6. Finally, it might be a good symbolic concession for the UK to agree to make contributions towards specific EU programmes. This will allow the EU to claim a Win, and help get the consent of the minor players for our more important objectives.
I think overall this is probably where we are heading, but the journey is going to be tough and we're not going to get there immediately. In between this result stand a fair few political obstacles. One will be cleared away by the French electorate early next year. The rest will be trying to get the elected representatives on side and then delivering a deal to the commission which they must implement giving them no latitude to change it.
As the investment note TSE posted above noted, the markets are starting to factor in a hard Brexit, and a determined attempt to reduce immigration.
Both of these will have significant economic penalties, for the UK and Europe.
This is not a zero sum game. What is lost here --- in terms of future growth not delivered, innovations unmade, and companies unfounded --- will not be compensated for elsewhere. See the 1930s protectionist spiral for more detail.
We are, playing a game of chicken with our economy. Sterling is an advance indicator. There is comfort in that sterling was previously overvalued and we do in fact need a dose of inflation, but the macro omens are not good.
Also, global perceptions and are turning against us and as yet we have not provided any counter to that. Brexit has bewildered global opinion and is generally understood as a protectionist, nativist measure. Our reputation for political stability has taken a knock too.
We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital. We are coming across as anti-foreigner. Whether this is Rudd's fault, or the Guardian's reporting, or a misunderstanding of foreign opinion doesn't matter - it is what it is.
Buckle down. This is a kind of politico-economic 2008 or 1992 or even 1956. One feasible outcome is a noticeably impoverished UK relative to other first world countries. Another, less feasible in my opinion, is a "Singapore of the North Atlantic". The next few years will be very turbulent and in my opinion the Treasury forecasts for "lost growth" by 2020 are an underestimate. Hope I'm wrong!
You are at least right to a degree. The question is how bad it will be, (it may not be that bad), and whether we collectively think it's worth it to "take control" and reduce immigration.
Remainers are looking for any reason, any perceived reason they can point out why we shouldn't leave.
They moan about a falling pound, and would moan if it rose as it harms exports, even if it was static they would find some ill in that. Remainers will not say anything positive about Britain or leaving the UK anytime soon. It's quite clear that a lot of Remainers simply do not like Britain.
The EU is going down the pan. It's in a bad place and its only going to get worse for them.
Yes, the EU answer to any problem is more EU. Nothing since we voted to leave suggests that the EU is considering even the slightest deviation in that policy. The EU seems determined to prove that the Leave campaign was correct about where the EU is going.
19.5% swing from Lab to SNP in Glasgow last night.
I genuinely think Labour is finished now. Their decline and fall in Scotland will be repeated in Wales and much of northern England. They will be left with London and a few core cities. 20%.
I do hope so. It's time we had a proper decent left of centre party not the malign rubbish Labour is turning itself into.
Unless there is a major reform of the Union financing (for Labour) or the main Unions getting taken over by moderates, there are not the right conditions for a moderate left of centre party. In the 1980s we had a Labour party funded by moderate unions. That kept Labour going through the Foot/Kinnock years and provided the funding for the Blair New Labour period which eventually saw off the SDP etc. A break away group in 2016+ will be up against a hard left Labour party fully funded by the Unions.
Clearly we've a free floating exchange rate and there are advantages to a £ devaluation as well as costs. Arguably reduced consumption of imports and exports led growth and rebalancing is exactly what we need as a country. But it isn't what people were told they were voting for. Leave really couldn't have been clearer in it's prescription. Vote Leave, take back control, less immigrants, better NHS, higher wages. This will all end in tears though not sadly I suspect a swing back to supporting EU membership. I suspect the markets are over reacting. Though there basic observation, that an advanced, complex , stable industrial democracy has just taken a turn toward nativist protectionism, is imho accurate.
''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''
I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.
If the EU is being super aggressive "pour encourager les autres" - well who are these "autres" and why would they support punitive actions against the Uk if they may well be next ?
NL, IRE etc etc..
The EU isn't being "super aggressive". The EU is an organisation with rules that have been agreed between all of its members, and it is duty bound to operate according to those rules. It simply does not have the authority to make gross exceptions to those rules to suit UK demands. No amount of foot-stomping and posturing by the UK can change that. The mechanics of the situation and the deluded attitude to negotiations on the part of the UK mean that a (very) hard Brexit now looks inevitable.
" It simply does not have the authority to make gross exceptions to those rules to suit UK demands."
It's always managed to do so for the French.
And managed to do so on the so-called inviolable principle of free movement for other countries.
For heaven's sake: look at Europe now. Barriers and borders are going up all over the place and yet the Eurocrats talk about a sacred principle. The reality is that all countries are going to have to rethink migration, asylum etc in light of the new realities and the concerns of voters. This is as it should be. "When the facts change .... " etc.
The vote for Brexit is one way in which that rethinking is being forced on Britain. But the rest of Europe is deluded if it thinks that it too can ignore the realities on the ground and what voters want.
As the investment note TSE posted above noted, the markets are starting to factor in a hard Brexit, and a determined attempt to reduce immigration.
Both of these will have significant economic penalties, for the UK and Europe.
This is not a zero sum game. What is lost here --- in terms of future growth not delivered, innovations unmade, and companies unfounded --- will not be compensated for elsewhere. See the 1930s protectionist spiral for more detail.
We are, playing a game of chicken with our economy. Sterling is an advance indicator. There is comfort in that sterling was previously overvalued and we do in fact need a dose of inflation, but the macro omens are not good.
Also, global perceptions and are turning against us and as yet we have not provided any counter to that. Brexit has bewildered global opinion and is generally understood as a protectionist, nativist measure. Our reputation for political stability has taken a knock too.
We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital. We are coming across as anti-foreigner. Whether this is Rudd's fault, or the Guardian's reporting, or a misunderstanding of foreign opinion doesn't matter - it is what it is.
Buckle down. This is a kind of politico-economic 2008 or 1992 or even 1956. One feasible outcome is a noticeably impoverished UK relative to other first world countries. Another, less feasible in my opinion, is a "Singapore of the North Atlantic". The next few years will be very turbulent and in my opinion the Treasury forecasts for "lost growth" by 2020 are an underestimate. Hope I'm wrong!
You are at least right to a degree. The question is how bad it will be, (it may not be that bad), and whether we collectively think it's worth it to "take control" and reduce immigration.
The markets are also expecting a further cut in our base rate (Carney said so) whereas the expectation in the USA is about rate rises. Hence the £ is less attractive!
19.5% swing from Lab to SNP in Glasgow last night.
I genuinely think Labour is finished now. Their decline and fall in Scotland will be repeated in Wales and much of northern England. They will be left with London and a few core cities. 20%.
I do hope so. It's time we had a proper decent left of centre party not the malign rubbish Labour is turning itself into.
Unless there is a major reform of the Union financing (for Labour) or the main Unions getting taken over by moderates, there are not the right conditions for a moderate left of centre party. In the 1980s we had a Labour party funded by moderate unions. That kept Labour going through the Foot/Kinnock years and provided the funding for the Blair New Labour period which eventually saw off the SDP etc. A break away group in 2016+ will be up against a hard left Labour party fully funded by the Unions.
I think that is a shame. There is a need for a sensible left of centre/social democratic party in our politics.
From one perspective, it’s unsurprising that the Left, whose Corbynite platform is a sequence of demands as impossible as they are unpleasant, should seek to pretend that its opponents also offer the impossible as their manifesto. (We’re lunatics, but we’re nicer lunatics ….)
