PCP stitch up a "remain" PM without asking them ? Seems optimistic.
I find it unbelievable that Leavers here are proposing to throw their hands up and give it to May without a membership vote. I mean, why? If she's well in the lead, good for her - she'll win. That's the idea. The testicular shrinkage on show here would baffle the medical profession.
The point is simpuntry and markets and rid ourselves of this dangerous vacuum
Sorry but in that instance I don't see the harm in letting the democratic process play out so she's a legitimate winner.
Because you risk a chain reaction in the economy, as the uncertainty is prolonged; this will crash house prices, stifle growth, throw us into recession, cause a surge in unemployment, see half the City abandon ship, and inter alia, make the public think twice about the vote, and, by Christmas, decide that after all they'd rather like to REMAIN by a factor of 70/30, at which point Saint Theresa says she's not triggering A50, and we STAY.
Is that what you want? Cause it might happen.
For pity's sake. Even 'Stronger' 'IN' wouldn't have given house room to this drivel.
Éoin @LabourEoin 2h2 hours ago Latest indication now is all 3 prospective challengers against Corbyn have chickened out. This will forever be remembered as #ChickenCoup
Because you risk a chain reaction in the economy, as the uncertainty is prolonged; this will crash house prices, stifle growth, throw us into recession, cause a surge in unemployment, see half the City abandon ship, and inter alia, make the public think twice about the vote, and, by Christmas, decide that after all they'd rather like to REMAIN by a factor of 70/30, at which point Saint Theresa says she's not triggering A50, and we STAY.
Is that what you want? Cause it might happen.
You should be on the rum by now and calming down!
The simple question is why do you feel (other than you think they might give the wrong answer) that the votes of the parliamentary party should happen, but the votes of the members shouldn't ? If the membership vote isn't important, the MPs vote isn't either, roll a dice!
ok. I may have over-reached on the tory family coming back together
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorriesMP 2m2 minutes ago I am utterly astounded to discover that some MPs are actually backing Gove. Clearly, honesty and honour not a consideration for some.
Isn't Nadine like the mad aunt who gets locked in the attic when she gets a bit too noisy?
Nadine can be a bit eccentric but she tells some truthful tales. She is certainly less nutty that the likes of Gove.
With the declarations at 94 Theresa + 22 Crabb and the likelyhood most of those would go to Theresa it is to be hoped that wise heads in the party put the National interest first and nominate Theresa unopposed so that we can have a cabinet and government in place by the end of this month. Would be well received by the Country and the markets. The nonsense that has been going on needs to be put behind us
Hear, hear.
Yep, get on with it. If she has a commanding lead she's obviously going to win, this is not the time for three months of enjoyable dicking about.
Unopposed, what in all f**k? What is WRONG with you people?
See my other post. I mean just have one round and if she's way ahead (surely she will be) then that's good enough, the others should withdraw.
The only real rival was Boris, and now he's gone. None of the others have a chance, I don't think.
So the members, already pissed off with their MPs because a lot of them are careerists that lied about their euroscepticism are going to be happy to see the PCP stitch up a "remain" PM without asking them ? Seems optimistic.
I find it unbelievable that Leavers here are proposing to throw their hands up and give it to May without a membership vote. I mean, why? If she's well in the lead, good for her - she'll win. That's the idea. The testicular shrinkage on show here would baffle the medical profession.
The point is simply that if Theresa May is so far ahead when down to two, and the other candidate is offered a senior position, that candidate withdraws and we then have a government to please the country and markets and rid ourselves of this dangerous vacuum
Sorry but in that instance I don't see the harm in letting the democratic process play out so she's a legitimate winner.
The harm is being done to UK PLC - that must come first
So why not skip all this tedious elections in the parliamentary party and just draw straws ? Clearly because you are not confident the straws would come up with the right answer. You seem equally concerned that the party membership wouldn't come up with the right answer!
Not at all - the membership will make the right decision if it comes to a membership vote
Éoin @LabourEoin 2h2 hours ago Latest indication now is all 3 prospective challengers against Corbyn have chickened out. This will forever be remembered as #ChickenCoup
Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, is urging colleagues to step back from the brink in challenging Jeremy Corbyn, warning that a leadership election in which the incumbent stands again could cause untold damage to the party.
Watson is seeking to organise a meeting with Corbyn’s closest advisers to try to agree a negotiated settlement that would see the Labour leader step down voluntarily, thus avoiding an acrimonious and drawn-out battle.
This is one amazing slow motion car crash. Surely even Watson knows that Jeremy isn't resigning now - why go through everything that happened this week only to step down anyway?
Someone needs to actually make the challenge, but no-one dares be the one who splits the party by triggering the contest that sees Corbyn win again. The sensible wing of the PLP might as well all resign now, they're getting deselected anyway and don't have a spine between the lot of them!
