Samsung’s smartphone recall crisis has deepened after South Korean media said the tech giant had suspended production of its troubled Galaxy Note 7 model amid reports that replacement devices had caught fire.
One of the *replacement* devices caught fire on a plane in the US last week. Luckily while it was on the ground.
Samsung are probably best off admitting defeat and cancelling the Note 7 product now, the rushed replacement didn't work.
What this does illustrate is how close to the cutting edge we are working with battery technology these days, if a company with the resources of Samsung can screw it up so spectacularly.
I feel sorry for Samsung on this. There but for the grace of God go I (or at least some of my ex-colleagues).
Phone manufacturers want increased battery life from smaller batteries. The state-of-the-art allows you to push only so far before you touch the bleeding edge.
Absolutely. Samsung are just the latest in a long line of boundary-pushers who pushed too far. Remember a few years ago Boeing managed to put a flammable battery in the middle of their 787 Dreamliner, and there were a few exploding Teslas in the early days too. It's not just the cheap Chinese wheelboard thingies.
I always thank the Lord that he gave us energy sources with high densities and easy transportability as coal and oil. Imagine if we had no fossil fuels: how would we have managed to have an industrial revolution?
I wonder how long it will be before batteries get the same, or better, energy density as petrol?
I don't think they ever will. Petrol is insanely energy dense.
McLaren applied technology has a new battery under development which is said to double existing density, they are going to use it in the 18/18 Formula E series. It won't be competitive with gasoline based products, but it will extend EV range quite significantly.
Yes, the F1 teams have been working hard on energy efficiency, they really should be shouting from the roof about it more than they do. Opening up the development of FE should advance that formula quickly, advantage to the first team that doesn't have to change to a new car half way through the race!
Or in Sam Bird's case from the weekend, who actually get the second car working fast enough!
I think I would have to vote Johnson if I had a vote. Even at the price of letting the dreaded Clinton win. And what a price that is.
I'm glad I don't get a vote and just get to eat popcorn and watch. The future certainly isnt bright and orange though, whoever wins.
My wife is holding on to her ballot for the remote chance that Trump gets booted but will otherwise vote Johnson. As she put it last night: he may be an idiot but at least he's a sensible idiot.
The most likely scenario seems to be Hilary wins but is impotent with Repubs controlling both houses - which dosent bode well for for years time.
The only hope Trump has is that enough middle class (in the British sense) Americans see the prospect of Hillary Nominating Supreme Court Judges as a bigger issue than Trumps personality. I doubt that is the case though.
Trump has made himself very unattractive to the middle classes, esp women and minorities. Its his own fault as well.
My mother voted leave but wouldn't vote for Trump (or Clinton). Im wondering if we will get a high third candidate vote by US standards.
Samsung’s smartphone recall crisis has deepened after South Korean media said the tech giant had suspended production of its troubled Galaxy Note 7 model amid reports that replacement devices had caught fire.
One of the *replacement* devices caught fire on a plane in the US last week. Luckily while it was on the ground.
Samsung are probably best off admitting defeat and cancelling the Note 7 product now, the rushed replacement didn't work.
What this does illustrate is how close to the cutting edge we are working with battery technology these days, if a company with the resources of Samsung can screw it up so spectacularly.
I feel sorry for Samsung on this. There but for the grace of God go I (or at least some of my ex-colleagues).
Phone manufacturers want increased battery life from smaller batteries. The state-of-the-art allows you to push only so far before you touch the bleeding edge.
Absolutely. Samsung are just the latest in a long line of boundary-pushers who pushed too far. Remember a few years ago Boeing managed to put a flammable battery in the middle of their 787 Dreamliner, and there were a few exploding Teslas in the early days too. It's not just the cheap Chinese wheelboard thingies.
I always thank the Lord that he gave us energy sources with high densities and easy transportability as coal and oil. Imagine if we had no fossil fuels: how would we have managed to have an industrial revolution?
I wonder how long it will be before batteries get the same, or better, energy density as petrol?
A very long time, probably never, I should think.
Petrol has a specific energy of 46.4 MJ/kg, while the best rechargeable batteries have specific energies of less than 1 MJ/kg with increasingly diminishing returns from intense development over the past few years. I imagine there are probably hard physical limits that prevent battery technology from ever reaching the specific energies of hydrocarbon fuels.
Although one needs to remember it's not like-for-like. A lot more of the battery's energy will be converted to motive power than the petrol's.
Good point - though that's only going to be about a factor of 2 (guessing that almost all the battery's energy is usefully used, while about half of that in petrol is).