But why are they so frightened? I think the fear is real; which explains the viciousness with which it is expressed (those demonstrators in Birmingham, with their explicit demands to murder Conservatives – just a joke, right?)
They’re nervous of a “Tory hegemony”, and it is this – not so much a Tory majority, which is always temporary – which they seek to rule as inadmissible. In particular, they’re frightened that a particular social class, long targeted for derision and therefore easy to ignore, is about to find its voice.
You are at least right to a degree. The question is how bad it will be, (it may not be that bad), and whether we collectively think it's worth it to "take control" and reduce immigration.
I finally saw May's speech yesterday and overall I was impressed. I don't agree with some that it was policy free and it was in fact as advertised - a coherent vision for the future.
But what scares me was the determination evidenced to drive down immigration.
Part of the problem here is that by Brexiting *and* cracking down aggressively on immigration we are sending a very, very bad message.
We need to square the circle - I agree that immigration is "too high" and it is not acceptable for it to continue indefinitely (which was one of the implicit promises of the Remain campaign and in my view why it ultimately failed).
But right now we need to be truly open for business. And that means open for people - from around the world - to come and do business here without fear of hostility, hate or deportation.
Rather like the deficit, we need a long term immigration plan. One which accepts the need to even things out in the long term, but also understands that today our best interests are to keep the people coming.
If the EU is being super aggressive "pour encourager les autres" - well who are these "autres" and why would they support punitive actions against the Uk if they may well be next ?
NL, IRE etc etc..
The EU isn't being "super aggressive". The EU is an organisation with rules that have been agreed between all of its members, and it is duty bound to operate according to those rules. It simply does not have the authority to make gross exceptions to those rules to suit UK demands. No amount of foot-stomping and posturing by the UK can change that. The mechanics of the situation and the deluded attitude to negotiations on the part of the UK mean that a (very) hard Brexit now looks inevitable.
" It simply does not have the authority to make gross exceptions to those rules to suit UK demands."
It's always managed to do so for the French.
And managed to do so on the so-called inviolable principle of free movement for other countries. For heaven's sake: look at Europe now. Barriers and borders are going up all over the place and yet the Eurocrats talk about a sacred principle. The reality is that all countries are going to have to rethink migration, asylum etc in light of the new realities and the concerns of voters. This is as it should be. "When the facts change .... " etc. The vote for Brexit is one way in which that rethinking is being forced on Britain. But the rest of Europe is deluded if it thinks that it too can ignore the realities on the ground and what voters want.
Entirely logical but most of the key people that run the EU do not think that way. They wish to preserve this religion called the EU with all the rules it has acquired.
On Topic: They'll be a deal eventually. There always is a deal. But if Brexit is defined as the eventual permanent FTA being ratified it could be 6 to 8 years away. We've years of negotiation, speculation and transition ahead of us. The variables are so myriad it's impossible to forecast accurately. Presumably there will be some sort of benefit at the end of it. One hopes. I think the issue Mr Meeks hints at is this though. The EU is an intergenerational political project with strong support amongst the elites on both sides of the Atlantic. It's badly wounded by Brexit and and it knows it. Those that persistently argue it's in the EU's interest to secure a smooth Brexit are bonkers. It's primary interest is in preventing contagion.
''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''
I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.
I agree. Rudd is of course the sister of the biggest europhile, Roland the rat Rudd (his nickname). Why would she be helping to wreck Brexit's image?
LA time poll has a sharp turn away from Trump, with him only 2.6% ahead of her now, down from 5% a few days ago. ( For people who care about that poll)
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 20m20 minutes ago Clinton team think they have Florida, North Carolina and Nevada "locked" as a result of early voting.
If true, Trump needs to focus more than ever on his Rust Belt strategy.
If true, Trump has lost.
Yeah, if true, then Trump has no path pretty much. He needs Florida.
Glad my bets are on HRC.
The game may well be up for the Donald but I wouldn't take Dan The Man's word for it to be honest...
I'd agree with that. I have my scepticism about the messenger but I do get the impression that enough swing voters have woken up since the first debate to the fact that the election isn't a reality game show to make it an awfully big ask for Trump now.
I'll repost the article about the Dems GOTV operation - the Republicans have nothing like this. It is a hard thing to grasp the scope and scale of it, the Dems have every single person individually mapped for likelyhood to vote and likelyhood to vote Dem/Rep.
It's far from over, Republican Govenors are doing everything possible to stop people who vote Dem from voting: Per @electionsmith, 50,000 people registered in last 5 days before 2012 deadline; everyone knows final days crucial
Taniel added, Alex Seitz-Wald @aseitzwald Rick Scott will not extend reg deadline due to storm, he says at presser, via @MAlexJohnson: "Everybody has had plenty of time to register." 90 retweets 77 likes
This pursual of anyone who rents out a home is just daft. My wife rents out our old house on a long tenancy to friends. Not all landlords are parasites.
The principle that HMRC can extract taxes from someone on non profit earnings is simply rewriting the basic principles of taxation, and is inherently wrong.
Just back from my morning walk and catching up. Goodness gracious there has been a lot of hysterical nonsense on here this morning. The UK economy contracting by 25% being the most outstanding but against a strong field; e.g. inflation to rise to 5% in the next six months, German cars to become unaffordable (for most people they already are).
Mr. Navabi is, I suspect, closest to the eventual outcome, though why the UK should pay into the EU, as per his item 6, I cannot fathom.
If the EU is being super aggressive "pour encourager les autres" - well who are these "autres" and why would they support punitive actions against the Uk if they may well be next ?
NL, IRE etc etc..
The EU isn't being "super aggressive". The EU is an organisation with rules that have been agreed between all of its members, and it is duty bound to operate according to those rules. It simply does not have the authority to make gross exceptions to those rules to suit UK demands. No amount of foot-stomping and posturing by the UK can change that. The mechanics of the situation and the deluded attitude to negotiations on the part of the UK mean that a (very) hard Brexit now looks inevitable.
" It simply does not have the authority to make gross exceptions to those rules to suit UK demands."
It's always managed to do so for the French.
And managed to do so on the so-called inviolable principle of free movement for other countries.
For heaven's sake: look at Europe now. Barriers and borders are going up all over the place and yet the Eurocrats talk about a sacred principle. The reality is that all countries are going to have to rethink migration, asylum etc in light of the new realities and the concerns of voters. This is as it should be. "When the facts change .... " etc.
The vote for Brexit is one way in which that rethinking is being forced on Britain. But the rest of Europe is deluded if it thinks that it too can ignore the realities on the ground and what voters want.
Agree 100% . The EU cannot continue to exist in present form despite what the Remainers say. It's a busted flush, now making up the rules as it goes along and I am glad for one to be well rid once and for all.
Leave really couldn't have been clearer in it's prescription. Vote Leave, take back control, less immigrants, better NHS, higher wages. This will all end in tears though not sadly I suspect a swing back to supporting EU membership.
Phil Collins in The Times
Yet in an act that is the middle point between chutzpah and hubris, Mrs May is treating it as a liberation. A vote of 52-48 to leave the EU offers no legitimate mandate at all for a cut-and-run deal but it is evident that Mrs May is intent on defining the meaning of the referendum for her own purposes. The referendum on June 23 has changed the prime minister, the government, and the nation.
