Why did the governing group stir up the issue of existing migrants? New Government policy making after the referendum, has got off to a deeply unimpressive start with this bargaining chip approach to present migrants. It was announced by Mrs May on Sunday and then repeated by Hammond etc yesterday. But by the end of the day back tracking started and a more emollient tone was being used in the face of opposition from LEAVErs and Labour REMAINers. A problem in that the established civil service and current Govt continue to make basic errors. Messrs May, Hammond, Osborne, Sir Humphries etc remain out of touch. Maybe a full clear out is required? What I do not yet see is any intensive focus in the media on this obvious blunder and asking where the buck stops for that.
I think the Government line yesterday was sensible. One of the problems of having a transparent leadership election is that all the prospective PMs are disclosing their negotiating positions, which will undermine their ability to bargain after A50. Keeping all options open is the only way to approach things at present in my view. And to those people who think it is unfair to use EU citizens as a 'bargaining chip' (and it does seem uncivilised at best) I would point out that we've already heard EU leaders say they won't negotiate on free movement of people - which is simply another way of using human beings as a bargaining chip.
To me and people such as Andrea Leadsom it is just immoral. We also need to attract the best to our country, not the worst.
It's a stance that will lose her at least one vote if she makes the final two.
It's all going to come down to whether Conservative members are looking to select the person who is most fit in the round to be Prime Minister or the person who is most sound on the subject of the EU. .
For very obvious reasons, except to a Labour remainer, those two are inseparable. 17.5 million people voted to leave the EU. The next British Prime Minister needs to be staggeringly competent on the subject.
So far this week I've been told that I'm a Lib Dem and now a Labour supporter. I'm hoping I'm going to complete the full set before the week is out, though I might struggle to get anyone to label me a kipper.
Voting finishes at 6pm. Why it takes an hour to count 330 votes is something of a mystery. They should have word with Sunderland....
Because IIRC only one person counts the votes: the chairman of the 1922 committee, Graham Brady.
One hour to count 330 votes still sounds a long time, even if there is only one counter and he stops halfway through for a cup of tea and a biscuit. Perhaps one of the wealthier pb-ers could head down to the bank and withdraw 330 crisp tenners, and let us know.
Counting 330 of the exact same thing is quicker than reading and counting 330 different things. It would be more like having 330 £10 notes that were randomly sampled from Bank of England £10, Bank of Scotland £10, Royal Bank of Scotland £10, Clydesdale Bank £10 and Bank of Ireland £10 and then counting how many of each there were.
Oh come on! My 10-year-old could do all that in considerably less than an hour - and still have time for a couple of rounds of Top Trumps.
It's plausible to suppose that the candidates might get a heads up prior to the public announcement, to allow them to marshal their thoughts, plans, or in Fox's case, graceful withdrawal speeches etc.
It's all going to come down to whether Conservative members are looking to select the person who is most fit in the round to be Prime Minister or the person who is most sound on the subject of the EU. That the second is even potentially relevant shows just how crazed the electorate is.
Given that negotiating with the EU is by far now the single most important issue of the next two+ years it seems entirely reasonable to make it a consideration.
Which I would not have said ever before, but the facts have changed. Until a new deal is negotated this has to be the number one priority and so the best candidate to be PM will surely be the best candidate to get the best deal "on the subject of the EU".
Your definition of what is best may vary, but the importance of the subject surely should not be underestimated.
Which is why we need someone who is pragmatic and doesn't have pre-determined red lines. If we get an ideologically pure type as PM who has said we will leave FoM come what may then there will be a very high price to pay for that, if we have someone who isn't bothered but is able to manoeuvre some restrictions on FoM in return for reciprocal restrictions we'll be in a better position.
FoM is seen in Brussels as one of the foundations of the union, without it, they say, the EU will crumble. If the UK were to be given three out of the four freedoms then the EU probably is finished. We need someone who can negotiate our way into getting 3.8/4 freedoms and then make changes to the benefits system so that the draw of our overly generous in working and housing benefits stops pulling people in.
In order to negotiate 3.8 freedoms then we need someone who goes to the EU saying "three freedoms only" as their starting point and negotiate from there.
If we send someone who says "four freedoms" then we will negotiate four freedoms with no wriggle room as they will have no reason to compromise.
Only someone demanding as a starting point an end to freedom of movement can negotiate a deal with a slightly restricted but still existing freedom of movement. A good negotiator never opens up with their bottom line.
There's a difference between calling free movement a red line and being flexible. Leadsom from all I've read and heard will take us out of the single market and deny a free trade deal in order to stop free movement. I find that to be an inflexible position.
Voting finishes at 6pm. Why it takes an hour to count 330 votes is something of a mystery. They should have word with Sunderland....
Because IIRC only one person counts the votes: the chairman of the 1922 committee, Graham Brady.
One hour to count 330 votes still sounds a long time, even if there is only one counter and he stops halfway through for a cup of tea and a biscuit. Perhaps one of the wealthier pb-ers could head down to the bank and withdraw 330 crisp tenners, and let us know.
Counting 330 of the exact same thing is quicker than reading and counting 330 different things. It would be more like having 330 £10 notes that were randomly sampled from Bank of England £10, Bank of Scotland £10, Royal Bank of Scotland £10, Clydesdale Bank £10 and Bank of Ireland £10 and then counting how many of each there were.
Oh come on! My 10-year-old could do all that in considerably less than an hour - and still have time for a couple of rounds of Top Trumps.
My guess is that the time gap is also a chance for the contenders to refine their next steps in the contest (or their losing speech, in the case of Fox!) Incidentally does anyone know what happens in the event of tie for last place?
Oh come on! My 10-year-old could do all that in considerably less than an hour - and still have time for a couple of rounds of Top Trumps.
Would love to score Tory MPs like on Top Trumps. What categories would we have? CONSERVATISM INTELLIGENCE BRAVERY INSANITY RATING EUROPHOBIA SKIN THICKNESS etc
Hovercraft boss: Brexit vote has 'brought new inquiries'
The recent fall in the value of the British pound has been taken by many as terrible economic news. But for British companies which are export-focused, it has been a gift because it's made their goods cheaper abroad.
The British Hovercraft Company, based in Kent, has reported a wave of new inquiries from abroad over the past week.
Its owner, Emma Pullen, is now planning a worldwide export drive, saying Brexit has opened up a "brave new world" for UK exporters.
Who could have predicted that a falling pound could be good for exporters or that there's nations to export to outside our continent?
In order to negotiate 3.8 freedoms then we need someone who goes to the EU saying "three freedoms only" as their starting point and negotiate from there.
If we send someone who says "four freedoms" then we will negotiate four freedoms with no wriggle room as they will have no reason to compromise.
Only someone demanding as a starting point an end to freedom of movement can negotiate a deal with a slightly restricted but still existing freedom of movement. A good negotiator never opens up with their bottom line.
There's a difference between calling free movement a red line and being flexible. Leadsom from all I've read and heard will take us out of the single market and deny a free trade deal in order to stop free movement. I find that to be an inflexible position.
It takes a clairvoyant to know how anyone will end negotiations, but to start them a good negotiator starts by showing inflexibility. It is precisely what the EU is doing.
Have you ever struck a hard bargain in real life? You have to appear willing to walk away (even if you're not) in order to get the best deal possible.
If we are the only ones showing flexibility, we will be screwed over royally.