Samsung’s smartphone recall crisis has deepened after South Korean media said the tech giant had suspended production of its troubled Galaxy Note 7 model amid reports that replacement devices had caught fire.
One of the *replacement* devices caught fire on a plane in the US last week. Luckily while it was on the ground.
Samsung are probably best off admitting defeat and cancelling the Note 7 product now, the rushed replacement didn't work.
What this does illustrate is how close to the cutting edge we are working with battery technology these days, if a company with the resources of Samsung can screw it up so spectacularly.
I feel sorry for Samsung on this. There but for the grace of God go I (or at least some of my ex-colleagues).
Phone manufacturers want increased battery life from smaller batteries. The state-of-the-art allows you to push only so far before you touch the bleeding edge.
Absolutely. Samsung are just the latest in a long line of boundary-pushers who pushed too far. Remember a few years ago Boeing managed to put a flammable battery in the middle of their 787 Dreamliner, and there were a few exploding Teslas in the early days too. It's not just the cheap Chinese wheelboard thingies.
I always thank the Lord that he gave us energy sources with high densities and easy transportability as coal and oil. Imagine if we had no fossil fuels: how would we have managed to have an industrial revolution?
I wonder how long it will be before batteries get the same, or better, energy density as petrol?
I don't think they ever will. Petrol is insanely energy dense.
McLaren applied technology has a new battery under development which is said to double existing density, they are going to use it in the 18/18 Formula E series. It won't be competitive with gasoline based products, but it will extend EV range quite significantly.
Yes, the F1 teams have been working hard on energy efficiency, they really should be shouting from the roof about it more than they do. Opening up the development of FE should advance that formula quickly, advantage to the first team that doesn't have to change to a new car half way through the race!
That's the 18/19 season, everyone moves to the single car MAT drivetrain. In 20/21all major development is opened up including batteries.
I think I would have to vote Johnson if I had a vote. Even at the price of letting the dreaded Clinton win. And what a price that is.
I'm glad I don't get a vote and just get to eat popcorn and watch. The future certainly isnt bright and orange though, whoever wins.
My wife is holding on to her ballot for the remote chance that Trump gets booted but will otherwise vote Johnson. As she put it last night: he may be an idiot but at least he's a sensible idiot.
The most likely scenario seems to be Hilary wins but is impotent with Repubs controlling both houses - which dosent bode well for for years time.
The only hope Trump has is that enough middle class (in the British sense) Americans see the prospect of Hillary Nominating Supreme Court Judges as a bigger issue than Trumps personality. I doubt that is the case though.
Trump has made himself very unattractive to the middle classes, esp women and minorities. Its his own fault as well.
Samsung’s smartphone recall crisis has deepened after South Korean media said the tech giant had suspended production of its troubled Galaxy Note 7 model amid reports that replacement devices had caught fire.
One of the *replacement* devices caught fire on a plane in the US last week. Luckily while it was on the ground.
Samsung are probably best off admitting defeat and cancelling the Note 7 product now, the rushed replacement didn't work.
What this does illustrate is how close to the cutting edge we are working with battery technology these days, if a company with the resources of Samsung can screw it up so spectacularly.
I feel sorry for Samsung on this. There but for the grace of God go I (or at least some of my ex-colleagues).
Phone manufacturers want increased battery life from smaller batteries. The state-of-the-art allows you to push only so far before you touch the bleeding edge.
Absolutely. Samsung are just the latest in a long line of boundary-pushers who pushed too far. Remember a few years ago Boeing managed to put a flammable battery in the middle of their 787 Dreamliner, and there were a few exploding Teslas in the early days too. It's not just the cheap Chinese wheelboard thingies.
I always thank the Lord that he gave us energy sources with high densities and easy transportability as coal and oil. Imagine if we had no fossil fuels: how would we have managed to have an industrial revolution?
I wonder how long it will be before batteries get the same, or better, energy density as petrol?
A very long time, probably never, I should think.
Petrol has a specific energy of 46.4 MJ/kg, while the best rechargeable batteries have specific energies of less than 1 MJ/kg with increasingly diminishing returns from intense development over the past few years. I imagine there are probably hard physical limits that prevent battery technology from ever reaching the specific energies of hydrocarbon fuels.
Although one needs to remember it's not like-for-like. A lot more of the battery's energy will be converted to motive power than the petrol's.
Good point - though that's only going to be about a factor of 2 (guessing that almost all the battery's energy is usefully used, while about half of that in petrol is).