Everything stems from it. Mrs May’s conference speech on Wednesday minted, between the lines, a constitutional novelty. She has recast June 23 as a mandate for illiberal domestic policy. She sees no need for a general election — invoking Article 50 by March surely scuppers that possibility — because she has discovered a mandate in the referendum that is at least equivalent to, if not larger than, an election.
On topic: I've been thinking about this very subject.
Successful negotiation requires that both sides must feel they got a good deal. When the participants are politicians, they also have to come home with some fine-sounding words for their voters. Is there a deal which can allow each of our counterparties to claim a 'win' and also meet the UK's key objectives? Here’s a suggestion:
1. Tariff-free trade in manufactured goods between the EU and UK is very much in both sides' interests. Both sides can claim a Win domestically, because their manufacturers won't be penalised.
2. Non-tariff barriers for manufactured goods can be minimised if the UK keeps EU product-type standards. This can be claimed as a Win for the EU, but in reality it's hardly going to be worth our while doing anything different, and our own manufacturers will be pleased to have only one set of standards.
3. The City would ideally like to keep the existing 'financial passporting' arrangements, but the EU won't grant that. They need a symbolic Win here, so they can claim that the UK hasn't been allowed to cherry-pick what it wants. However, EU banks are themselves heavily dependent on passporting into the UK, and EU businesses are heavily dependent on capital-raising in London. The answer may be to keep the substance of financial passporting in another way – using the mechanism of 'regulatory equivalence'. The City gets most of what it wants, but pretends to be unhappy. EU politicians pretend that the City won't have full access to the Single Market, while their firms can continue to access London's financial might.
4. Control over immigration is a political red-line for the UK, but we can concede special rights for EU citizens in return for equivalent rights for UK citizens in the EU. Eurocrats will be able to claim a Win in that the principle that you can't be 'in' the Single Market without free movement will have been respected (see item 3). The Visegrad countries are more interested in the numbers, and in practice we in the UK need large numbers of their citizens to pick our fruit, build our houses, staff our hospitals, and care for our elderly. It should be possible to reach a deal which maintains the principle of UK sovereignty and limits peak numbers, without being too disruptive.
5. A bilateral agreement and a commitment to continue the historic special arrangements for Irish citizens will allow the Irish government to claim that Ireland's interests have been respected.
6. Finally, it might be a good symbolic concession for the UK to agree to make contributions towards specific EU programmes. This will allow the EU to claim a Win, and help get the consent of the minor players for our more important objectives.
Can we get Mr Nabavi a seat in the Lords (Lord Nabavi Of Political Betting?) so he can be part of the negotiating team?:
''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''
I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.
The problem is that she has been over-promoted largely because of her ovaries.
A male MP of similar stupidity would have sunk without trace years ago after a short inglorious stint as a junior minister.
This pursual of anyone who rents out a home is just daft. My wife rents out our old house on a long tenancy to friends. Not all landlords are parasites.
The principle that HMRC can extract taxes from someone on non profit earnings is simply rewriting the basic principles of taxation, and is inherently wrong.
I wonder how long before the MPs, many of whom are landlords, lobby Hammond for some sensible changes? A majority of 16!
On topic: I've been thinking about this very subject.
Successful negotiation requires that both sides must feel they got a good deal. When the participants are politicians, they also have to come home with some fine-sounding words for their voters. Is there a deal which can allow each of our counterparties to claim a 'win' and also meet the UK's key objectives? Here’s a suggestion:
1. Tariff-free trade in manufactured goods between the EU and UK is very much in both sides' interests. Both sides can claim a Win domestically, because their manufacturers won't be penalised.
2. Non-tariff barriers for manufactured goods can be minimised if the UK keeps EU product-type standards. This can be claimed as a Win for the EU, but in reality it's hardly going to be worth our while doing anything different, and our own manufacturers will be pleased to have only one set of standards.
3. The City would ideally like to keep the existing 'financial passporting' arrangements, but the EU won't grant that. They need a symbolic Win here, so they can claim that the UK hasn't been allowed to cherry-pick what it wants. However, EU banks are themselves heavily dependent on passporting into the UK, and EU businesses are heavily dependent on capital-raising in London. The answer may be to keep the substance of financial passporting in another way – using the mechanism of 'regulatory equivalence'. The City gets most of what it wants, but pretends to be unhappy. EU politicians pretend that the City won't have full access to the Single Market, while their firms can continue to access London's financial might.
4. Control over immigration is a political red-line for the UK, but we can concede special rights for EU citizens in return for equivalent rights for UK citizens in the EU. Eurocrats will be able to claim a Win in that the principle that you can't be 'in' the Single Market without free movement will have been respected (see item 3). The Visegrad countries are more interested in the numbers, and in practice we in the UK need large numbers of their citizens to pick our fruit, build our houses, staff our hospitals, and care for our elderly. It should be possible to reach a deal which maintains the principle of UK sovereignty and limits peak numbers, without being too disruptive.
5. A bilateral agreement and a commitment to continue the historic special arrangements for Irish citizens will allow the Irish government to claim that Ireland's interests have been respected.
6. Finally, it might be a good symbolic concession for the UK to agree to make contributions towards specific EU programmes. This will allow the EU to claim a Win, and help get the consent of the minor players for our more important objectives.
Very sensible. Separately, v. good news about ex-pats' voting rights.
On Topic: They'll be a deal eventually. There always is a deal. But if Brexit is defined as the eventual permanent FTA being ratified it could be 6 to 8 years away. We've years of negotiation, speculation and transition ahead of us. The variables are so myriad it's impossible to forecast accurately. Presumably there will be some sort of benefit at the end of it. One hopes. I think the issue Mr Meeks hints at is this though. The EU is an intergenerational political project with strong support amongst the elites on both sides of the Atlantic. It's badly wounded by Brexit and and it knows it. Those that persistently argue it's in the EU's interest to secure a smooth Brexit are bonkers. It's primary interest is in preventing contagion.
An organization which has to punish ex-members in order to keep existing members in line is not an organization worth being a member of, IMO.
Britain would have voted to stay in if the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.
The EU should be asking itself - in private at least - why it is that after 43 years experience of this apparently wonderful organization, a majority of the population in Britain wanted out. Might it, possibly, have had something to do with the EU itself: how it is structured, how it has behaved, how it intends to behave in future? Just possibly?
LA time poll has a sharp turn away from Trump, with him only 2.6% ahead of her now, down from 5% a few days ago. ( For people who care about that poll)
Nate Silver says it is as good as any other survey in illustrating shifts, despite its GOP house lean.
I'm pleased we're back to Suez references. I've persistently argued Brexit is Suez on Steroids. It's the same phenomenon. Post Imperial Overstretch. That moment an ex empire of the mind overstretches it's self by thinking it still is an empire. Even if you really supported Brexit, a perfectly respectable view in its self, you wouldn't do it like this. A ludicrous referendum based on lies, xenophobia, anti expert populism and born of a jingoist sense of entitlement and exceptionalism.
Brexit should have been a plan. A 15 year plan of transition with clear cost/benefit analysis and an agreed goal. A party should then have won a majority in the HoC on that plan. It's the British way. Slow, careful, cynical, consensual, scrutinised. All that's happening now is a market correction. The Leave bubble has burst and the real value of the UK's position is finding it's real market price.
Never the less were an old country with deep institutions. All is not lost yet.
I should emphasise that my suggested approach to a deal is my most optimistic scenario. There's a substantial risk that we may end up with a deal that is a lose-lose.