Hovercraft boss: Brexit vote has 'brought new inquiries'
The recent fall in the value of the British pound has been taken by many as terrible economic news. But for British companies which are export-focused, it has been a gift because it's made their goods cheaper abroad.
The British Hovercraft Company, based in Kent, has reported a wave of new inquiries from abroad over the past week.
Its owner, Emma Pullen, is now planning a worldwide export drive, saying Brexit has opened up a "brave new world" for UK exporters.
Who could have predicted that a falling pound could be good for exporters or that there's nations to export to outside our continent?
We need to head in to the € immediately, and lock in this competitiveness
Oh come on! My 10-year-old could do all that in considerably less than an hour - and still have time for a couple of rounds of Top Trumps.
Would love to score Tory MPs like on Top Trumps. What categories would we have? CONSERVATISM INTELLIGENCE BRAVERY INSANITY RATING EUROPHOBIA SKIN THICKNESS etc
I thought of something like that as I was writing about Top Trumps. A set of MP or Politician "Top Trumps" could make a nice little stocking-filler for certain political obsessives. I wouldn't mind one myself.
Voting finishes at 6pm. Why it takes an hour to count 330 votes is something of a mystery. They should have word with Sunderland....
Because IIRC only one person counts the votes: the chairman of the 1922 committee, Graham Brady.
One hour to count 330 votes still sounds a long time, even if there is only one counter and he stops halfway through for a cup of tea and a biscuit. Perhaps one of the wealthier pb-ers could head down to the bank and withdraw 330 crisp tenners, and let us know.
Counting 330 of the exact same thing is quicker than reading and counting 330 different things. It would be more like having 330 £10 notes that were randomly sampled from Bank of England £10, Bank of Scotland £10, Royal Bank of Scotland £10, Clydesdale Bank £10 and Bank of Ireland £10 and then counting how many of each there were.
Oh come on! My 10-year-old could do all that in considerably less than an hour - and still have time for a couple of rounds of Top Trumps.
@DearPB has it right. The actual counting should take 20 minutes; letting the candidates know in advance and give them a chance to think about their response is perfectly sensible.
It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to arrive at a final position like:
1. UK joins EEA with five year quota system for EU nationals. 2. UK undertakes to reform domestic welfare system on a contributory basis. 3. UK reinstates freedom of movement with built in discouragement for unskilled migration.
Yes, we could have done this while staying within the EU. Talk to Cameron.
I have missed out step 2a) which is the UK Twittersphere exploding with Lefty outrage (and possibly 2b) where the UK government fails to pass legislation).
Why did the governing group stir up the issue of existing migrants? New Government policy making after the referendum, has got off to a deeply unimpressive start with this bargaining chip approach to present migrants. It was announced by Mrs May on Sunday and then repeated by Hammond etc yesterday. But by the end of the day back tracking started and a more emollient tone was being used in the face of opposition from LEAVErs and Labour REMAINers. A problem in that the established civil service and current Govt continue to make basic errors. Messrs May, Hammond, Osborne, Sir Humphries etc remain out of touch. Maybe a full clear out is required? What I do not yet see is any intensive focus in the media on this obvious blunder and asking where the buck stops for that.
I think the Government line yesterday was sensible. One of the problems of having a transparent leadership election is that all the prospective PMs are disclosing their negotiating positions, which will undermine their ability to bargain after A50. Keeping all options open is the only way to approach things at present in my view.
And to those people who think it is unfair to use EU citizens as a 'bargaining chip' (and it does seem uncivilised at best) I would point out that we've already heard EU leaders say they won't negotiate on free movement of people - which is simply another way of using human beings as a bargaining chip.
? This is not going to be a sealed bids auction. The EU nation states knowing the UK's position, and understanding the political importance of that position, would be a good thing.
This is a negotiation, if they know our bottom line we will start negotiations there.
Conservative leadership candidates from the LEAVE side should drag out the MP votes as long as possible to give the anti May candidates time to appeal to the Conservative membership.
This means candidates should not withdraw until they are eliminated by being last in each vote.
Hovercraft boss: Brexit vote has 'brought new inquiries'
The recent fall in the value of the British pound has been taken by many as terrible economic news. But for British companies which are export-focused, it has been a gift because it's made their goods cheaper abroad.
The British Hovercraft Company, based in Kent, has reported a wave of new inquiries from abroad over the past week.
Its owner, Emma Pullen, is now planning a worldwide export drive, saying Brexit has opened up a "brave new world" for UK exporters.
Who could have predicted that a falling pound could be good for exporters or that there's nations to export to outside our continent?
Company that campaigned for Leave bigs up an increase in inquiries - not even actual sales.
The centenary of the Somme isn’t many people’s idea of a good moment to promise “it will be all over by Christmas”. But Andrea Leadsom isn’t just any old person. She’s a mother. A mother with a strong interest in grandchildren. Even though she hasn’t got any yet. But she has met some and she likes them a lot.
Having won the referendum war largely thanks to the votes of the over 40s, Leadsom has suddenly developed a keen interest in children and grandchildren. At her Conservative leadership launch, her eyes moistened and her voice became breathier every time she said “children and grandchildren”. Which was about once or twice a sentence. The message: “Anyone who doesn’t have children is evil” was subliminally beamed on to the wall behind her. It’s pure coincidence that Theresa May doesn’t have children.
In order to negotiate 3.8 freedoms then we need someone who goes to the EU saying "three freedoms only" as their starting point and negotiate from there.
If we send someone who says "four freedoms" then we will negotiate four freedoms with no wriggle room as they will have no reason to compromise.
Only someone demanding as a starting point an end to freedom of movement can negotiate a deal with a slightly restricted but still existing freedom of movement. A good negotiator never opens up with their bottom line.
There's a difference between calling free movement a red line and being flexible. Leadsom from all I've read and heard will take us out of the single market and deny a free trade deal in order to stop free movement. I find that to be an inflexible position.
It takes a clairvoyant to know how anyone will end negotiations, but to start them a good negotiator starts by showing inflexibility. It is precisely what the EU is doing.
Have you ever struck a hard bargain in real life? You have to appear willing to walk away (even if you're not) in order to get the best deal possible.
If we are the only ones showing flexibility, we will be screwed over royally.
The time to do that was Dave's negotiation. Tis too late now. Without single market membership we would be in a horribly weak position. The EU knows this and so do we, the bluff is no longer available because if call it we are the main losers. Right now we need a serious politician for serious times. Once we've negotiated single market membership and begun to work on bilateral trade deals from a position of strength we can open up long term negotiations with the EU over our future relations. Right now we need some stability, pragmatism and clear thinking. Leadsom won't provide us with any of that, she seems too erratic and ideological to put the good of the nation's economy ahead of some desire to give the EU a bloody nose (which I'd also love to do).
The head of the liberal group in the [EU] parliament, former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, lambasted the European Council, the forum where EU governments decide policy.
He said the Council's reaction to Brexit was "we shouldn't change anything, just implement existing European policies". "I find this shocking and irresponsible," he said angrily. There had been warning signs for the EU from previous referendums in Denmark and the Netherlands, he said.
"What are you waiting for? When will the Council recognise that this type of EU - you cannot defend it any more. Europe needs to be reformed... European citizens are not against Europe, they're against this Europe."
An excellent response from Verhofstadt, leader of the ALDE group. It's a pity Farron isn't following this line which would be much easier to defend rather than simply hoping (somehow) we would be allowed back into the EU on the same terms we rejected last month.