You clearly have no grasp of the situation in CLPs. Mass deselections are the stuff of Corbynite/Tory fantasy.
You're right that I'm not an expert in CLP Kremlinology, but the dissenters are clearly weakened if they half-challenge the leader and lose the membership vote again.
They are screwed if they chicken out. It is fight now or have their necks wrung.
We will see if the PLP really have backed off facing a guy who's only distinguishing characteristic on occasions seems to be that he has a deeply unsatisfactory beard.
They will surely get serious at some point, until then its plain hilarious.
If you believe as I do that Theresa May is as good as home and hosed in terms of becoming our next PM, then there may be some value in backing Chris Grayling, her campaign chief and leading Brexiteer to be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer, where Ladbrokes' recently re-launched market has him on offer at 12/1. Andrea Leadsom is their favourite, but looks no sort of value at a skinny 2/1. As ever, DYOR.
Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, is urging colleagues to step back from the brink in challenging Jeremy Corbyn, warning that a leadership election in which the incumbent stands again could cause untold damage to the party.
Watson is seeking to organise a meeting with Corbyn’s closest advisers to try to agree a negotiated settlement that would see the Labour leader step down voluntarily, thus avoiding an acrimonious and drawn-out battle.
This is one amazing slow motion car crash. Surely even Watson knows that Jeremy isn't resigning now - why go through everything that happened this week only to step down anyway?
Someone needs to actually make the challenge, but no-one dares be the one who splits the party by triggering the contest that sees Corbyn win again. The sensible wing of the PLP might as well all resign now, they're getting deselected anyway and don't have a spine between the lot of them!
You clearly have no grasp of the situation in CLPs. Mass deselections are the stuff of Corbynite/Tory fantasy.
You're right that I'm not an expert in CLP Kremlinology, but the dissenters are clearly weakened if they half-challenge the leader and lose the membership vote again.
They are screwed if they chicken out. It is fight now or have their necks wrung.
They should be made an example of. Like the EU should make an example of us !
ok. I may have over-reached on the tory family coming back together
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorriesMP 2m2 minutes ago I am utterly astounded to discover that some MPs are actually backing Gove. Clearly, honesty and honour not a consideration for some.
Isn't Nadine like the mad aunt who gets locked in the attic when she gets a bit too noisy?
Nadine can be a bit eccentric but she tells some truthful tales. She is certainly less nutty that the likes of Gove.
Gove did what needed to be done. Boris as PM would have been disastrous for Brexit. Gove has done a huge national service by making sure he doesn't get anywhere near power until it is too late for him to change anything.
Actually, in the last week Carswell and others on the Leave side repeatedly said that a small lead for leave was not a mandate for big change in our relationship. That sounds pretty much *exactly* like a pitch for EFTA/EEA.
We've also been repeatedly told that 'leave means leave'. It seems fairly clear from the campaigns what that meant wrt immigration. And it was not EEA / EFTA fudges.
I might be wrong: the public might just shrug and accept EFTA / EEA. But there will be many people who will not, and we will just go through the same thing again, with a UKIP-style campaign that blames all the ills of UK society on the 'others' because we did not adequately control immigration.
If we're going to take responsibility for our own country, then we need to do exactly that, without putting ourselves in a position where scum can continue to blame immigrants, the EU or 'others' for our own failures. And if that hurts your industry then so be it: it's already hurting the one I used to work in.
At last you've got the capital to move to another country if it all falls apart.
(Sorry, I'm fairly angry about this. I predicted it would happen, and it has.)
There's no point in crashing the economy so you can say Told you so, even more
Besides, moving to EEA is very definitely LEAVING, and will itself require quite a wrench. We will have no more MEPs, no more Commissioners, no more UK eurocrats, none of that. The 50-70% of UK law which is at present EU-derived will go down to 10%.
We'll be out of the CFP and CAP. Our contributions will likely fall. The ECJ's power over us will be hugely reduced.
As for immigration, as I keep saying, it's going to fall quite drastically anyway - particularly from the EU. There won't be lots of spare jobs for Romanians and Poles, unemployment is going to rise. Without a doubt. We may see net EMIGRATION for a year or two, which will take the issue entirely off the table.
Well I voted Leave and EEA is my favoured solution. (For the purposes of clarity, I'm agreeing with Sean rather than Jobias here). I understand the concerns about immigration from those whose wages are being kept down by it - realistically, that group includes me, although I'm fortunate enough not to be on the breadline, so it's not a concern I personally am going to die in a ditch for. But don't assume the Leave vote is entirely about immigration; it's not. Besides, unskilled immigration from the EU will fall significantly if we stop paying benefits to EU immigrants in the same way that we don't pay them to, say, Canadian immigrants (who as well as not being able to claim benefits have to take out health insurance to use the NHS). Mind you, I don't share Sean's certainty that unemployment is necessarily going to rise.