Although one needs to remember it's not like-for-like. A lot more of the battery's energy will be converted to motive power than the petrol's.
Good point - though that's only going to be about a factor of 2 (guessing that almost all the battery's energy is usefully used, while about half of that in petrol is).
From memory, a good, modern petrol car has 60-70% energy losses. Therefore only 30-40% of the energy gets used usefully. (thermal efficiency).
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
Good point - though that's only going to be about a factor of 2 (guessing that almost all the battery's energy is usefully used, while about half of that in petrol is).
The best current consumer grade internal combustion engine is about 30% efficient so it could be as high as 3x, iirc the current efficiency title holder is the Mercedes F1 ICE which is about 44% efficient with sources at Mercedes saying that if the RPM limiter came off it could be about 46%.
I watched some of the first season of FE, so I'm not totally unaware of how the sport works, but it seemed a bit slow (I know they're on street circuits, but even so). I may start watching again. A bit.
''Whatever Savile was guilty of (plenty), I don't think he ever painted himself as a moralist. In fact Savile's constant innuendos about his supposed 'love life' are some of the sleaziest bits in the remaining footage of him.''
Sorry? All those millions he raised for Stoke Mandeville, all the posing at Marathons, all the Jim'll Fix It benevolence??
The media swallowed it all, just like they swallow Bill's bullsh8t.
I think I would have to vote Johnson if I had a vote. Even at the price of letting the dreaded Clinton win. And what a price that is.
I'm glad I don't get a vote and just get to eat popcorn and watch. The future certainly isnt bright and orange though, whoever wins.
My wife is holding on to her ballot for the remote chance that Trump gets booted but will otherwise vote Johnson. As she put it last night: he may be an idiot but at least he's a sensible idiot.
The most likely scenario seems to be Hilary wins but is impotent with Repubs controlling both houses - which dosent bode well for for years time.
The only hope Trump has is that enough middle class (in the British sense) Americans see the prospect of Hillary Nominating Supreme Court Judges as a bigger issue than Trumps personality. I doubt that is the case though.
No, the most likely result is Republican's maintaining control of the House but losing the Senate to the Democrats. "Democrats currently have a 57 percent chance of winning a Senate majority according to our polls-plus forecast and a 56 percent chance in polls-only. Those numbers have been fairly consistent since the conventions." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-update-6-really-important-races-are-really-close/
What this is all showing is how thin and weak the line between civilization and head chopping, homosexual throwing off buildings anarchy actually is.
The price of civilisation is eternal vigilance. The civilised in Britain fell asleep this summer. Will civilised Americans?
Anyone who votes Meeks's way = civilised Anyone who votes against Meeks's wishes = savage or barbarian
Such is the thoughts and beliefs of one Alastair Meeks.
Even if his risible assertion were true - does the liberal elite think savages and barbarians shouldn't have the vote?
I'd restrict the vote to people with incomes over £150k per annum.
You can't let important descisions be determinded by uneducated plebs.
I'd give people a variable number of votes, calculated by the total income tax they have payed to the UK Exchequer in their lifetime multiplied by their IQ. That would iron out the wrinkles in democracy....
you'd have given a truckload of votes to Jimmy Saville
There's always somebody who is going bitch about the electorate....
I still can't get over Saville. He's like one of the protagonists in 120 Days of Sodom.
I caught up with the Louis Theroux update on Saville recently. There's a fantastic moment of television where Louis is talking to one of Saville's victims, saying how he didn't see it coming, how he saw Saville as a friend "He groomed you too..." was the victims response. Despite trying to brush it away, you could see it had hit him in the solar plexus....
@tnewtondunn: Trouble ahead for PM. Tory Leavers now joining Remainers in revolt on hard Brexit. Stephen Phillips pushing for emergency debate, voted out.
That's what I posted on PB the other day, from conference I got the feeling the Liberal/Economic Leavers weren't happy with the way we were headed for a hard Brexit.
It really does screw the economy.
Dominic Raab:
Should the EU impose tariffs, forcing the UK to reciprocate, the UK government would rake in an estimated £12 billion each year (on top of the £10 billion from not paying an EU membership fee). This can be used to support vulnerable business sectors. It would be the ultimate schadenfreude, if it were to be German car manufacturers and French farmers compensating British businesses, bruised by vindictive bureaucrats in Brussels.
Britain can flourish with even the worst deal. But how can we get the best?\
Seems to me like Hilary got exactly what she needed out of the debate which was to maintain the status quo. Trump wounded but not out, it's death by 1000 cuts.