Unfortunately, neither the conservatives nor the socialists in Europe want any kind of change or reform as the current system suits them both so well.
His line of "European citizens are not against Europe, they're against this Europe" probably applies to a sizeable majority of Brits too. The Brits were against THIS Europe. If Cameron had come back with a commitment by Brussels to make Verhofstadt's material reform to how the EU operates, Brexit would have been strangled at birth. That it flew to the point of getting a majority is down to the inability of the Eu-elite to countenance change rather than "thick, racist Little Englanders".
Hovercraft boss: Brexit vote has 'brought new inquiries'
The recent fall in the value of the British pound has been taken by many as terrible economic news. But for British companies which are export-focused, it has been a gift because it's made their goods cheaper abroad.
The British Hovercraft Company, based in Kent, has reported a wave of new inquiries from abroad over the past week.
Its owner, Emma Pullen, is now planning a worldwide export drive, saying Brexit has opened up a "brave new world" for UK exporters.
Who could have predicted that a falling pound could be good for exporters or that there's nations to export to outside our continent?
We need to head in to the € immediately, and lock in this competitiveness
Joking aside, my position was that we should be either out or all in. Euro with full EMU, harmonised health and welfare systems the works. Then UK/Germany would rule them all, my pretties. We'd still out compete most of the others.
May is the obvious conservative and Conservative candidate. Can't see what you guys are bothering about with Leadsom. Leave the internecine battles for ideological purity to others.
The head of the liberal group in the [EU] parliament, former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, lambasted the European Council, the forum where EU governments decide policy.
He said the Council's reaction to Brexit was "we shouldn't change anything, just implement existing European policies". "I find this shocking and irresponsible," he said angrily. There had been warning signs for the EU from previous referendums in Denmark and the Netherlands, he said.
"What are you waiting for? When will the Council recognise that this type of EU - you cannot defend it any more. Europe needs to be reformed... European citizens are not against Europe, they're against this Europe."
An excellent response from Verhofstadt, leader of the ALDE group. It's a pity Farron isn't following this line which would be much easier to defend rather than simply hoping (somehow) we would be allowed back into the EU on the same terms we rejected last month.
Unfortunately, neither the conservatives nor the socialists in Europe want any kind of change or reform as the current system suits them both so well.
His line of "European citizens are not against Europe, they're against this Europe" probably applies to a sizeable majority of Brits too. The Brits were against THIS Europe. If Cameron had come back with a commitment by Brussels to make Verhofstadt's material reform to how the EU operates, Brexit would have been strangled at birth. That it flew to the point of getting a majority is down to the inability of the Eu-elite to countenance change rather than "thick, racist Little Englanders".
I think my position could easily be summed up in a single line. Love Europe, hate the EU.
What a horribly snide post. Assuming you are female I find that kind of rancour extremely "disappointing."
I know you were in love with all things Cameron but can't you lay aside your bitterness just for a bit?
Leadsom is the one who keeps going on about motherhood - I wonder why?
Your phrase 'The woman with the working womb's financial career:'
is disgusting.
I expect you'll say it was joke. There won't be an apology. But you really ought to take a step back and ask what that kind of comment says about yourself.
Moving from a comprehensive rule based system to sets of not quite reciprocal deals will be a ten year grind. Time is not on our side. If we do nothing, our isolation develops by default as investors and traders start to ignore the UK in favour of the main action in Europe. On the other hand we are not in control of the process or the timetable. The EU side won't hate us but will simply be indifferent. That's the most frustrating thing of all.
Partially agree. As we run a trade deficit, then those that profit from that will be engaged. I'd expect 6-7 countries to be really motivated to help us plus a few of the A8 who worry about Russia.
The minnows won't care one way or another. For example, there are about 1,000 Slovenians here and ~500 Brits in Slovenia. We do little trade with them and almost none in services. They still get to vote on things. It's the middling countries that are hard to call - Austria, Czechs etc.
It is nuanced. As someone who believes the status quo to be a much better arrangement than any likely outcome under Brexit, I also think the damage caused will be chronic rather than acute. We'll probably tick along and it will not be disastrous, but we will be distracted and not doing very well.
No-one in Europe wants the UK to go belly up. Having dithered, I now think they will agree to the UK being part of the EEA because that's the only sensible intermediate step. They will also agree unanimously to an extension to the Article 50 negotiations because you need to complete and not leave things half done. And so on. But they will extract a price in the negotiations each time they concede the sensible option. Some countries will be looking for things from the UK and will be happy to add those to the reciprocal mix.
There is a big gap between trying to get what you want and to stop bad things happening and really being motivated to help.
May is the obvious conservative and Conservative candidate. Can't see what you guys are bothering about with Leadsom. Leave the internecine battles for ideological purity to others.
It's a betting site.
There have been decent odds on Leadsom. A few of us think if Gove makes the final two that 24-1 looks tasty.
It's all going to come down to whether Conservative members are looking to select the person who is most fit in the round to be Prime Minister or the person who is most sound on the subject of the EU. That the second is even potentially relevant shows just how crazed the electorate is.
Leadsom = IDS but this time as Prime Minister.
That's very unfair on IDS. He'd spent four years as a shadow Cabinet minister before standing for Leader of the Opposition.
Whereas poor inexperienced Andrea was just heading up bank departments aged 30.
Was that at her brother-in-law's firm?
Sajid Javid was a Vice President at his bank in his 20s - youngest ever if I recall - I guess we should all be voting for him and Crabb then.
Investment banks have hundreds of Vice Presidents (and Managing Directors).
Investment bankers need exotic titles to boost their ego.
Why did the governing group stir up the issue of existing migrants? New Government policy making after the referendum, has got off to a deeply unimpressive start with this bargaining chip approach to present migrants. It was announced by Mrs May on Sunday and then repeated by Hammond etc yesterday. But by the end of the day back tracking started and a more emollient tone was being used in the face of opposition from LEAVErs and Labour REMAINers. A problem in that the established civil service and current Govt continue to make basic errors. Messrs May, Hammond, Osborne, Sir Humphries etc remain out of touch. Maybe a full clear out is required? What I do not yet see is any intensive focus in the media on this obvious blunder and asking where the buck stops for that.
The issue was created by the vote to leave - that's where the buck stops.
Why did the governing group stir up the issue of existing migrants? New Government policy making after the referendum, has got off to a deeply unimpressive start with this bargaining chip approach to present migrants. It was announced by Mrs May on Sunday and then repeated by Hammond etc yesterday. But by the end of the day back tracking started and a more emollient tone was being used in the face of opposition from LEAVErs and Labour REMAINers. A problem in that the established civil service and current Govt continue to make basic errors. Messrs May, Hammond, Osborne, Sir Humphries etc remain out of touch. Maybe a full clear out is required? What I do not yet see is any intensive focus in the media on this obvious blunder and asking where the buck stops for that.
I think the Government line yesterday was sensible. One of the problems of having a transparent leadership election is that all the prospective PMs are disclosing their negotiating positions, which will undermine their ability to bargain after A50. Keeping all options open is the only way to approach things at present in my view. And to those people who think it is unfair to use EU citizens as a 'bargaining chip' (and it does seem uncivilised at best) I would point out that we've already heard EU leaders say they won't negotiate on free movement of people - which is simply another way of using human beings as a bargaining chip.