I think the fundamental problem is that we literally have no alternative to the EU. It's fine to say the EU is not for us. But unless we can say what is for us, it just becomes a rejection. We're not likely to get a good deal either unless we know what we want Theresa May and her ministers can talk about Britain open for business, but that's just a meaningless soundbite. We went into the EU in 1973 because we didn't have a better alternative. We're leaving forty years later still without an answer to that question.
I should emphasise that my suggested approach to a deal is my most optimistic scenario. There's a substantial risk that we may end up with a deal that is a lose-lose.
Which is why the government needs to outline what their worst case scenario is.
For me I think tariff free goods trade and possibly a transitional accommodation for the City with very modest immigration controls. They should start from whatever position they choose and then decide to work from there.
On Topic: They'll be a deal eventually. There always is a deal. But if Brexit is defined as the eventual permanent FTA being ratified it could be 6 to 8 years away. We've years of negotiation, speculation and transition ahead of us. The variables are so myriad it's impossible to forecast accurately. Presumably there will be some sort of benefit at the end of it. One hopes. I think the issue Mr Meeks hints at is this though. The EU is an intergenerational political project with strong support amongst the elites on both sides of the Atlantic. It's badly wounded by Brexit and and it knows it. Those that persistently argue it's in the EU's interest to secure a smooth Brexit are bonkers. It's primary interest is in preventing contagion.
An organization which has to punish ex-members in order to keep existing members in line is not an organization worth being a member of, IMO.
Britain would have voted to stay in if the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.
The EU should be asking itself - in private at least - why it is that after 43 years experience of this apparently wonderful organization, a majority of the population in Britain wanted out. Might it, possibly, have had something to do with the EU itself: how it is structured, how it has behaved, how it intends to behave in future? Just possibly?
Well I won't argue with that per se. It's reasonable when framed lime that. However if I cancel my contract with Vodaphone and stop paying them are they " Punishing " me by subsequently ending my mobile service ?
I should emphasise that my suggested approach to a deal is my most optimistic scenario. There's a substantial risk that we may end up with a deal that is a lose-lose.
There's no chance of that. Getting out of the EU is a Win by definition. The rest is just tidying up.
I should emphasise that my suggested approach to a deal is my most optimistic scenario. There's a substantial risk that we may end up with a deal that is a lose-lose.
Sadly Richard with the hard-right Brexit clowns in charge I fear that is exactly where we will end up.
Mr. Submarine, a shade unfair to castigate the dire Leave campaign whilst not doing likewise for an equally (or even more) atrocious Remain campaign.
I agree it's a cackhanded way to do it, because Cameron thought it'd be a clever trick for short term gain, and because his negotiation was worse than worthless yet claimed as a triumph. Both campaigns were terrible.
However, the EU is doomed to failure. Better to get out now than wait until the whole edifice crumbles with us still inside.
Miss Cyclefree, quite. It's the coercive control that's so popular with abusive spouses.
I think the fundamental problem is that we literally have no alternative to the EU. It's fine to say the EU is not for us. But unless we can say what is for us, it just becomes a rejection.
Can't we just trade with the rest of the world (and the EU) and run our own affairs like all the other countries that aren't part of the EU do?
This pursual of anyone who rents out a home is just daft. My wife rents out our old house on a long tenancy to friends. Not all landlords are parasites.
The principle that HMRC can extract taxes from someone on non profit earnings is simply rewriting the basic principles of taxation, and is inherently wrong.
The argument from the other side is, however, that all buyers of a particular asset class (regardless of the purpose of that purchase) should be treated equitably and that someone buying a property as an investment should not have inherent advantages over those buying a house to live in.
There are only 2 solutions to the problem either reapply mortgage interest tax relief for owner occupiers or remove the tax benefits that investors in the private housing sector asset class receive from being apply to apply tax relief on the interest they pay. Given the structural deficit tax credits has created you can see the reason behind the approach Osbourne took.
Oh and personally he hasn't gone far enough. Even after the S24 changes things will still not be equatable between those buying a house to live in and those buying a house to rent to others - after these changes you will still be able to claim 20% relief on the interest.
But to be honest that last bit is going to be irrelevant as Basel 3 is going to make it very difficult for banks to continue providing BTL loans in their current interest only format.
I think the fundamental problem is that we literally have no alternative to the EU. It's fine to say the EU is not for us. But unless we can say what is for us, it just becomes a rejection. We're not likely to get a good deal either unless we know what we want Theresa May and her ministers can talk about Britain open for business, but that's just a meaningless soundbite. We went into the EU in 1973 because we didn't have a better alternative. We're leaving forty years later still without an answer to that question.
Well of course there is an alternative, not being in the EU.
''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''
I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.
The problem is that she has been over-promoted largely because of her ovaries.
A male MP of similar stupidity would have sunk without trace years ago after a short inglorious stint as a junior minister.
Not while there are Brexit ministerial posts to be filled.
I think the fundamental problem is that we literally have no alternative to the EU. It's fine to say the EU is not for us. But unless we can say what is for us, it just becomes a rejection. We're not likely to get a good deal either unless we know what we want Theresa May and her ministers can talk about Britain open for business, but that's just a meaningless soundbite. We went into the EU in 1973 because we didn't have a better alternative. We're leaving forty years later still without an answer to that question.
Well of course there is an alternative, not being in the EU.
If you think alternatives and policies can be defined in the negative.
''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''
I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.
The problem is that she has been over-promoted largely because of her ovaries.
A male MP of similar stupidity would have sunk without trace years ago after a short inglorious stint as a junior minister.
Jezza recognises that Rudd is the weak link in May's top team. That is why he has put his best player as her shadow, to fully exploit that weakness.
Finally as for ' Remainers ' not shutting up you betcha. The is a democracy. Leave won one election decisively but narrowly. Leave no longer exists and we know move onto the world's most complex negotiation which will take years and is being executed by a Conservative government who's taken complete ownership of the policy. Quite rightly our democracy will discuss little else for years. Any attempt to suggest otherwise by Leavers is at best delusional or more likely a cheap rhetorical device to evade scrutiny. Fat chance.
I think the fundamental problem is that we literally have no alternative to the EU. It's fine to say the EU is not for us. But unless we can say what is for us, it just becomes a rejection. We're not likely to get a good deal either unless we know what we want Theresa May and her ministers can talk about Britain open for business, but that's just a meaningless soundbite. We went into the EU in 1973 because we didn't have a better alternative. We're leaving forty years later still without an answer to that question.
Well of course there is an alternative, not being in the EU.
If you think alternatives and policies can be defined in the negative.
OK, being independent. It's the same thing really.
''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''
I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.
The problem is that she has been over-promoted largely because of her ovaries.
A male MP of similar stupidity would have sunk without trace years ago after a short inglorious stint as a junior minister.
Jezza recognises that Rudd is the weak link in May's top team. That is why he has put his best player as her shadow, to fully exploit that weakness.
Mr. Navabi is, I suspect, closest to the eventual outcome, though why the UK should pay into the EU, as per his item 6, I cannot fathom.
Isn't the suggestion to pay into specific projects?
For example, Erasmus, or the ESA.
So UK politicians can say 'we aren't paying into the EU' (Brussels Eurocrats), while Brussels Eurocrats can say to any waverers - 'see - they are still paying into the EU!'
I also think national interests on security is a strong UK card - we're the only 5 eyes member of the EU currently - Belgian police said they got more info from the UK than they did their own security service - if the UK fell silent a lot of people would get very worried very quickly....of course that's not something the Eurocrats worry so much about....