If you believe as I do that Theresa May is as good as home and hosed in terms of becoming our next PM, then there may be some value in backing Chris Grayling, her campaign chief and leading Brexiteer to be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer, where Ladbrokes' recently re-launched market has him on offer at 12/1. Andrea Leadsom is their favourite, but looks no sort of value at a skinny 2/1. As ever, DYOR.
There's no point in crashing the economy so you can say Told you so, even more
Besides, moving to EEA is very definitely LEAVING, and will itself require quite a wrench. We will have no more MEPs, no more Commissioners, no more UK eurocrats, none of that. The 50-70% of UK law which is at present EU-derived will go down to 10%.
We'll be out of the CFP and CAP. Our contributions will likely fall. The ECJ's power over us will be hugely reduced.
As for immigration, as I keep saying, it's going to fall quite drastically anyway - particularly from the EU. There won't be lots of spare jobs for Romanians and Poles, unemployment is going to rise. Without a doubt. We may see net EMIGRATION for a year or two, which will take the issue entirely off the table.
If the economy crashes, then it will be because the remain 'experts' were correct that that was what the leave campaigns would lead to. As you say, perversely an economic crash *will* reduce immigration.
This was one of the reasons I eventually and somewhat reluctantly voted remain: I believed that a full-leave would have severe consequences in the short and medium terms, whilst any fudge would be seen as an utter sell-out by most of the noisy people who've been campaigning for years (excluding a few people like Richard Tyndall). When EEA/EFTA left the table, as a small-c conservative I could not vote leave.
Then there are the monetary issues: I can see many leave voters not wanting a single pound to go to 'European' organisations such as EEA / EFTA, especially after the way payments to the EU became an issue in the campaign.
I'm sorry you've got buyer's regret. But that's no reason to sell-out the people who won.
Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, is urging colleagues to step back from the brink in challenging Jeremy Corbyn, warning that a leadership election in which the incumbent stands again could cause untold damage to the party.
Watson is seeking to organise a meeting with Corbyn’s closest advisers to try to agree a negotiated settlement that would see the Labour leader step down voluntarily, thus avoiding an acrimonious and drawn-out battle.
This is one amazing slow motion car crash. Surely even Watson knows that Jeremy isn't resigning now - why go through everything that happened this week only to step down anyway?
Someone needs to actually make the challenge, but no-one dares be the one who splits the party by triggering the contest that sees Corbyn win again. The sensible wing of the PLP might as well all resign now, they're getting deselected anyway and don't have a spine between the lot of them!
You clearly have no grasp of the situation in CLPs. Mass deselections are the stuff of Corbynite/Tory fantasy.
You're right that I'm not an expert in CLP Kremlinology, but the dissenters are clearly weakened if they half-challenge the leader and lose the membership vote again.
They are screwed if they chicken out. It is fight now or have their necks wrung.
Quite! They're too far along to spend the next however many years sitting meekly on the back benches, Corbyn and his henchmen will be gunning for the lot of them.
They need to either challenge him formally or resign the whip. A 170-strong SDP could do the vitally important job of holding the government to account, which nobody is doing right now.
Because you risk a chain reaction in the economy, as the uncertainty is prolonged; this will crash house prices, stifle growth, throw us into recession, cause a surge in unemployment, see half the City abandon ship, and inter alia, make the public think twice about the vote, and, by Christmas, decide that after all they'd rather like to REMAIN by a factor of 70/30, at which point Saint Theresa says she's not triggering A50, and we STAY.
Is that what you want? Cause it might happen.
Fotherington-Thomas Knox : "Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo BrExit, cripes this is bit scary, things might crash, or surge or go into a tail spin"
Nigel Farage Molesworth "Chiz, It waz going to b a bit roky in the furst week as any fule kno, stif uper lip old man"
By the way, having been away working for the last few weeks so limited in my time to do research, I never bothered chasing up about the stuff people have been saying about being able to permanently control migration whilst remaining in the EEA. I have always assumed that this simply involved Article 112 of the EEA Treaty but having actually bothered to go and find out about it now I see it does not.
Liechtenstein has a permanent opt out from freedom of movement in a specific amendment to the EEA treaty which allows it to operate a points quota system for immigration.
Personally I don't see any way that we would be able to get a similar amendment but I do at least now see what the advocates have been talking about.
ok. I may have over-reached on the tory family coming back together
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorriesMP 2m2 minutes ago I am utterly astounded to discover that some MPs are actually backing Gove. Clearly, honesty and honour not a consideration for some.
Isn't Nadine like the mad aunt who gets locked in the attic when she gets a bit too noisy?
Nadine can be a bit eccentric but she tells some truthful tales. She is certainly less nutty that the likes of Gove.
Gove did what needed to be done. Boris as PM would have been disastrous for Brexit. Gove has done a huge national service by making sure he doesn't get anywhere near power until it is too late for him to change anything.