To me and people such as Andrea Leadsom it is just immoral. We also need to attract the best to our country, not the worst.
It's a stance that will lose her at least one vote if she makes the final two.
The head of the liberal group in the [EU] parliament, former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, lambasted the European Council, the forum where EU governments decide policy.
He said the Council's reaction to Brexit was "we shouldn't change anything, just implement existing European policies". "I find this shocking and irresponsible," he said angrily. There had been warning signs for the EU from previous referendums in Denmark and the Netherlands, he said.
"What are you waiting for? When will the Council recognise that this type of EU - you cannot defend it any more. Europe needs to be reformed... European citizens are not against Europe, they're against this Europe."
An excellent response from Verhofstadt, leader of the ALDE group. It's a pity Farron isn't following this line which would be much easier to defend rather than simply hoping (somehow) we would be allowed back into the EU on the same terms we rejected last month.
Unfortunately, neither the conservatives nor the socialists in Europe want any kind of change or reform as the current system suits them both so well.
His line of "European citizens are not against Europe, they're against this Europe" probably applies to a sizeable majority of Brits too. The Brits were against THIS Europe. If Cameron had come back with a commitment by Brussels to make Verhofstadt's material reform to how the EU operates, Brexit would have been strangled at birth. That it flew to the point of getting a majority is down to the inability of the Eu-elite to countenance change rather than "thick, racist Little Englanders".
Patrick Collinson's article in the Guardian expressed the issues very well. I've never liked the EU political side. I was against Maastricht and pissed that we didn't get a referendum over Lisbon.
However, I've never seen the EU as a bogeyman. There are plenty of areas where we can cooperate and work well together. Just don't need the flag, the national anthem and the foreign policy nonsense. I'm a 60:40 Leaver.
Moving from a comprehensive rule based system to sets of not quite reciprocal deals will be a ten year grind. Time is not on our side. If we do nothing, our isolation develops by default as investors and traders start to ignore the UK in favour of the main action in Europe. On the other hand we are not in control of the process or the timetable. The EU side won't hate us but will simply be indifferent. That's the most frustrating thing of all.
Partially agree. As we run a trade deficit, then those that profit from that will be engaged. I'd expect 6-7 countries to be really motivated to help us plus a few of the A8 who worry about Russia.
The minnows won't care one way or another. For example, there are about 1,000 Slovenians here and ~500 Brits in Slovenia. We do little trade with them and almost none in services. They still get to vote on things. It's the middling countries that are hard to call - Austria, Czechs etc.
It is nuanced. As someone who believes the status quo to be a much better arrangement than any likely outcome under Brexit, I also think the damage caused will be chronic rather than acute. We'll probably tick along and it will not be disastrous, but we will be distracted and not doing very well.
No-one in Europe wants the UK to go belly up. Having dithered, I now think they will agree to the UK being part of the EEA because that's the only sensible intermediate step. They will also agree unanimously to an extension to the Article 50 negotiations because you need to complete and not leave things half done. And so on. But they will extract a price in the negotiations each time they concede the sensible option. Some countries will be looking for things from the UK and will be happy to add those to the reciprocal mix.
There is a big gap between trying to get what you want and to stop bad things happening and really being motivated to help.
I'm glad you see that the EEA is on offer from the EU. They don't want to lose the UK from the single market, we are a huge buyer, £120bn deficit last year.
Given that negotiating with the EU is by far now the single most important issue of the next two+ years it seems entirely reasonable to make it a consideration.
Your definition of what is [the] best [negotiation] may vary, but the importance of the subject surely should not be underestimated.
Which is why we need someone who is pragmatic and doesn't have pre-determined red lines. If we get an ideologically pure type as PM who has said we will leave FoM come what may then there will be a very high price to pay for that, if we have someone who isn't bothered but is able to manoeuvre some restrictions on FoM in return for reciprocal restrictions we'll be in a better position.
FoM is seen in Brussels as one of the foundations of the union, without it, they say, the EU will crumble. If the UK were to be given three out of the four freedoms then the EU probably is finished. We need someone who can negotiate our way into getting 3.8/4 freedoms and then make changes to the benefits system so that the draw of our overly generous in working and housing benefits stops pulling people in.
In order to negotiate 3.8 freedoms then we need someone who goes to the EU saying "three freedoms only" as their starting point and negotiate from there.
If we send someone who says "four freedoms" then we will negotiate four freedoms with no wriggle room as they will have no reason to compromise.
Only someone demanding as a starting point an end to freedom of movement can negotiate a deal with a slightly restricted but still existing freedom of movement. A good negotiator never opens up with their bottom line.
There's a difference between calling free movement a red line and being flexible. Leadsom from all I've read and heard will take us out of the single market and deny a free trade deal in order to stop free movement. I find that to be an inflexible position.
When we read the legal moves about ensuring parliament is sovereign wrt the 1972 European act, realistically to the majority that is going to be about parliament preventing A50 from being invoked until there is a broadly acceptable exit plan - this should have the effect of forcing EFTA on us until and unless the medium-term economics of full Brexit look unexpectedly good. There should be a big enough cohort of Tory rebels to ensure that is the case even with the Labour left prevaricating (which is also why we should get on and bring the coup to its logical (or perhaps illogical) conclusion on the Labour side). David Lammy should be regarded as an outlier in all this - preventing Brexit is not the game, influencing the course of Brexit is.
It's all going to come down to whether Conservative members are looking to select the person who is most fit in the round to be Prime Minister or the person who is most sound on the subject of the EU. That the second is even potentially relevant shows just how crazed the electorate is.
Leadsom = IDS but this time as Prime Minister.
That's very unfair on IDS. He'd spent four years as a shadow Cabinet minister before standing for Leader of the Opposition.
Whereas poor inexperienced Andrea was just heading up bank departments aged 30.
Was that at her brother-in-law's firm?
Sajid Javid was a Vice President at his bank in his 20s - youngest ever if I recall - I guess we should all be voting for him and Crabb then.
It is title inflation.
Of course it is. No need to get over excited about Leadsom's rather average career therefor.
It's all going to come down to whether Conservative members are looking to select the person who is most fit in the round to be Prime Minister or the person who is most sound on the subject of the EU. That the second is even potentially relevant shows just how crazed the electorate is.
Leadsom = IDS but this time as Prime Minister.
That's very unfair on IDS. He'd spent four years as a shadow Cabinet minister before standing for Leader of the Opposition.
Whereas poor inexperienced Andrea was just heading up bank departments aged 30.
Was that at her brother-in-law's firm?
Sajid Javid was a Vice President at his bank in his 20s - youngest ever if I recall - I guess we should all be voting for him and Crabb then.
Investment banks have hundreds of Vice Presidents (and Managing Directors).
Investment bankers need exotic titles to boost their ego.
It is title inflation.
I worked for a US multi-national in the 90s. We had four ranks of Vice Presidents. We'd only take our Executive Senior Vice Presidents to see customers .
"There is evidence that some risks have begun to crystallise. The current outlook for UK financial stability is challenging."
Mark Carney saying what everyone is thinking. Until we have a clear outline of where we are going then stability is off the radar. Hopefully the May backers conspire to get Leadsom eliminated today somehow.
It is also ludicrous - the Commission was idiotic in suggesting no trade negotiations until after departure (because that would be an overtly hostile approach). Hence they have already been shouldered aside by Germany.