''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''
I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.
The problem is that she has been over-promoted largely because of her ovaries.
A male MP of similar stupidity would have sunk without trace years ago after a short inglorious stint as a junior minister.
Jezza recognises that Rudd is the weak link in May's top team. That is why he has put his best player as her shadow, to fully exploit that weakness.
Err, right. A shadow HS who will tell Labour voters they're all racists.
I think the fundamental problem is that we literally have no alternative to the EU. It's fine to say the EU is not for us. But unless we can say what is for us, it just becomes a rejection.
Can't we just trade with the rest of the world (and the EU) and run our own affairs like all the other countries that aren't part of the EU do?
Fair question. Which particular other country could we use as a reference for the UK, going forward?
I think the fundamental problem is that we literally have no alternative to the EU. It's fine to say the EU is not for us. But unless we can say what is for us, it just becomes a rejection. We're not likely to get a good deal either unless we know what we want Theresa May and her ministers can talk about Britain open for business, but that's just a meaningless soundbite. We went into the EU in 1973 because we didn't have a better alternative. We're leaving forty years later still without an answer to that question.
Singapore of the North Atlantic, isn't it?
Seriously though I think most intellectual energy has gone into detailing the wrongs of the EU. Now, some energy (by necessity) is going into how we leave the EU. But I've yet to see a coherent case for a prosperous UK beyond the EU.
An ultra free trade libertarian paradise is not politically possible and indeed the global financial crisis savagely exposed some of the assumptions underpinning this model.
Perhaps, if I'm optimistic, I'd say that the UK is not alone in not clearly understanding "what's next". See also the intellectual collapse of parties of the right and left around the world. Maybe Brexit will force us to reach an answer before anyone else!
@DMcCaffreySKY: Zac Goldsmith, he'll spark by-election if Government give green light to Heathrow, so as early as next week, possibly run as independent.
Surely the local party would just let him run unopposed if he went as an independent. That way there's nothing to lose and on everything else he'll vote with the government.
No chance. The Tories would run a candidate which would let the LDs through the middle
The Lib Dems would most likely get squeezed in such a circumstance, where the fight would undoubtedly be portrayed as Zac v the Tories. Indeed, the Lib Dems might not even stand at all and back Zac given that he won more than three times the LD share (i.e. it'd be mathematically impossible for them to 'come through the middle' without gaining a substantial swing into the bargain too).
If Zac stands as an independent, the Tories don't stand. Prevents him making a great stand, and frees up Tory votes to support him.
''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''
I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.
The problem is that she has been over-promoted largely because of her ovaries.
A male MP of similar stupidity would have sunk without trace years ago after a short inglorious stint as a junior minister.
Jezza recognises that Rudd is the weak link in May's top team. That is why he has put his best player as her shadow, to fully exploit that weakness.
Do you want to reflect on that for a while? If Diane Abbott is the best player the PLP has what does that say about the rest?
''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''
I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.
I'm pleased we're back to Suez references. I've persistently argued Brexit is Suez on Steroids. It's the same phenomenon. Post Imperial Overstretch. That moment an ex empire of the mind overstretches it's self by thinking it still is an empire. Even if you really supported Brexit, a perfectly respectable view in its self, you wouldn't do it like this. A ludicrous referendum based on lies, xenophobia, anti expert populism and born of a jingoist sense of entitlement and exceptionalism.
Brexit should have been a plan. A 15 year plan of transition with clear cost/benefit analysis and an agreed goal. A party should then have won a majority in the HoC on that plan. It's the British way. Slow, careful, cynical, consensual, scrutinised. All that's happening now is a market correction. The Leave bubble has burst and the real value of the UK's position is finding it's real market price.
Never the less were an old country with deep institutions. All is not lost yet.
Brexit has nothing to do with reestablishing the British Empire. It is to do with restoring democratic self-governance.
''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''
I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.
The problem is that she has been over-promoted largely because of her ovaries.
A male MP of similar stupidity would have sunk without trace years ago after a short inglorious stint as a junior minister.
''However, the EU is doomed to failure. Better to get out now than wait until the whole edifice crumbles with us still inside.''
Absolutely Mr Morris. I accept some of the remainer points about what has happened since we left. And I don't really like some of what May said about Foreigners.
But for me the EU gave us no choice. And the way it is handling Brexit only confirms that. It wants to 'punish' a country that has contributed mightily in blood iron and treasure over centuries to retain and enhance European balance and stability. But Islamist Turkey is OK.
I should emphasise that my suggested approach to a deal is my most optimistic scenario. There's a substantial risk that we may end up with a deal that is a lose-lose.
Sadly Richard with the hard-right Brexit clowns in charge I fear that is exactly where we will end up.
Time for Labour to put forward their Brexit ideas, surely?
On Topic: They'll be a deal eventually. There always is a deal. But if Brexit is defined as the eventual permanent FTA being ratified it could be 6 to 8 years away. We've years of negotiation, speculation and transition ahead of us. The variables are so myriad it's impossible to forecast accurately. Presumably there will be some sort of benefit at the end of it. One hopes. I think the issue Mr Meeks hints at is this though. The EU is an intergenerational political project with strong support amongst the elites on both sides of the Atlantic. It's badly wounded by Brexit and and it knows it. Those that persistently argue it's in the EU's interest to secure a smooth Brexit are bonkers. It's primary interest is in preventing contagion.
An organization which has to punish ex-members in order to keep existing members in line is not an organization worth being a member of, IMO.
Britain would have voted to stay in if the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.
The EU should be asking itself - in private at least - why it is that after 43 years experience of this apparently wonderful organization, a majority of the population in Britain wanted out. Might it, possibly, have had something to do with the EU itself: how it is structured, how it has behaved, how it intends to behave in future? Just possibly?
I am astonished by the EU's reaction, and total lack of self-awareness, even if i am not entirely surprised.
They really misunderstand Britons if they think we will be humbled and chastened by punishing us: anyone who knows this nation's character knows how badly we take to that.
I stick to what I've said before: if the EU has no answers and does not reform, it will fall.
This pursual of anyone who rents out a home is just daft. My wife rents out our old house on a long tenancy to friends. Not all landlords are parasites.
The principle that HMRC can extract taxes from someone on non profit earnings is simply rewriting the basic principles of taxation, and is inherently wrong.
The argument from the other side is, however, that all buyers of a particular asset class (regardless of the purpose of that purchase) should be treated equitably and that someone buying a property as an investment should not have inherent advantages over those buying a house to live in.
There are only 2 solutions to the problem either reapply mortgage interest tax relief for owner occupiers or remove the tax benefits that investors in the private housing sector asset class receive from being apply to apply tax relief on the interest they pay. Given the structural deficit tax credits has created you can see the reason behind the approach Osbourne took.
Oh and personally he hasn't gone far enough. Even after the S24 changes things will still not be equatable between those buying a house to live in and those buying a house to rent to others - after these changes you will still be able to claim 20% relief on the interest.
But to be honest that last bit is going to be irrelevant as Basel 3 is going to make it very difficult for banks to continue providing BTL loans in their current interest only format.
IF a property is bought as an investment, then the profit on that investment is open to taxation via capital gains. If the investment requires a payment of X every month to stop it becoming the property of the bank, then the profit is clearly Rent minus X.
If this was really anything other than a political stunt, it would apply in a similar way to institutional landlords. But it doesn't, so it was just political posturing by a chancellor with his head up his arse looking to score a cheap point over Miliband the lesser.