And he won me £450. Thanks Michael, I'll buy you a drink if ever we meet
By the way, having been away working for the last few weeks so limited in my time to do research, I never bothered chasing up about the stuff people have been saying about being able to permanently control migration whilst remaining in the EEA. I have always assumed that this simply involved Article 112 of the EEA Treaty but having actually bothered to go and find out about it now I see it does not.
Liechtenstein has a permanent opt out from freedom of movement in a specific amendment to the EEA treaty which allows it to operate a points quota system for immigration.
Personally I don't see any way that we would be able to get a similar amendment but I do at least now see what the advocates have been talking about.
Ah, but it's a bit more complex. Leichenstein uses the points system for residence. But you are allowed to (and many people do) live across the border and work in Leichtenstein.
And now an Austrian presidential rerun. Surely Hofer will win the rerun? Those postal ballots in the first election were always suspicious. And it couldn't come at a worse time for the EU.
By the way, having been away working for the last few weeks so limited in my time to do research, I never bothered chasing up about the stuff people have been saying about being able to permanently control migration whilst remaining in the EEA. I have always assumed that this simply involved Article 112 of the EEA Treaty but having actually bothered to go and find out about it now I see it does not.
Liechtenstein has a permanent opt out from freedom of movement in a specific amendment to the EEA treaty which allows it to operate a points quota system for immigration.
Personally I don't see any way that we would be able to get a similar amendment but I do at least now see what the advocates have been talking about.
Ah, but it's a bit more complex. Leichenstein uses the points system for residence. But you are allowed to (and many people do) live across the border and work in Leichtenstein.
There's no point in crashing the economy so you can say Told you so, even more
Besi may see net EMIGRATION for a year or two, which will take the issue entirely off the table.
If the economy crashes, then it will be because the remain 'experts' were correct that that was what the leave campaigns would lead to. As you say, perversely an economic crash *will* reduce immigration.
This was one of the reasons I eventually and somewhat reluctantly voted remain: I believed that a full-leave would have severe consequences in the short and medium terms, whilst any fudge would be seen as an utter sell-out by most of the noisy people who've been campaigning for years (excluding a few people like Richard Tyndall). When EEA/EFTA left the table, as a small-c conservative I could not vote leave.
Then there are the monetary issues: I can see many leave voters not wanting a single pound to go to 'European' organisations such as EEA / EFTA, especially after the way payments to the EU became an issue in the campaign.
I'm sorry you've got buyer's regret. But that's no reason to sell-out the people who won.
FFS they voted LEAVE, we will LEAVE
You cannot discern any more than that. Yes immigration was key but so was sovereignty, for many. Some voted on fishing, some on vaping, some on tampon taxation. Moreover, 16m people - 48% - do not want to LEAVE at all, and this includes a majority in Scotland and Ulster, two of the four nations in the UK.
An equitable and politic solution, in that situation, is EEA, respecting the vote - we will LEAVE, but doing it in the way judged - by almost all - to be the least damaging.
And I don't have buyer's regret, it's gone 8pm.
I disagree for the reasons given before. But there's little point in continuing this, so:
Enjoy your drink, and pity those of us who have to forgo alcohol! Poor sods!
By the way, having been away working for the last few weeks so limited in my time to do research, I never bothered chasing up about the stuff people have been saying about being able to permanently control migration whilst remaining in the EEA. I have always assumed that this simply involved Article 112 of the EEA Treaty but having actually bothered to go and find out about it now I see it does not.
Liechtenstein has a permanent opt out from freedom of movement in a specific amendment to the EEA treaty which allows it to operate a points quota system for immigration.
Personally I don't see any way that we would be able to get a similar amendment but I do at least now see what the advocates have been talking about.
Ah, but it's a bit more complex. Leichenstein uses the points system for residence. But you are allowed to (and many people do) live across the border and work in Leichtenstein.
Yep. As I say I don't think it is a system that would work for the UK. I just wanted to see what they had been going on about as I had mistakenly thought it was just about Article 112 and an emergency brake rather than a permanent amendment to the EEA Agreement.
Read Ambrose Evans Pritchard on this. He's very good. He voted LEAVE, reluctantly (like me), and he said before the vote that if Brexit was handled badly it could go spectacularly wrong: absolute catastrophe. And he's a LEAVER.
This is what we risk.
Your not serious, Ambrose "Hyperbole" Prichard, the same financial journo that everyone take the piss out of here because he is never knowingly right about anything ?
"I have seen less harm than I expected given the temporary uncertainty. I have seen a lot of histrionics on social and traditional media though - perhaps it's that to which you refer."
***
FFS, it's week one, you idiotic gargoyle
Credit Suisse has changed its predictions UK growth from 2.4% to -1% next year. That's the first year of Brexit. The year after could be -2%, or -5%, who knows. No one.