The time to do that was Dave's negotiation. Tis too late now. Without single market membership we would be in a horribly weak position. The EU knows this and so do we, the bluff is no longer available because if call it we are the main losers. Right now we need a serious politician for serious times. Once we've negotiated single market membership and begun to work on bilateral trade deals from a position of strength we can open up long term negotiations with the EU over our future relations. Right now we need some stability, pragmatism and clear thinking. Leadsom won't provide us with any of that, she seems too erratic and ideological to put the good of the nation's economy ahead of some desire to give the EU a bloody nose (which I'd also love to do).
Why did Dave's negotiation fail? I would say it was because Dave was too honest about our bottom line, so got even less than that. Electing May could repeat the same mistake, if the EU don't take us seriously then we won't get a good deal.
Don't underestimate the EU's weaknesses (or our strengths) here.
1: The EU has a £12 billion net (post-rebate) black hole in its budget if we Leave completely and stop paying in anything. EEA membership sans rebate will fill a lot of that back in for them. 2: We are the largest export market the EU-27 has, even larger than the USA. 3: The EU nations are struggling at the moment with mass unemployment and budget problems. The EU draining their coffers more/cutting their payments for poor nations to fill in the black hole of us leaving and/or their economies taking a hit from losing our trade will move things from terrible to even worse. 4: All but three EU nations run a trade deficit with us. While we collectively export more to the combined EU, we're not negotiating with a combined EU we are negotiating with 27 nations. 24 of those 27 nations need a deal more than we do on a bilateral basis.
A strong leader can get a good deal, but only if they are taken seriously. This is a Nixon to China moment.
Why did the governing group stir up the issue of existing migrants? New Government policy making after the referendum, has got off to a deeply unimpressive start with this bargaining chip approach to present migrants. It was announced by Mrs May on Sunday and then repeated by Hammond etc yesterday. But by the end of the day back tracking started and a more emollient tone was being used in the face of opposition from LEAVErs and Labour REMAINers. A problem in that the established civil service and current Govt continue to make basic errors. Messrs May, Hammond, Osborne, Sir Humphries etc remain out of touch. Maybe a full clear out is required? What I do not yet see is any intensive focus in the media on this obvious blunder and asking where the buck stops for that.
I think the Government line yesterday was sensible. One of the problems of having a transparent leadership election is that all the prospective PMs are disclosing their negotiating positions, which will undermine their ability to bargain after A50. Keeping all options open is the only way to approach things at present in my view. And to those people who think it is unfair to use EU citizens as a 'bargaining chip' (and it does seem uncivilised at best) I would point out that we've already heard EU leaders say they won't negotiate on free movement of people - which is simply another way of using human beings as a bargaining chip.
To me and people such as Andrea Leadsom it is just immoral. We also need to attract the best to our country, not the worst.
What exactly is moral about washing your hands of British immigrants in EU states pray?
Moving from a comprehensive rule based system to sets of not quite reciprocal deals will be a ten year grind. Time is not on our side. If we do nothing, our isolation develops by default as investors and traders start to ignore the UK in favour of the main action in Europe. On the other hand we are not in control of the process or the timetable. The EU side won't hate us but will simply be indifferent. That's the most frustrating thing of all.
Partially agree. As we run a trade deficit, then those that profit from that will be engaged. I'd expect 6-7 countries to be really motivated to help us plus a few of the A8 who worry about Russia.
The minnows won't care one way or another. For example, there are about 1,000 Slovenians here and ~500 Brits in Slovenia. We do little trade with them and almost none in services. They still get to vote on things. It's the middling countries that are hard to call - Austria, Czechs etc.
It is nuanced. As someone who believes the status quo to be a much better arrangement than any likely outcome under Brexit, I also think the damage caused will be chronic rather than acute. We'll probably tick along and it will not be disastrous, but we will be distracted and not doing very well.
No-one in Europe wants the UK to go belly up. Having dithered, I now think they will agree to the UK being part of the EEA because that's the only sensible intermediate step. They will also agree unanimously to an extension to the Article 50 negotiations because you need to complete and not leave things half done. And so on. But they will extract a price in the negotiations each time they concede the sensible option. Some countries will be looking for things from the UK and will be happy to add those to the reciprocal mix.
There is a big gap between trying to get what you want and to stop bad things happening and really being motivated to help.
I'm glad you see that the EEA is on offer from the EU. They don't want to lose the UK from the single market, we are a huge buyer, £120bn deficit last year.
It's not on offer yet and they haven't agreed to it. I simply don't see a way through without it. Eventually they will see that too, I think. And by the way it will be the EEA as is, not a modification of it. We can't spend ten years in WTO limbo or in the Hotel California (You can check out, but you can't leave) while we negotiate that reciprocity.
It's all going to come down to whether Conservative members are looking to select the person who is most fit in the round to be Prime Minister or the person who is most sound on the subject of the EU. That the second is even potentially relevant shows just how crazed the electorate is.
Leadsom = IDS but this time as Prime Minister.
That's very unfair on IDS. He'd spent four years as a shadow Cabinet minister before standing for Leader of the Opposition.
Whereas poor inexperienced Andrea was just heading up bank departments aged 30.
Was that at her brother-in-law's firm?
Sajid Javid was a Vice President at his bank in his 20s - youngest ever if I recall - I guess we should all be voting for him and Crabb then.
It is title inflation.
Of course it is. No need to get over excited about Leadsom's rather average career therefor.
Yes I think the order is, Junior VP, Executive VP, Senior VP and VP.
Voting finishes at 6pm. Why it takes an hour to count 330 votes is something of a mystery. They should have word with Sunderland....
Because IIRC only one person counts the votes: the chairman of the 1922 committee, Graham Brady.
One hour to count 330 votes still sounds a long time, even if there is only one counter and he stops halfway through for a cup of tea and a biscuit. Perhaps one of the wealthier pb-ers could head down to the bank and withdraw 330 crisp tenners, and let us know.
Counting 330 of the exact same thing is quicker than reading and counting 330 different things. It would be more like having 330 £10 notes that were randomly sampled from Bank of England £10, Bank of Scotland £10, Royal Bank of Scotland £10, Clydesdale Bank £10 and Bank of Ireland £10 and then counting how many of each there were.
This. This is PB. We're like the fucking Mount Everest of pedants .
What a horribly snide post. Assuming you are female I find that kind of rancour extremely "disappointing."
I know you were in love with all things Cameron but can't you lay aside your bitterness just for a bit?
Leadsom is the one who keeps going on about motherhood - I wonder why?
It is one of her competitive advantages.
It's also a way to appear human and relate to voters. She says it consistently and not just when her opponent is not a mother so it is pure nasty cynicism to suggest a line she used repeatedly in the Brexit debates is aimed against May.
What a horribly snide post. Assuming you are female I find that kind of rancour extremely "disappointing."
I know you were in love with all things Cameron but can't you lay aside your bitterness just for a bit?
Leadsom is the one who keeps going on about motherhood - I wonder why?
Your phrase 'The woman with the working womb's financial career:'
is disgusting.
I expect you'll say it was joke. There won't be an apology. But you really ought to take a step back and ask what that kind of comment says about yourself.
Get real with politics and forget the faux outrage.
It's not on offer yet and they haven't agreed to it. I simply don't see a way through without it. Eventually they will see that too, I think. And by the way it will be the EEA as is, not a modification of it. We can't spend ten years in WTO limbo or in the Hotel California (You can check out, but you can't leave) while we negotiate that reciprocity.