Finally as for ' Remainers ' not shutting up you betcha. The is a democracy. Leave won one election decisively but narrowly. Leave no longer exists and we know move onto the world's most complex negotiation which will take years and is being executed by a Conservative government who's taken complete ownership of the policy. Quite rightly our democracy will discuss little else for years. Any attempt to suggest otherwise by Leavers is at best delusional or more likely a cheap rhetorical device to evade scrutiny. Fat chance.
No, it might be like that on PB.com in the real world not so much, its already fading from the conciousness of a lot of the public, future/credit will be seen through the prism of the government suceeding or failing in handing it. If interest rates go up, that will be for most voters because May/Hammond are not handing the economy properly, and that will be the end of it, very few will link it to BrExit at all, except obsessives on here.
If interest rates go up, that will be for most voters because May/Hammond are not handing the economy properly, and that will be the end of it, very few will link it to BrExit at all, except obsessives on here.
Every press report on every channel in all media will link it to Brexit.
I think the fundamental problem is that we literally have no alternative to the EU. It's fine to say the EU is not for us. But unless we can say what is for us, it just becomes a rejection.
Can't we just trade with the rest of the world (and the EU) and run our own affairs like all the other countries that aren't part of the EU do?
Fair question. Which particular other country could we use as a reference for the UK, going forward?
Dunno. Presumably we have our own circumstances that apply to us and our needs?
I think the fundamental problem is that we literally have no alternative to the EU. It's fine to say the EU is not for us. But unless we can say what is for us, it just becomes a rejection. We're not likely to get a good deal either unless we know what we want Theresa May and her ministers can talk about Britain open for business, but that's just a meaningless soundbite. We went into the EU in 1973 because we didn't have a better alternative. We're leaving forty years later still without an answer to that question.
Singapore of the North Atlantic, isn't it?
Seriously though I think most intellectual energy has gone into detailing the wrongs of the EU. Now, some energy (by necessity) is going into how we leave the EU. But I've yet to see a coherent case for a prosperous UK beyond the EU.
An ultra free trade libertarian paradise is not politically possible and indeed the global financial crisis savagely exposed some of the assumptions underpinning this model.
Perhaps, if I'm optimistic, I'd say that the UK is not alone in not clearly understanding "what's next". See also the intellectual collapse of parties of the right and left around the world. Maybe Brexit will force us to reach an answer before anyone else!
Yes, even if Hillary scrapes home, the underlying problem that Trump represents doesn't go away. A better and less crazy candidate that can fire up the WWC would walk it in the US in 2020. Brexit is our reaction to globalisation not benefiting the working classes, in other countries they are having r face down far right political parties like PVV, AfD, FPO and FN. Whatever we think of UKIP (especially after yesterday's farce) they are not anywhere near the levers of power unlike those mentioned.
In a sense because of our open economy the reaction has come first, but it will come in other countries just as surely as the sun rises in the east.
The answer is to try an ensure our lowest paid benefit from globalisation but still keeping the economy open. Not easy, but I'd rather Brexit than PM Nige in 4 years.
If interest rates go up, that will be for most voters because May/Hammond are not handing the economy properly, and that will be the end of it, very few will link it to BrExit at all, except obsessives on here.
Every press report on every channel in all media will link it to Brexit.
Yep. Everything for the next 5-10 years can and will be blamed on Brexit. The question is what does May really want to implement....
If interest rates go up, that will be for most voters because May/Hammond are not handing the economy properly, and that will be the end of it, very few will link it to BrExit at all, except obsessives on here.
Every press report on every channel in all media will link it to Brexit.
If people cared what the media think we wouldn't have voted to leave would we...
On Topic: They'll be a deal eventually. There always is a deal. But if Brexit is defined as the eventual permanent FTA being ratified it could be 6 to 8 years away. We've years of negotiation, speculation and transition ahead of us. The variables are so myriad it's impossible to forecast accurately. Presumably there will be some sort of benefit at the end of it. One hopes. I think the issue Mr Meeks hints at is this though. The EU is an intergenerational political project with strong support amongst the elites on both sides of the Atlantic. It's badly wounded by Brexit and and it knows it. Those that persistently argue it's in the EU's interest to secure a smooth Brexit are bonkers. It's primary interest is in preventing contagion.
An organization which has to punish ex-members in order to keep existing members in line is not an organization worth being a member of, IMO.
Britain would have voted to stay in if the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.
The EU should be asking itself - in private at least - why it is that after 43 years experience of this apparently wonderful organization, a majority of the population in Britain wanted out. Might it, possibly, have had something to do with the EU itself: how it is structured, how it has behaved, how it intends to behave in future? Just possibly?
I am astonished by the EU's reaction, and total lack of self-awareness, even if i am not entirely surprised.
They really misunderstand Britons if they think we will be humbled and chastened by punishing us: anyone who knows this nation's character knows how badly we take to that.
I stick to what I've said before: if the EU has no answers and does not reform, it will fall.
It is not punishment for a club to remove benefits when you quit and stop paying subs. Indeed it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. A club exists for its members not its ex-members.
I should emphasise that my suggested approach to a deal is my most optimistic scenario. There's a substantial risk that we may end up with a deal that is a lose-lose.
Sadly Richard with the hard-right Brexit clowns in charge I fear that is exactly where we will end up.
Time for Labour to put forward their Brexit ideas, surely?
No. Time for Labour to keep their gob shut, until the comics that are in charge of the party disappear from the scene (which I fear will be a long time in coming)
''Finally as for ' Remainers ' not shutting up you betcha.''
Nobody wants anybody to shut up. Nobody wants anybody to accept any decision.
Its the nature of the remainer argument that grates, ie whining about a political setback rather than getting out there and putting the case for rejoining.
I am astonished by the EU's reaction, and total lack of self-awareness, even if i am not entirely surprised.
They really misunderstand Britons if they think we will be humbled and chastened by punishing us: anyone who knows this nation's character knows how badly we take to that.
I think you are completely misunderstanding their reaction. We are leaving, they now have zero interest in us, except obviously as an export market and as a friendly country like Canada. It is absolutely nothing to do with 'humbling' or 'chastening' us, but equally they don't owe us any favours. So they are looking at this entirely from the point of view of the remaining 27 and of the Union as a political project, which they want to preserve. It's all about their domestic politics in each country, and the overall internal politics of the EU.
On Topic: They'll be a deal eventually. There always is a deal. But if Brexit is defined as the eventual permanent FTA being ratified it could be 6 to 8 years away. We've years of negotiation, speculation and transition ahead of us. The variables are so myriad it's impossible to forecast accurately. Presumably there will be some sort of benefit at the end of it. One hopes. I think the issue Mr Meeks hints at is this though. The EU is an intergenerational political project with strong support amongst the elites on both sides of the Atlantic. It's badly wounded by Brexit and and it knows it. Those that persistently argue it's in the EU's interest to secure a smooth Brexit are bonkers. It's primary interest is in preventing contagion.
An organization which has to punish ex-members in order to keep existing members in line is not an organization worth being a member of, IMO.
Britain would have voted to stay in if the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.
The EU should be asking itself - in private at least - why it is that after 43 years experience of this apparently wonderful organization, a majority of the population in Britain wanted out. Might it, possibly, have had something to do with the EU itself: how it is structured, how it has behaved, how it intends to behave in future? Just possibly?