Read Ambrose Evans Pritchard on this. He's very good. He voted LEAVE, reluctantly (like me), and he said before the vote that if Brexit was handled badly it could go spectacularly wrong: absolute catastrophe. And he's a LEAVER.
This is what we risk.
The catastrophe lies in the money haemorrhaging, debt-drunk, producing shit all, state of our economy Sean, the FUNDAMENTALS of our economy. We can no more stave off recession by staying in the EU than we could cure our original economical travails by joining it.
Because fundamentally, all the EU does for us, all it has ever done, has reduced tariffs a bit on exporting to Europe and importing from it. Paying a bit less for a tub of taramasalata. That is IT - to set against the hideous burdensome ugly nature of the albatross it has become.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, whilst almost universally wrong, is of course correct that Brexit needs to be handled well. That's why I feel it should be handled by a genuine Leaver who actually wants it to succeed rather than a time-server who can't even keep a pledge she made in a speech a few weeks ago.
By the way, having been away working for the last few weeks so limited in my time to do research, I never bothered chasing up about the stuff people have been saying about being able to permanently control migration whilst remaining in the EEA. I have always assumed that this simply involved Article 112 of the EEA Treaty but having actually bothered to go and find out about it now I see it does not.
Liechtenstein has a permanent opt out from freedom of movement in a specific amendment to the EEA treaty which allows it to operate a points quota system for immigration.
Personally I don't see any way that we would be able to get a similar amendment but I do at least now see what the advocates have been talking about.
Ah, but it's a bit more complex. Leichenstein uses the points system for residence. But you are allowed to (and many people do) live across the border and work in Leichtenstein.
There's no point in crashing the economy so you can say Told you so, even more
Besi may see net EMIGRATION for a year or two, which will take the issue entirely off the table.
If the economy crashes, then it will be because the remain 'experts' were correct that that was what the leave campaigns would lead to. As you say, perversely an economic crash *will* reduce immigration.
This was one of the reasons I eventually and somewhat reluctantly voted remain: I believed that a full-leave would have severe consequences in the short and medium terms, whilst any fudge would be seen as an utter sell-out by most of the noisy people who've been campaigning for years (excluding a few people like Richard Tyndall). When EEA/EFTA left the table, as a small-c conservative I could not vote leave.
Then there are the monetary issues: I can see many leave voters not wanting a single pound to go to 'European' organisations such as EEA / EFTA, especially after the way payments to the EU became an issue in the campaign.
I'm sorry you've got buyer's regret. But that's no reason to sell-out the people who won.
FFS they voted LEAVE, we will LEAVE
You cannot discern any more than that. Yes immigration was key but so was sovereignty, for many. Some voted on fishing, some on vaping, some on tampon taxation. Moreover, 16m people - 48% - do not want to LEAVE at all, and this includes a majority in Scotland and Ulster, two of the four nations in the UK.
An equitable and politic solution, in that situation, is EEA, respecting the vote - we will LEAVE, but doing it in the way judged - by almost all - to be the least damaging.
And I don't have buyer's regret, it's gone 8pm.
...
Enjoy your drink, and pity those of us who have to forgo alcohol! Poor sods!
My dear chap, I had no idea your illness was so bad. Can you not get a second opinion? Happened to a chum of mine: after his operation the quacks put him on tablets and said no drinkies - he went private and the new consultant put him on different tablets and said carry on. He is now playing 18 holes three-times a week.
There's no point in crashing the economy so you can say Told you so, even more
Besides, moving to EEA is very definitely LEAVING, and will itself require quite a wrench. We will have no more MEPs, no more Commissioners, no more UK eurocrats, none of that. The 50-70% of UK law which is at present EU-derived will go down to 10%.
We'll be out of the CFP and CAP. Our contributions will likely fall. The ECJ's power over us will be hugely reduced.
As for immigration, as I keep saying, it's going to fall quite drastically anyway - particularly from the EU. There won't be lots of spare jobs for Romanians and Poles, unemployment is going to rise. Without a doubt. We may see net EMIGRATION for a year or two, which will take the issue entirely off the table.
If the economy crashes, then it will be because the remain 'experts' were correct that that was what the leave campaigns would lead to. As you say, perversely an economic crash *will* reduce immigration.
This was one of the reasons I eventually and somewhat reluctantly voted remain: I believed that a full-leave would have severe consequences in the short and medium terms, whilst any fudge would be seen as an utter sell-out by most of the noisy people who've been campaigning for years (excluding a few people like Richard Tyndall). When EEA/EFTA left the table, as a small-c conservative I could not vote leave.
Then there are the monetary issues: I can see many leave voters not wanting a single pound to go to 'European' organisations such as EEA / EFTA, especially after the way payments to the EU became an issue in the campaign.
I'm sorry you've got buyer's regret. But that's no reason to sell-out the people who won.
Er well yes, he has got buyer's remorse, which I think he has admitted numerous times, but at least he has the cojones to admit it.