It is on offer, all of those EU types talking about four freedoms or no freedoms are talking about the EEA in all but name.
Also agreed, though with Brexit there is a chance to reform free movement for the whole bloc, increase waiting days and make movement available only to those who have jobs or can support themselves independently including private healthcare provision (no more of our old people sponging off the Spanish healthcare system).
What a horribly snide post. Assuming you are female I find that kind of rancour extremely "disappointing."
I know you were in love with all things Cameron but can't you lay aside your bitterness just for a bit?
Leadsom is the one who keeps going on about motherhood - I wonder why?
Your phrase 'The woman with the working womb's financial career:'
is disgusting.
I expect you'll say it was joke. There won't be an apology. But you really ought to take a step back and ask what that kind of comment says about yourself.
What's disgusting is exploiting your opponent's infertility
What a horribly snide post. Assuming you are female I find that kind of rancour extremely "disappointing."
I know you were in love with all things Cameron but can't you lay aside your bitterness just for a bit?
Leadsom is the one who keeps going on about motherhood - I wonder why?
You've brought this up before. All the women in the referendum campaign referred to their motherhood. It must be some sort of focus group recommendation.
It's all going to come down to whether Conservative members are looking to select the person who is most fit in the round to be Prime Minister or the person who is most sound on the subject of the EU. That the second is even potentially relevant shows just how crazed the electorate is.
Leadsom = IDS but this time as Prime Minister.
That's very unfair on IDS. He'd spent four years as a shadow Cabinet minister before standing for Leader of the Opposition.
Whereas poor inexperienced Andrea was just heading up bank departments aged 30.
Was that at her brother-in-law's firm?
Bollocks.
She was a "director" and then a "managing director".
Those titles are thrown around like confetti (to be MD less so) at banks.
It is also ludicrous - the Commission was idiotic in suggesting no trade negotiations until after departure (because that would be an overtly hostile approach). Hence they have already been shouldered aside by Germany.
Germany is still sticking to the "no trade negotiations until after departure" line. There is an argument in Germany, like elsewhere, between those that think nothing should be done immediately (Chancellor Merkel, CDU) and those that think Article 50 should be called straight away (Foreign Minister Steinmeier, SPD)
What a horribly snide post. Assuming you are female I find that kind of rancour extremely "disappointing."
I know you were in love with all things Cameron but can't you lay aside your bitterness just for a bit?
Leadsom is the one who keeps going on about motherhood - I wonder why?
It is one of her competitive advantages.
It's also a way to appear human and relate to voters. She says it consistently and not just when her opponent is not a mother so it is pure nasty cynicism to suggest a line she used repeatedly in the Brexit debates is aimed against May.
The time to do that was Dave's negotiation. Tis too late now. Without single market membership we would be in a horribly weak position. The EU knows this and so do we, the bluff is no longer available because if call it we are the main losers. Right now we need a serious politician for serious times. Once we've negotiated single market membership and begun to work on bilateral trade deals from a position of strength we can open up long term negotiations with the EU over our future relations. Right now we need some stability, pragmatism and clear thinking. Leadsom won't provide us with any of that, she seems too erratic and ideological to put the good of the nation's economy ahead of some desire to give the EU a bloody nose (which I'd also love to do).
Why did Dave's negotiation fail? I would say it was because Dave was too honest about our bottom line, so got even less than that. Electing May could repeat the same mistake, if the EU don't take us seriously then we won't get a good deal. ............. A strong leader can get a good deal, but only if they are taken seriously. This is a Nixon to China moment.
You have to prepare thoroughly, believe in your case, know what the other side's red lines are and be prepared to walk away. Cameron never looked like being able to walk away and the work was directed by part timers.
What a horribly snide post. Assuming you are female I find that kind of rancour extremely "disappointing."
I know you were in love with all things Cameron but can't you lay aside your bitterness just for a bit?
Leadsom is the one who keeps going on about motherhood - I wonder why?
Your phrase 'The woman with the working womb's financial career:'
is disgusting.
I expect you'll say it was joke. There won't be an apology. But you really ought to take a step back and ask what that kind of comment says about yourself.
What's disgusting is exploiting your opponent's infertility
It's all going to come down to whether Conservative members are looking to select the person who is most fit in the round to be Prime Minister or the person who is most sound on the subject of the EU. That the second is even potentially relevant shows just how crazed the electorate is.
Leadsom = IDS but this time as Prime Minister.
That's very unfair on IDS. He'd spent four years as a shadow Cabinet minister before standing for Leader of the Opposition.
Whereas poor inexperienced Andrea was just heading up bank departments aged 30.
Was that at her brother-in-law's firm?
Bollocks.
She was a "director" and then a "managing director".
Those titles are thrown around like confetti (to be MD less so) at banks.
But surely never on the basis of mere family relationships?
OT: Juno entered Jupiter orbit this morning. Powered by a British engine, no less.
Think the Financial Stability Report is fair and balanced. Good to see some of the steps that are being recommended, though they'd been fairly heavily trailed.
"There is evidence that some risks have begun to crystallise. The current outlook for UK financial stability is challenging."
WTF is the CoTE doing then ?
Trying to get the Foreign Office in May's Cabinet!
DC and GO should be charged with dereliction of duty.
Idiot post of the day.
Chose to have a referendum Bungled the renegotiation Were found to be totally out of touch with the voters Chose useless pollsters Ran an inept campaign Lost the referendum Spat out their dummies and hid in their bunkers.
If the vote had gone the other way, and Cameron was stepping down as he said he would, can any Brexiteer currently shilling for Leadsom claim, hand on heart, that she would even be in the contest to replace him?
"There is evidence that some risks have begun to crystallise. The current outlook for UK financial stability is challenging."
WTF is the CoTE doing then ?
Trying to get the Foreign Office in May's Cabinet!
DC and GO should be charged with dereliction of duty.
Idiot post of the day.
Chose to have a referendum Bungled the renegotiation Were found to be totally out of touch with the voters Chose useless pollsters Ran an inept campaign Lost the referendum Spat out their dummies and hid in their bunkers.
"Cameron gambled everything on the European referendum because he thought the centre was secure. He and George Osborne believed, as one of their cabinet allies told me: “It will be about jobs and the economy and it won’t even be close.”
My favourite comment is from FordPrefect100 "In reality, the pro-EU arguments were supported by an overwhelming majority of economists, thinktanks, business leaders, diplomats and other professional bodies"
The problem was, and still is, that none of those "experts" are expert about what life is like for someone who lives on a council estate in Peterborough or Bolton, or who is an unemployed fisherman in Aberdeen.
And the people whose job it is to know - Labour MPs - don't know either, and don't care."
"There is evidence that some risks have begun to crystallise. The current outlook for UK financial stability is challenging."
WTF is the CoTE doing then ?
Trying to get the Foreign Office in May's Cabinet!
DC and GO should be charged with dereliction of duty.
Idiot post of the day.
Chose to have a referendum Bungled the renegotiation Were found to be totally out of touch with the voters Chose useless pollsters Ran an inept campaign Lost the referendum Spat out their dummies and hid in their bunkers.
It is on offer, all of those EU types talking about four freedoms or no freedoms are talking about the EEA in all but name.
Also agreed, though with Brexit there is a chance to reform free movement for the whole bloc, increase waiting days and make movement available only to those who have jobs or can support themselves independently including private healthcare provision (no more of our old people sponging off the Spanish healthcare system).