I am astonished by the EU's reaction, and total lack of self-awareness, even if i am not entirely surprised.
They really misunderstand Britons if they think we will be humbled and chastened by punishing us: anyone who knows this nation's character knows how badly we take to that.
I stick to what I've said before: if the EU has no answers and does not reform, it will fall.
The one thing the EU doesn't want is for Brexit to demonstrate that being outside is better than being inside. Their only way to do that is to make things as hard as possible for the UK.
The downside of that problem is that any pain their inflict on us will also impact other EU countries. The only thing we don't know is if it will be worse for them than us.
Finally as for ' Remainers ' not shutting up you betcha. The is a democracy. Leave won one election decisively but narrowly. Leave no longer exists and we know move onto the world's most complex negotiation which will take years and is being executed by a Conservative government who's taken complete ownership of the policy. Quite rightly our democracy will discuss little else for years. Any attempt to suggest otherwise by Leavers is at best delusional or more likely a cheap rhetorical device to evade scrutiny. Fat chance.
No, it might be like that on PB.com in the real world not so much, its already fading from the conciousness of a lot of the public, future/credit will be seen through the prism of the government suceeding or failing in handing it. If interest rates go up, that will be for most voters because May/Hammond are not handing the economy properly, and that will be the end of it, very few will link it to BrExit at all, except obsessives on here.
I think that's wrong. Of course the number 67 bus is not thrumming with debate about the nuances of euro clearing - but Brexit is an existential rupture of our political and economic fabric.
It will make and break political careers, and cast its shadow over the age. We, and the commentators, will continue to talk about it. We are living in the immediate post-Brexit era, and it will be seen as such for ever. In turn this will trickle down into popular culture.
Ie , "Where were you when we Brexited?" and innumerable Channel 5 documentaries entitled "I love the Brexit years".
''It is not punishment for a club to remove benefits when you quit and stop paying subs. Indeed it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. A club exists for its members not its ex-members. ''
Most clubs want to know why you are leaving rather than resolving to smack you in the mouth to keep other members from doing the same.
I should emphasise that my suggested approach to a deal is my most optimistic scenario. There's a substantial risk that we may end up with a deal that is a lose-lose.
Sadly Richard with the hard-right Brexit clowns in charge I fear that is exactly where we will end up.
Time for Labour to put forward their Brexit ideas, surely?
No. Time for Labour to keep their gob shut, until the comics that are in charge of the party disappear from the scene (which I fear will be a long time in coming)
Do you actually understand the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
Brexit should have been a plan. A 15 year plan of transition with clear cost/benefit analysis and an agreed goal. A party should then have won a majority in the HoC on that plan. It's the British way. Slow, careful, cynical, consensual, scrutinised. All that's happening now is a market correction. The Leave bubble has burst and the real value of the UK's position is finding it's real market price.
The problem is that was never going to be on the cards because of the idiotic way Article 50 works. No one will talk about anything with you, or tell you what the rules are, or let you talk with any possible future partners until after you activate A50. So it amounts to "tell us you are leaving, then we will tell you what the rules for leaving are", and with a 2 year time limit on it.
''It is not punishment for a club to remove benefits when you quit and stop paying subs. Indeed it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. A club exists for its members not its ex-members. ''
Most clubs want to know why you are leaving rather than resolving to smack you in the mouth to keep other members from doing the same.
We know why the British are leaving, they were never really into it in the first place.
Mr. Navabi is, I suspect, closest to the eventual outcome, though why the UK should pay into the EU, as per his item 6, I cannot fathom.
Isn't the suggestion to pay into specific projects?
For example, Erasmus, or the ESA.
So UK politicians can say 'we aren't paying into the EU' (Brussels Eurocrats), while Brussels Eurocrats can say to any waverers - 'see - they are still paying into the EU!'
I also think national interests on security is a strong UK card - we're the only 5 eyes member of the EU currently - Belgian police said they got more info from the UK than they did their own security service - if the UK fell silent a lot of people would get very worried very quickly....of course that's not something the Eurocrats worry so much about....
If the UK is providing a service to EU member states is that not a cause for them to be paying us? That is the way it usually works is it not? Vodaphone, for example, do not pay me for using their services.
I have no issue with paying for services provided and putting up a subscription for beneficial projects, but paying into the EU coffers is a no.
Richard Nabavi "6. Finally, it might be a good symbolic concession for the UK to agree to make contributions towards specific EU programmes. This will allow the EU to claim a Win, and help get the consent of the minor players for our more important objectives. "
Providing that we categorise all payments to the EU as overseas aid within our 0.7% target.
''It is not punishment for a club to remove benefits when you quit and stop paying subs. Indeed it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. A club exists for its members not its ex-members. ''
Most clubs want to know why you are leaving rather than resolving to smack you in the mouth to keep other members from doing the same.
During the campaign, I and others often advised that the Remain camp should not act as if the EU were a prison from which no member might ever contemplate leaving.
Since the vote, they have justified their refusal to accept their refusal to accept the vote by trying to scare everyone that it exactly that, and that the EU will Punish us for having the temerity to leave.
Comments
Huge news. @patel4witham says UK to stop aid payments to Palestinian territories over terror funding allegations https://t.co/zw0h5vIgFx
Long overdue but very welcome nevertheless.
UKIP: 49.2% (+49.2)
LAB: 25.3% (-17.7)
PHF: 15.4% (-20.3)
CON: 4.1% (-14.0)
PNP: 3.6%
IND: 2.6%
I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.
For heaven's sake: look at Europe now. Barriers and borders are going up all over the place and yet the Eurocrats talk about a sacred principle. The reality is that all countries are going to have to rethink migration, asylum etc in light of the new realities and the concerns of voters. This is as it should be. "When the facts change .... " etc.
The vote for Brexit is one way in which that rethinking is being forced on Britain. But the rest of Europe is deluded if it thinks that it too can ignore the realities on the ground and what voters want.
Meanwhile Carney still digging that hole for himself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/06/mark-carney-tells-theresa-may-to-help-savers-suffering-from-low/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/cherie-booth-challenge-to-buy-to-let-tax-not-over-yet-despite-ju/
From one perspective, it’s unsurprising that the Left, whose Corbynite platform is a sequence of demands as impossible as they are unpleasant, should seek to pretend that its opponents also offer the impossible as their manifesto. (We’re lunatics, but we’re nicer lunatics ….)
But why are they so frightened? I think the fear is real; which explains the viciousness with which it is expressed (those demonstrators in Birmingham, with their explicit demands to murder Conservatives – just a joke, right?)
They’re nervous of a “Tory hegemony”, and it is this – not so much a Tory majority, which is always temporary – which they seek to rule as inadmissible. In particular, they’re frightened that a particular social class, long targeted for derision and therefore easy to ignore, is about to find its voice.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/10/graeme-archer-smash-the-class-enemy.html
But what scares me was the determination evidenced to drive down immigration.
Part of the problem here is that by Brexiting *and* cracking down aggressively on immigration we are sending a very, very bad message.
We need to square the circle - I agree that immigration is "too high" and it is not acceptable for it to continue indefinitely (which was one of the implicit promises of the Remain campaign and in my view why it ultimately failed).
But right now we need to be truly open for business. And that means open for people - from around the world - to come and do business here without fear of hostility, hate or deportation.
Rather like the deficit, we need a long term immigration plan. One which accepts the need to even things out in the long term, but also understands that today our best interests are to keep the people coming.
It requires an act of great statesmanship.