In any case, wantonly destroying our economy because we are unwilling to compromise with the sensible wing (yes, I mean SeanT!) of the Leave bloc is downright idiotic, and destructively irresponsible. We are where we are, ergo we must go for EEA and make the best of this fucking fiasco.
There's no point in crashing the economy so you can say Told you so, even more
Besi may see net EMIGRATION for a year or two, which will take the issue entirely off the table.
If the economy crashes, then it will be because the remain 'experts' were correct that that was what the leave campaigns would lead to. As you say, perversely an economic crash *will* reduce immigration.
This was one of the reasons I eventually and somewhat reluctantly voted remain: I believed that a full-leave would have severe consequences in the short and medium terms, whilst any fudge would be seen as an utter sell-out by most of the noisy people who've been campaigning for years (excluding a few people like Richard Tyndall). When EEA/EFTA left the table, as a small-c conservative I could not vote leave.
Then there are the monetary issues: I can see many leave voters not wanting a single pound to go to 'European' organisations such as EEA / EFTA, especially after the way payments to the EU became an issue in the campaign.
I'm sorry you've got buyer's regret. But that's no reason to sell-out the people who won.
FFS they voted LEAVE, we will LEAVE
You cannot discern any more than that. Yes immigration was key but so was sovereignty, for many. Some voted on fishing, some on vaping, some on tampon taxation. Moreover, 16m people - 48% - do not want to LEAVE at all, and this includes a majority in Scotland and Ulster, two of the four nations in the UK.
An equitable and politic solution, in that situation, is EEA, respecting the vote - we will LEAVE, but doing it in the way judged - by almost all - to be the least damaging.
And I don't have buyer's regret, it's gone 8pm.
...
Enjoy your drink, and pity those of us who have to forgo alcohol! Poor sods!
My dear chap, I had no idea your illness was so bad. Can you not get a second opinion? Happened to a chum of mine: after his operation the quacks put him on tablets and said no drinkies - he went private and the new consultant put him on different tablets and said carry on. He is now playing 18 holes three-times a week.
My medication doesn't allow it. Beside the boss thinks that even having a teeny glass of wine isn't a good idea when the problem's with my head (no jokes needed - I've heard them all already).
Today's been slightly stressful; the sort of day when a drink would help me unwind. But I'd better not.
Still, on the bright side all the money I'm saving on alcohol is going into Robert's bank account. He'll be a rich boy if I keep this up until he's 18 .
There's no point in crashing the economy so you can say Told you so, even more
Besides, moving to EEA is very definitely LEAVING, and will itself require quite a wrench. We will have no more MEPs, no more Commissioners, no more UK eurocrats, none of that. The 50-70% of UK law which is at present EU-derived will go down to 10%.
We'll be out of the CFP and CAP. Our contributions will likely fall. The ECJ's power over us will be hugely reduced.
As for immigration, as I keep saying, it's going to fall quite drastically anyway - particularly from the EU. There won't be lots of spare jobs for Romanians and Poles, unemployment is going to rise. Without a doubt. We may see net EMIGRATION for a year or two, which will take the issue entirely off the table.
If the economy crashes, then it will be because the remain 'experts' were correct that that was what the leave campaigns would lead to. As you say, perversely an economic crash *will* reduce immigration.
This was one of the reasons I eventually and somewhat reluctantly voted remain: I believed that a full-leave would have severe consequences in the short and medium terms, whilst any fudge would be seen as an utter sell-out by most of the noisy people who've been campaigning for years (excluding a few people like Richard Tyndall). When EEA/EFTA left the table, as a small-c conservative I could not vote leave.
Then there are the monetary issues: I can see many leave voters not wanting a single pound to go to 'European' organisations such as EEA / EFTA, especially after the way payments to the EU became an issue in the campaign.
I'm sorry you've got buyer's regret. But that's no reason to sell-out the people who won.
Er well yes, he has got buyer's remorse, which I think he has admitted numerous times, but at least he has the cojones to admit it.
In any case, wantonly destroying our economy because we are unwilling to compromise with the sensible wing (yes, I mean SeanT!) of the Leave bloc is downright idiotic, and destructively irresponsible. We are where we are, ergo we must go for EEA and make the best of this fucking fiasco.
I think we'll take advice on what is and isn't an economic fiasco by a Labour supporter with a pinch of salt shall we?
Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, is urging colleagues to step back from the brink in challenging Jeremy Corbyn, warning that a leadership election in which the incumbent stands again could cause untold damage to the party.
Watson is seeking to organise a meeting with Corbyn’s closest advisers to try to agree a negotiated settlement that would see the Labour leader step down voluntarily, thus avoiding an acrimonious and drawn-out battle.
This is one amazing slow motion car crash. Surely even Watson knows that Jeremy isn't resigning now - why go through everything that happened this week only to step down anyway?