"All but name" is not the EEA. That's the key point. Anything that deviates in the slightest from the EEA, as is, will require treaty negotiations and ratification that lasts for years. Being off the shelf is the EEA's strong point. Actually, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain beyond dealing with the immediate problem of where we go from here. But if we reject the good option we then have to select from the remaining poor options.
@tnewtondunn: So; banks' capital reserves to be spent, deficit to go up back, AAA credit rating lost. Six years of economics reversed in 12 days #Brexit
I think history will be more kind to those who warned that this would be an epic fuckup than those who wished on a rainbow...
The time to do that was Dave's negotiation. Tis too late now. Without single market membership we would be in a horribly weak position. The EU knows this and so do we, the bluff is no longer available because if call it we are the main losers. Right now we need a serious politician for serious times. Once we've negotiated single market membership and begun to work on bilateral trade deals from a position of strength we can open up long term negotiations with the EU over our future relations. Right now we need some stability, pragmatism and clear thinking. Leadsom won't provide us with any of that, she seems too erratic and ideological to put the good of the nation's economy ahead of some desire to give the EU a bloody nose (which I'd also love to do).
Why did Dave's negotiation fail? I would say it was because Dave was too honest about our bottom line, so got even less than that. Electing May could repeat the same mistake, if the EU don't take us seriously then we won't get a good deal. ............. A strong leader can get a good deal, but only if they are taken seriously. This is a Nixon to China moment.
You have to prepare thoroughly, believe in your case, know what the other side's red lines are and be prepared to walk away.
So, unilaterally committing to EU residents rights in Britain without securing reciprocal rights for British residents in the EU would be unwise?
The head of the liberal group in the [EU] parliament, former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, lambasted the European Council, the forum where EU governments decide policy.
He said the Council's reaction to Brexit was "we shouldn't change anything, just implement existing European policies". "I find this shocking and irresponsible," he said angrily. There had been warning signs for the EU from previous referendums in Denmark and the Netherlands, he said.
"What are you waiting for? When will the Council recognise that this type of EU - you cannot defend it any more. Europe needs to be reformed... European citizens are not against Europe, they're against this Europe."
"Cameron gambled everything on the European referendum because he thought the centre was secure. He and George Osborne believed, as one of their cabinet allies told me: “It will be about jobs and the economy and it won’t even be close.”
My favourite comment is from FordPrefect100 "In reality, the pro-EU arguments were supported by an overwhelming majority of economists, thinktanks, business leaders, diplomats and other professional bodies"
The problem was, and still is, that none of those "experts" are expert about what life is like for someone who lives on a council estate in Peterborough or Bolton, or who is an unemployed fisherman in Aberdeen.
And the people whose job it is to know - Labour MPs - don't know either, and don't care."
The experts did, however, predict with near-unanimity that Brexit will make things even worse for such people. We're now starting to see this played out.
"There is evidence that some risks have begun to crystallise. The current outlook for UK financial stability is challenging."
WTF is the CoTE doing then ?
Trying to get the Foreign Office in May's Cabinet!
DC and GO should be charged with dereliction of duty.
Idiot post of the day.
Chose to have a referendum Bungled the renegotiation Were found to be totally out of touch with the voters Chose useless pollsters Ran an inept campaign Lost the referendum Spat out their dummies and hid in their bunkers.
He wanted to avoid another summer of migrant crisis headlines and use the negotiating window that was closing due to the French and German elections.
Unfortunately, the real UK economy has been cooling since 2014 (have a look at the All sector PMI if you want to see confidence draining away). Because he was certain he'd win, he failed to correctly evaluate the consequences of losing AT THIS TIME.
He should have gone for the referendum in 2018, if he wanted to minimise the countries downside risk. Instead he chose a purely political timing, driven by a mix of over-confidence and expediency.
It's all going to come down to whether Conservative members are looking to select the person who is most fit in the round to be Prime Minister or the person who is most sound on the subject of the EU. That the second is even potentially relevant shows just how crazed the electorate is.
Leadsom = IDS but this time as Prime Minister.
That's very unfair on IDS. He'd spent four years as a shadow Cabinet minister before standing for Leader of the Opposition.
Whereas poor inexperienced Andrea was just heading up bank departments aged 30.
Was that at her brother-in-law's firm?
Bollocks.
She was a "director" and then a "managing director".
Those titles are thrown around like confetti (to be MD less so) at banks.
But surely never on the basis of mere family relationships?
Private companies can do what they like.
But banks are very much of the confetti mode (heck, a US public company even made me a Director in my 20s...) although they are looking at making the MD role more challenging now.
@tnewtondunn: So; banks' capital reserves to be spent, deficit to go up back, AAA credit rating lost. Six years of economics reversed in 12 days #Brexit
I think history will be more kind to those who warned that this would be an epic fuckup than those who wished on a rainbow...
@tnewtondunn: So; banks' capital reserves to be spent, deficit to go up back, AAA credit rating lost. Six years of economics reversed in 12 days #Brexit
I think history will be more kind to those who warned that this would be an epic fuckup than those who wished on a rainbow...
Only three people thought it was going to be rainbows. The other 99.9% of people thought the immediate economic outlook of Brexit was going to be challenging.
May is not an ideal candidate by any means. Even without being a Remainer (albeit largely a silent one) her record at the Home Office seems to rest on her longevity in this political graveyard slot, rather than actually getting on top of any of the issues facing our borders and those who can pass through them.
Her record at the Home Office is superb by any standard. Firstly, and most importantly, she has quietly and effectively handled the day-by-day terrorist threat. Secondly she has dealt very effectively with long-running sores such as Abu Quatada and the Calais camp - building up very good relations with her French counterpart and patiently working with them despite the fact that it was a sensitive issue in France. Thirdly crime has fallen, and she's managed the relationship with the police deftly at a time when spending cuts make that hard. And fourthly, she has simply avoid pratfalls in this most pratfall-ridden post.
Against this, the naysayers blame her for not reducing immigration. But no-one ever says what she is supposed to have done or not done in this respect.
I'm surprised that Leadsom is advocating this amnesty-for-immigrants malarkey. I thought that was killed off with Boris. Leave warned us that there would be riots on the street if immigration wasn't curbed, so it's strange that one of their number is now dabbling with civil disorder. Or is it guilt - a desperate bid to distant themselves from Farage's excesses? Odd.
"Cameron gambled everything on the European referendum because he thought the centre was secure. He and George Osborne believed, as one of their cabinet allies told me: “It will be about jobs and the economy and it won’t even be close.”
My favourite comment is from FordPrefect100 "In reality, the pro-EU arguments were supported by an overwhelming majority of economists, thinktanks, business leaders, diplomats and other professional bodies"
The problem was, and still is, that none of those "experts" are expert about what life is like for someone who lives on a council estate in Peterborough or Bolton, or who is an unemployed fisherman in Aberdeen.
And the people whose job it is to know - Labour MPs - don't know either, and don't care."
Some of the nuggets are revealing..
"The Stronger In founders hired Straw as director and, at Nick Clegg’s recommendation, Coetzee was taken on as strategist."
"After some disagreement over candidates, they settled on the stolid former Marks & Spencer executive Stuart Rose.... A phone call from Osborne finally persuaded him with barely a week to go before the official Stronger In launch."
