It's the 'let's ignore a democratic vote because we like the EU so much' strategy. And once we leave (if we do...) it becomes the 'let's join an undemocratic organisation under far worse terms than before' strategy.
I think a technical exit from the EU whilst practically changing very little - for example, remaining a member of the customs union, with large contributions, EU law primacy and little new on free movement - is a very real possibility.
If that happens, a lot of the big business community will be grateful, but May will be in serious political trouble.
No she won't. Have you seen the shambolic state of the Labour Party recently? She could abandon Brexit completely and still win a bigger majority than she has at present.
I think the zero key on Shadsy's keyboard isn't working properly.
He's offering 50/1 on Owen Smith becoming PM in 2016
50-1 is about right. 500 would clearly be too large.
Somewhere between the two. You'd need:
- Smith to win the Labour election - May to force an election, and - Labour to form a government from it.
I don't see that treble as anything below three figures and probably some way into it.
There are other possibilities (e.g. the Tories losing a VoNC and the LotO being asked to form a government immediately) but again, none are likely. 150/1 might be nearer the mark.
Really gutted about Woolfe being excluded because Mike's going to be unbearable with his big win on laying Woolfe I really wanted to threads headlined with 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats
To be honest I am not unhappy about Civil Servants having to work hard. It is what they are there for.
Now, as to our farmers being protected by the EU, that has only some validity. Consider what had happened to dairy farming in the UK. It has been decimated, not by imports from outside the EU but from inside. Pig farmers here have to maintain higher standards of animal welfare than do their opposite numbers in Denmark and Holland and so are frequently undercut. Then we have the absurd position where, due to EU subsidies distorting the market, we have grade A agricultural land being left fallow for years and years while agribusiness plough up and destroy the high downs to grow non-food crops.
It could be cogently argues that subsidies and quotas actually hurt our farmers, especially those of a one size fits all imposed from Brussels. One could also look at the experience of New Zealand, who dumped agricultural subsidies decades ago and seems to have done OK (they can sell lamb here cheaper than local producers can).
I think we have to work out what we want from our farmers and have policies in place to achieve that. Merely continuing with the current EU regime isn't doing anyone any favours at the moment and will not in the future.
As for the City, I have heard so many scare stories over the years that I have become immune to them. The City firms will try and lobby the government to do what is best for their businesses, it always has and it always will (and I can go back to at least the 14th century on this). The City must from time to time be told to get back in its box and get on with doing business as best it can (which to be fair is usually pretty well) within the structure decided upon by the government.
GSK announced a couple of days ago that they are to open a brand new research facility in the UK so they are obviously not to concerned about the future of pharma outside the EU.
Let's be honest big companies pay out lots of cash to try and influence events for their own advantage and that may not be (in fact quite likely isn't) to the advantage of the people of the UK. When Goldman Sachs is saying the UK should do X, the correct initial response is probably to say we should do Y.
There's a general point here which is this: the EU has created quite a lot of vested interests in various segments of UK business.
The government's job now is to distinguish what are the **real** economic interests of the country - most importantly of consumers - from the mass of vested interests.
'Captains of industry' are often the last people you should listen to. Back in the early 80s the CBI was so terrified of the trade unions it lobbied against trade union reforms.
What an odd view! How can you be both democratically elected, and a threat to democracy. You either trust the people and have a democracy, or you don't
er hitler
In the US is it "let the billionaires slog it out" time?
The assumption in the US polity is that money buys votes, just as money spent on advertising gets sales.
What is the history of the NYT's success or failure in backing candidates? Is it like the Sun, that always wins? In two months time, nobody under 60 will ever have had a vote in a British general election in which the Sun didn't back the winning side.
Sorry to make this brief (always slightly guilt inducing when responding to a small essay).
Take Mercosur as the example. They are currently subject to a beef tariff of 12.8% plus a flat tax of €1.4k per tonne. They are being offered a total beef quota of 78k tonnes of beef at a tariff of 7.5%, as long as the beef is hormone-free.
However, Mercosur imports have been MUCH higher in the past. The way you control flows is with technical measures (historically via requiring traceability paperwork, or stipulating permitted hormone or antibiotic regimes). That doesn't necessarily change outside the EU. It's the standard horse trading that occurs in FTAs and it's the reason they take so long to negotiate. Off the top of my head, I'd put quotas on permitted food-miles - that plays to the green lobby, encourages localism and so forth.
Whether we grandfather into existing FTAs on BRexit is a government decision. Laypeople just don't have the competence to decide.
However, while it's complex, it's not rocket science or groundbreaking in anyway.
Thanks for the reply. I agree with your comment about the complexity of trade deals, which seem to be full of perverse effects and unintended consequences; I accept that laypeople (Me!) shouldn't aim to predict the outcomes. I suspect Brexit may be groundbreaking in that it is throwing balls into the air and seeing where they land, rather than two parties trying to move the status quo in favourable directions.
But the politics is up for discussion, I think. There will be losers from Brexit (and probably not many winners). Losers always squeal. Some of the potential losers are powerful lobbies. How will the government deal with them?
Having done nicely out of Trump, May, Clinton and hopefully Corbyn, I got a bit complacent could not resist piling into Woolfe. But it seems the favourite has been well and truly nobbled. The only crumb of comfort I can draw is that I have given a nice thank you to our OGH.
Comments
https://twitter.com/MartinHoscik/status/760792431973597184
- Smith to win the Labour election
- May to force an election, and
- Labour to form a government from it.
I don't see that treble as anything below three figures and probably some way into it.
There are other possibilities (e.g. the Tories losing a VoNC and the LotO being asked to form a government immediately) but again, none are likely. 150/1 might be nearer the mark.
Cllr Bill Etheridge MEP
Diane James MEP
Elizabeth Jones
Jonathan Arnott MEP
Cllr Lisa Duffy
Phillip Broughton
The government's job now is to distinguish what are the **real** economic interests of the country - most importantly of consumers - from the mass of vested interests.
'Captains of industry' are often the last people you should listen to. Back in the early 80s the CBI was so terrified of the trade unions it lobbied against trade union reforms.
I'd price that something like:
Smith wins Lab contest: 15%
Gen election this year: 10%
Smith then wins said election: 25% (???? wild guess, no idea how he'd take to the job)
Which makes 266/1 - knowing how much profit margin the books take on long shots, that's probably about how Shadsy would price it fairly too :-)
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
The assumption in the US polity is that money buys votes, just as money spent on advertising gets sales.
What is the history of the NYT's success or failure in backing candidates? Is it like the Sun, that always wins? In two months time, nobody under 60 will ever have had a vote in a British general election in which the Sun didn't back the winning side.
But the politics is up for discussion, I think. There will be losers from Brexit (and probably not many winners). Losers always squeal. Some of the potential losers are powerful lobbies. How will the government deal with them?
And I'm a politics geek.