Someone needs to actually make the challenge, but no-one dares be the one who splits the party by triggering the contest that sees Corbyn win again. The sensible wing of the PLP might as well all resign now, they're getting deselected anyway and don't have a spine between the lot of them!
You clearly have no grasp of the situation in CLPs. Mass deselections are the stuff of Corbynite/Tory fantasy.
You're right that I'm not an expert in CLP Kremlinology, but the dissenters are clearly weakened if they half-challenge the leader and lose the membership vote again.
Again, I ask what you would have done differently...?*
*I accept that the rules are stupid, and Labour should change to the Tory system, which is far superior, but nevertheless that is the game they are in, for now.
Comments
I think Don is wrong I think Jezza will win.
After my MPs outrageous statement last night that it is not legitimate for Corbyn to stand and that the Labour group would not accept a Corbyn win I will definitely vote Corbyn now whoever the other candidates are.
I had said there were 2 other candidates i would prefer but after that no way am i having PLP dictating the leader.
BTW £9 spent today by the other 3 Lab voters in my house today.
4 Jezza votes from us.
* Anonymised Random Selection of Electors for Conmen, Orators and Nastyparty?
In terms of immigration, we don't know that it would be FoM as we currently have it. That's negotiable. It's not just the UK that's looking at FoM.
If the economic shock is as bad as some Remainers are predicting, immigration will fall naturally.
I'm not going to try and persuade you that it's not bait and switch. I just don't know what the outcome of the negotiation will be.
The cremasteric reflex is a well documented response to fear:
Note link is NSFW!
https://sexual-communication.wikispaces.com/Cremasteric+Reflex
And that's from someone who thought Gove would have been good.
He needed to get someone else to demolish Boris.
Most unsporting whilst your opponent has all the electoral life of a corpse. No.
Mrs JackW has banned all mention of my august organ until further notice.
As of Friday at 7.30pm many within Labour at Westminster are clearly not sure they can take Corbyn and his doorstepping brown shirts out in a contest.
Its a s**t show and an indication of how poor they are about understanding their own membership or they just have no fortitude.
I always admired the numerological precision of the countdown.
I understand the need to follow instruction though. It is when they stop worrying about you that you need to worry yourself!
I would have expected @TheScreamingEagles and others on here who purport to understand politics to have a rudimentary grasp of Labour Party leadership rules. Yes, the rules are insane and need to be changed to the far superior Tory system yet nevertheless those are the rules and the PLP is bound by them unless and until someone sensible can get in there and change them.
Perhaps the master strategists @TheScreamingEagles @Sandpit and @Jason could share with us what they would have done differently?
It's the equivalent of the Tories nominating/electing a Monday Clubber
I might be wrong: the public might just shrug and accept EFTA / EEA. But there will be many people who will not, and we will just go through the same thing again, with a UKIP-style campaign that blames all the ills of UK society on the 'others' because we did not adequately control immigration.
If we're going to take responsibility for our own country, then we need to do exactly that, without putting ourselves in a position where scum can continue to blame immigrants, the EU or 'others' for our own failures. And if that hurts your industry then so be it: it's already hurting the one I used to work in.
At last you've got the capital to move to another country if it all falls apart.
(Sorry, I'm fairly angry about this. I predicted it would happen, and it has.)
Would you prefer a free transfer?
Nice one!
Latest indication now is all 3 prospective challengers against Corbyn have chickened out. This will forever be remembered as #ChickenCoup
(Good evening, everyone)
So, as a fund manager in the UK, I can sell to you (a person in the UK) my investment products (i.e. a mutual fund).
If I wish to sell into the US or Switzerland, I need to either start a business in the US or Switzerland which does the selling (and which contains enough capital to satisfy the regulator, and abides by all the local rules) or I need to find a local partner to do the same.
So, we have an excellent Swiss partner who rebrands and sells our investment product to Swiss clients. But he takes about two-thirds of the revenue.
In the event of a Brexit vote where we went to WTO, we'd have to either find an EU based business to provide us with cover (and give up probably a third of the revenues), or we'd need to open a business in Luxemburg or Ireland, and provide it with plenty of capital. (Which would mean we wouldn't be paid for a couple of years.)
Financial passporting says: "If you are regulated by one financial services body in the EEA, you can sell to anyone, anywhere in the EEA." It makes being a small fund manager a huge amount easier.
Looks like the small print of the EFTA renewable three monthly brake on movement and allowable changes to migrant benefits are going to be quite important.
This post is live from Aldi in Luton with Mrs Bedfordshire.
Yep, get on with it. If she has a commanding lead she's obviously going to win, this is not the time for three months of enjoyable dicking about.
Unopposed, what in all f**k? What is WRONG with you people?
See my other post. I mean just have one round and if she's way ahead (surely she will be) then that's good enough, the others should withdraw.
The only real rival was Boris, and now he's gone. None of the others have a chance, I don't think.