"“The Conservatives were hamstrung by their ludicrous migration cap and the inability to talk positively,” said Straw. “Labour grandees felt the need to defend the ‘open door’ politics of the 2000s, and the Corbynistas wanted to say there was no problem at all.”"
Does The Times poll not suggest that Tory members (who by definition have not over the past years jumped ship and joined UKIP) are not all a bunch of frothing UKIPpers?
Leadsom does have a good chance of becoming party leader. But the party is UKIP, and there is a vacancy.
Comments
CONSERVATISM
INTELLIGENCE
BRAVERY
INSANITY RATING
EUROPHOBIA
SKIN THICKNESS
etc
http://app.ft.com/cms/s/89ff6b1e-4204-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d.html
Have you ever struck a hard bargain in real life? You have to appear willing to walk away (even if you're not) in order to get the best deal possible.
If we are the only ones showing flexibility, we will be screwed over royally.
1. UK joins EEA with five year quota system for EU nationals.
2. UK undertakes to reform domestic welfare system on a contributory basis.
3. UK reinstates freedom of movement with built in discouragement for unskilled migration.
Yes, we could have done this while staying within the EU. Talk to Cameron.
I have missed out step 2a) which is the UK Twittersphere exploding with Lefty outrage (and possibly 2b) where the UK government fails to pass legislation).
I know you were in love with all things Cameron but can't you lay aside your bitterness just for a bit?
This means candidates should not withdraw until they are eliminated by being last in each vote.
The centenary of the Somme isn’t many people’s idea of a good moment to promise “it will be all over by Christmas”. But Andrea Leadsom isn’t just any old person. She’s a mother. A mother with a strong interest in grandchildren. Even though she hasn’t got any yet. But she has met some and she likes them a lot.
Having won the referendum war largely thanks to the votes of the over 40s, Leadsom has suddenly developed a keen interest in children and grandchildren. At her Conservative leadership launch, her eyes moistened and her voice became breathier every time she said “children and grandchildren”. Which was about once or twice a sentence. The message: “Anyone who doesn’t have children is evil” was subliminally beamed on to the wall behind her. It’s pure coincidence that Theresa May doesn’t have children.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/andrea-leadsom-leadership-launch-sketch-mummy-up-is-down
is disgusting.
I expect you'll say it was joke. There won't be an apology. But you really ought to take a step back and ask what that kind of comment says about yourself.
No-one in Europe wants the UK to go belly up. Having dithered, I now think they will agree to the UK being part of the EEA because that's the only sensible intermediate step. They will also agree unanimously to an extension to the Article 50 negotiations because you need to complete and not leave things half done. And so on. But they will extract a price in the negotiations each time they concede the sensible option. Some countries will be looking for things from the UK and will be happy to add those to the reciprocal mix.
There is a big gap between trying to get what you want and to stop bad things happening and really being motivated to help.
It's a betting site.
There have been decent odds on Leadsom. A few of us think if Gove makes the final two that 24-1 looks tasty.
Investment bankers need exotic titles to boost their ego.
It is title inflation.
However, I've never seen the EU as a bogeyman. There are plenty of areas where we can cooperate and work well together. Just don't need the flag, the national anthem and the foreign policy nonsense. I'm a 60:40 Leaver.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/fsr/2016/fsrjul16sum.pdf
"There is evidence that some risks have begun to crystallise. The current outlook for UK financial stability is challenging."
Bercow was a flipper rather than a Kipper.
Ed: Bercow flipped designated home residence to minimise capital gains tax.
For your delectation:
http://assets.amuniversal.com/670c9db06d6501301d80001dd8b71c47
Not sure this week's Private Eye cover is great for Sarah Vine.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cml3baEWcAAUcdF.jpg:small
Don't underestimate the EU's weaknesses (or our strengths) here.
1: The EU has a £12 billion net (post-rebate) black hole in its budget if we Leave completely and stop paying in anything. EEA membership sans rebate will fill a lot of that back in for them.
2: We are the largest export market the EU-27 has, even larger than the USA.
3: The EU nations are struggling at the moment with mass unemployment and budget problems. The EU draining their coffers more/cutting their payments for poor nations to fill in the black hole of us leaving and/or their economies taking a hit from losing our trade will move things from terrible to even worse.
4: All but three EU nations run a trade deficit with us. While we collectively export more to the combined EU, we're not negotiating with a combined EU we are negotiating with 27 nations. 24 of those 27 nations need a deal more than we do on a bilateral basis.
A strong leader can get a good deal, but only if they are taken seriously. This is a Nixon to China moment.
https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/750258108790956032
Also agreed, though with Brexit there is a chance to reform free movement for the whole bloc, increase waiting days and make movement available only to those who have jobs or can support themselves independently including private healthcare provision (no more of our old people sponging off the Spanish healthcare system).
She was a "director" and then a "managing director".
Those titles are thrown around like confetti (to be MD less so) at banks.
Really? Wow? Why did nobody predict that?
oh, wait...
Meanwhile I had forgotten that we now have as our "EU chief negotiating wizard" Oliver Letwin.
Think the Financial Stability Report is fair and balanced. Good to see some of the steps that are being recommended, though they'd been fairly heavily trailed.
Bungled the renegotiation
Were found to be totally out of touch with the voters
Chose useless pollsters
Ran an inept campaign
Lost the referendum
Spat out their dummies and hid in their bunkers.
History wont be kind...
Really? Anyone?
"In reality, the pro-EU arguments were supported by an overwhelming majority of economists, thinktanks, business leaders, diplomats and other professional bodies"
The problem was, and still is, that none of those "experts" are expert about what life is like for someone who lives on a council estate in Peterborough or Bolton, or who is an unemployed fisherman in Aberdeen.
And the people whose job it is to know - Labour MPs - don't know either, and don't care."
@Gove2016: We need to renegotiate a new relationship with the EU, based on free trade and friendly cooperation. #Gove2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause
I think history will be more kind to those who warned that this would be an epic fuckup than those who wished on a rainbow...
He wanted to avoid another summer of migrant crisis headlines and use the negotiating window that was closing due to the French and German elections.
Unfortunately, the real UK economy has been cooling since 2014 (have a look at the All sector PMI if you want to see confidence draining away). Because he was certain he'd win, he failed to correctly evaluate the consequences of losing AT THIS TIME.
He should have gone for the referendum in 2018, if he wanted to minimise the countries downside risk. Instead he chose a purely political timing, driven by a mix of over-confidence and expediency.
But banks are very much of the confetti mode (heck, a US public company even made me a Director in my 20s...) although they are looking at making the MD role more challenging now.
This really is unravelling now.
Here's an idea: let's call the whole thing off.
Against this, the naysayers blame her for not reducing immigration. But no-one ever says what she is supposed to have done or not done in this respect.
"The Stronger In founders hired Straw as director and, at Nick Clegg’s recommendation, Coetzee was taken on as strategist."
"After some disagreement over candidates, they settled on the stolid former Marks & Spencer executive Stuart Rose.... A phone call from Osborne finally persuaded him with barely a week to go before the official Stronger In launch."
"“The Conservatives were hamstrung by their ludicrous migration cap and the inability to talk positively,” said Straw. “Labour grandees felt the need to defend the ‘open door’ politics of the 2000s, and the Corbynistas wanted to say there was no problem at all.”"
Leadsom does have a good chance of becoming party leader. But the party is UKIP, and there is a vacancy.
I am buoyed and reassured by The Times poll.