Madeline Grant
Separated at birth: Justin Welby and Bond Villain Elliot Carver https://t.co/UJga94lQUk
Per @electionsmith, 50,000 people registered in last 5 days before 2012 deadline; everyone knows final days crucial
Taniel added,
Alex Seitz-Wald @aseitzwald
Rick Scott will not extend reg deadline due to storm, he says at presser, via @MAlexJohnson: "Everybody has had plenty of time to register."
90 retweets 77 likes
If anything, the polling average has moved more towards Hillary.
The principle that HMRC can extract taxes from someone on non profit earnings is simply rewriting the basic principles of taxation, and is inherently wrong.
Some perspective on Sterling's decline.
Mr. Navabi is, I suspect, closest to the eventual outcome, though why the UK should pay into the EU, as per his item 6, I cannot fathom.
No point. If he loses FL, he is done. It is impossible for him to win whatever he does.
That is all.
Yet in an act that is the middle point between chutzpah and hubris, Mrs May is treating it as a liberation. A vote of 52-48 to leave the EU offers no legitimate mandate at all for a cut-and-run deal but it is evident that Mrs May is intent on defining the meaning of the referendum for her own purposes. The referendum on June 23 has changed the prime minister, the government, and the nation.
Everything stems from it. Mrs May’s conference speech on Wednesday minted, between the lines, a constitutional novelty. She has recast June 23 as a mandate for illiberal domestic policy. She sees no need for a general election — invoking Article 50 by March surely scuppers that possibility — because she has discovered a mandate in the referendum that is at least equivalent to, if not larger than, an election.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/may-has-no-right-to-foist-this-manifesto-on-us-78rn2w33t
Whatever happens next, the cry from one side will be "this is what you voted for", and from the other side "no it wasn't"
Proper, grown up politics...
Someone start the petition now..
A male MP of similar stupidity would have sunk without trace years ago after a short inglorious stint as a junior minister.
He was exactly right about early voting in 2012.
https://twitter.com/gilesyb/status/784084079075524608
Separately, v. good news about ex-pats' voting rights.
Britain would have voted to stay in if the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.
The EU should be asking itself - in private at least - why it is that after 43 years experience of this apparently wonderful organization, a majority of the population in Britain wanted out. Might it, possibly, have had something to do with the EU itself: how it is structured, how it has behaved, how it intends to behave in future? Just possibly?
But he's been a disaster since the general election.
Brexit should have been a plan. A 15 year plan of transition with clear cost/benefit analysis and an agreed goal. A party should then have won a majority in the HoC on that plan. It's the British way. Slow, careful, cynical, consensual, scrutinised. All that's happening now is a market correction. The Leave bubble has burst and the real value of the UK's position is finding it's real market price.
Never the less were an old country with deep institutions. All is not lost yet.
https://twitter.com/jmahony_ig/status/784336101947219968
For me I think tariff free goods trade and possibly a transitional accommodation for the City with very modest immigration controls. They should start from whatever position they choose and then decide to work from there.
The rest is just tidying up.
Sadly Richard with the hard-right Brexit clowns in charge I fear that is exactly where we will end up.
I agree it's a cackhanded way to do it, because Cameron thought it'd be a clever trick for short term gain, and because his negotiation was worse than worthless yet claimed as a triumph. Both campaigns were terrible.
However, the EU is doomed to failure. Better to get out now than wait until the whole edifice crumbles with us still inside.
Miss Cyclefree, quite. It's the coercive control that's so popular with abusive spouses.
There are only 2 solutions to the problem either reapply mortgage interest tax relief for owner occupiers or remove the tax benefits that investors in the private housing sector asset class receive from being apply to apply tax relief on the interest they pay. Given the structural deficit tax credits has created you can see the reason behind the approach Osbourne took.
Oh and personally he hasn't gone far enough. Even after the S24 changes things will still not be equatable between those buying a house to live in and those buying a house to rent to others - after these changes you will still be able to claim 20% relief on the interest.
But to be honest that last bit is going to be irrelevant as Basel 3 is going to make it very difficult for banks to continue providing BTL loans in their current interest only format.
For example, Erasmus, or the ESA.
So UK politicians can say 'we aren't paying into the EU' (Brussels Eurocrats), while Brussels Eurocrats can say to any waverers - 'see - they are still paying into the EU!'
I also think national interests on security is a strong UK card - we're the only 5 eyes member of the EU currently - Belgian police said they got more info from the UK than they did their own security service - if the UK fell silent a lot of people would get very worried very quickly....of course that's not something the Eurocrats worry so much about....
Seriously though I think most intellectual energy has gone into detailing the wrongs of the EU. Now, some energy (by necessity) is going into how we leave the EU. But I've yet to see a coherent case for a prosperous UK beyond the EU.
An ultra free trade libertarian paradise is not politically possible and indeed the global financial crisis savagely exposed some of the assumptions underpinning this model.
Perhaps, if I'm optimistic, I'd say that the UK is not alone in not clearly understanding "what's next". See also the intellectual collapse of parties of the right and left around the world. Maybe Brexit will force us to reach an answer before anyone else!
Absolutely Mr Morris. I accept some of the remainer points about what has happened since we left. And I don't really like some of what May said about Foreigners.
But for me the EU gave us no choice. And the way it is handling Brexit only confirms that. It wants to 'punish' a country that has contributed mightily in blood iron and treasure over centuries to retain and enhance European balance and stability. But Islamist Turkey is OK.
They really misunderstand Britons if they think we will be humbled and chastened by punishing us: anyone who knows this nation's character knows how badly we take to that.
I stick to what I've said before: if the EU has no answers and does not reform, it will fall.
Pat Condel
Governing ourselves is racist
Making our own laws is hate
Securing borders is xenophobic
We're worse than Islamic State
#NationalPoetryDay
If this was really anything other than a political stunt, it would apply in a similar way to institutional landlords. But it doesn't, so it was just political posturing by a chancellor with his head up his arse looking to score a cheap point over Miliband the lesser.
As Hannibal said: We shall find a way, or make one.
In a sense because of our open economy the reaction has come first, but it will come in other countries just as surely as the sun rises in the east.
The answer is to try an ensure our lowest paid benefit from globalisation but still keeping the economy open. Not easy, but I'd rather Brexit than PM Nige in 4 years.
Nobody wants anybody to shut up. Nobody wants anybody to accept any decision.
Its the nature of the remainer argument that grates, ie whining about a political setback rather than getting out there and putting the case for rejoining.
The downside of that problem is that any pain their inflict on us will also impact other EU countries. The only thing we don't know is if it will be worse for them than us.
Of course the number 67 bus is not thrumming with debate about the nuances of euro clearing - but Brexit is an existential rupture of our political and economic fabric.
It will make and break political careers, and cast its shadow over the age. We, and the commentators, will continue to talk about it. We are living in the immediate post-Brexit era, and it will be seen as such for ever. In turn this will trickle down into popular culture.
Ie , "Where were you when we Brexited?" and innumerable Channel 5 documentaries entitled "I love the Brexit years".
Most clubs want to know why you are leaving rather than resolving to smack you in the mouth to keep other members from doing the same.
I have no issue with paying for services provided and putting up a subscription for beneficial projects, but paying into the EU coffers is a no.
Providing that we categorise all payments to the EU as overseas aid within our 0.7% target.
Since the vote, they have justified their refusal to accept their refusal to accept the vote by trying to scare everyone that it exactly that, and that the EU will Punish us for having the temerity to leave.