So the members, already pissed off with their MPs because a lot of them are careerists that lied about their euroscepticism are going to be happy to see the PCP stitch up a "remain" PM without asking them ? Seems optimistic.
I find it unbelievable that Leavers here are proposing to throw their hands up and give it to May without a membership vote. I mean, why? If she's well in the lead, good for her - she'll win. That's the idea. The testicular shrinkage on show here would baffle the medical profession.
The point is simply that if Theresa May is so far ahead when down to two, and the other candidate is offered a senior position, that candidate withdraws and we then have a government to please the country and markets and rid ourselves of this dangerous vacuum
Sorry but in that instance I don't see the harm in letting the democratic process play out so she's a legitimate winner.
Because you risk a chain reaction in the economy, as the uncertainty is prolonged; this will crash house prices, stifle growth, throw us into recession, cause a surge in unemployment, see half the City abandon ship, and inter alia, make the public think twice about the vote, and, by Christmas, decide that after all they'd rather like to REMAIN by a factor of 70/30, at which point Saint Theresa says she's not triggering A50, and we STAY.
Is that what you want? Cause it might happen.
That seems a possible outcome if UK PLC is perceived to be undergoing serious harm and that a large swing away from leaving could result in a HOC demanding that Section 50 is not served. Hollande said today on Sky that the UK would be welcomed back at anytime. Leavers need to be careful they do not overplay their hand. Anyway now to see Wales beat Belgium to add to Brussels depressiom
You pass port to the left ....
Just a need to defeat them electorally
The simple question is why do you feel (other than you think they might give the wrong answer) that the votes of the parliamentary party should happen, but the votes of the members shouldn't ? If the membership vote isn't important, the MPs vote isn't either, roll a dice!
They will surely get serious at some point, until then its plain hilarious.
If you believe as I do that Theresa May is as good as home and hosed in terms of becoming our next PM, then there may be some value in backing Chris Grayling, her campaign chief and leading Brexiteer to be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer, where Ladbrokes' recently re-launched market has him on offer at 12/1. Andrea Leadsom is their favourite, but looks no sort of value at a skinny 2/1.
As ever, DYOR.
Besides, unskilled immigration from the EU will fall significantly if we stop paying benefits to EU immigrants in the same way that we don't pay them to, say, Canadian immigrants (who as well as not being able to claim benefits have to take out health insurance to use the NHS).
Mind you, I don't share Sean's certainty that unemployment is necessarily going to rise.
This was one of the reasons I eventually and somewhat reluctantly voted remain: I believed that a full-leave would have severe consequences in the short and medium terms, whilst any fudge would be seen as an utter sell-out by most of the noisy people who've been campaigning for years (excluding a few people like Richard Tyndall). When EEA/EFTA left the table, as a small-c conservative I could not vote leave.
Then there are the monetary issues: I can see many leave voters not wanting a single pound to go to 'European' organisations such as EEA / EFTA, especially after the way payments to the EU became an issue in the campaign.
I'm sorry you've got buyer's regret. But that's no reason to sell-out the people who won.
They need to either challenge him formally or resign the whip. A 170-strong SDP could do the vitally important job of holding the government to account, which nobody is doing right now.
Nigel Farage Molesworth "Chiz, It waz going to b a bit roky in the furst week as any fule kno, stif uper lip old man"
Liechtenstein has a permanent opt out from freedom of movement in a specific amendment to the EEA treaty which allows it to operate a points quota system for immigration.
Personally I don't see any way that we would be able to get a similar amendment but I do at least now see what the advocates have been talking about.
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86122
Good to see Britain is still in Euro 2016.
I think England could go for that...
Enjoy your drink, and pity those of us who have to forgo alcohol! Poor sods!
Because fundamentally, all the EU does for us, all it has ever done, has reduced tariffs a bit on exporting to Europe and importing from it. Paying a bit less for a tub of taramasalata. That is IT - to set against the hideous burdensome ugly nature of the albatross it has become.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, whilst almost universally wrong, is of course correct that Brexit needs to be handled well. That's why I feel it should be handled by a genuine Leaver who actually wants it to succeed rather than a time-server who can't even keep a pledge she made in a speech a few weeks ago.
Liechtenstein
Belgium are staggeringly good
In any case, wantonly destroying our economy because we are unwilling to compromise with the sensible wing (yes, I mean SeanT!) of the Leave bloc is downright idiotic, and destructively irresponsible. We are where we are, ergo we must go for EEA and make the best of this fucking fiasco.
Today's been slightly stressful; the sort of day when a drink would help me unwind. But I'd better not.
Still, on the bright side all the money I'm saving on alcohol is going into Robert's bank account. He'll be a rich boy if I keep this up until he's 18 .
*I accept that the rules are stupid, and Labour should change to the Tory system, which is far superior, but nevertheless that is the game they are in, for now.