@tnewtondunn: Trouble ahead for PM. Tory Leavers now joining Remainers in revolt on hard Brexit. Stephen Phillips pushing for emergency debate, voted out.
That's what I posted on PB the other day, from conference I got the feeling the Liberal/Economic Leavers weren't happy with the way we were headed for a hard Brexit.
It really does screw the economy.
Dominic Raab:
Should the EU impose tariffs, forcing the UK to reciprocate, the UK government would rake in an estimated £12 billion each year (on top of the £10 billion from not paying an EU membership fee). This can be used to support vulnerable business sectors. It would be the ultimate schadenfreude, if it were to be German car manufacturers and French farmers compensating British businesses, bruised by vindictive bureaucrats in Brussels.
Britain can flourish with even the worst deal. But how can we get the best?\
That's terrible economics. If we impose tariffs on goods, then consumers will pay more. You might as well just simply charge extra income tax on people that buy those kind of products.
For the record, there is no "forcing the UK reciprocate", as there is no obligation on the UK to charge tariffs on anything. As @GeoffM has posted, there is a very good economic case for simply abolishing all import duties, irrespective of the country of origin. (Really, the only case against it, is that lowering our tariffs is a weapon to persuade others to lower theirs.)
@tnewtondunn: Trouble ahead for PM. Tory Leavers now joining Remainers in revolt on hard Brexit. Stephen Phillips pushing for emergency debate, voted out.
That's what I posted on PB the other day, from conference I got the feeling the Liberal/Economic Leavers weren't happy with the way we were headed for a hard Brexit.
It really does screw the economy.
Dominic Raab:
Should the EU impose tariffs, forcing the UK to reciprocate, the UK government would rake in an estimated £12 billion each year (on top of the £10 billion from not paying an EU membership fee). This can be used to support vulnerable business sectors. It would be the ultimate schadenfreude, if it were to be German car manufacturers and French farmers compensating British businesses, bruised by vindictive bureaucrats in Brussels.
Britain can flourish with even the worst deal. But how can we get the best?\
That's terrible economics. If we impose tariffs on goods, then consumers will pay more. You might as well just simply charge extra income tax on people that buy those kind of products.
For the record, there is no "forcing the UK reciprocate", as there is no obligation on the UK to charge tariffs on anything. As @GeoffM has posted, there is a very good economic case for simply abolishing all import duties, irrespective of the country of origin. (Really, the only case against it, is that lowering our tariffs is a weapon to persuade others to lower theirs.)
@tnewtondunn: Trouble ahead for PM. Tory Leavers now joining Remainers in revolt on hard Brexit. Stephen Phillips pushing for emergency debate, voted out.
That's what I posted on PB the other day, from conference I got the feeling the Liberal/Economic Leavers weren't happy with the way we were headed for a hard Brexit.
It really does screw the economy.
Dominic Raab:
Should the EU impose tariffs, forcing the UK to reciprocate, the UK government would rake in an estimated £12 billion each year (on top of the £10 billion from not paying an EU membership fee). This can be used to support vulnerable business sectors. It would be the ultimate schadenfreude, if it were to be German car manufacturers and French farmers compensating British businesses, bruised by vindictive bureaucrats in Brussels.
Britain can flourish with even the worst deal. But how can we get the best?\
That's terrible economics. If we impose tariffs on goods, then consumers will pay more. You might as well just simply charge extra income tax on people that buy those kind of products.
For the record, there is no "forcing the UK reciprocate", as there is no obligation on the UK to charge tariffs on anything. As @GeoffM has posted, there is a very good economic case for simply abolishing all import duties, irrespective of the country of origin. (Really, the only case against it, is that lowering our tariffs is a weapon to persuade others to lower theirs.)
Import tariff abolition is a bit like unilateral disarmament.
I think I would have to vote Johnson if I had a vote. Even at the price of letting the dreaded Clinton win. And what a price that is.
I'm glad I don't get a vote and just get to eat popcorn and watch. The future certainly isnt bright and orange though, whoever wins.
My wife is holding on to her ballot for the remote chance that Trump gets booted but will otherwise vote Johnson. As she put it last night: he may be an idiot but at least he's a sensible idiot.
The most likely scenario seems to be Hilary wins but is impotent with Repubs controlling both houses - which dosent bode well for for years time.
The only hope Trump has is that enough middle class (in the British sense) Americans see the prospect of Hillary Nominating Supreme Court Judges as a bigger issue than Trumps personality. I doubt that is the case though.
No, the most likely result is Republican's maintaining control of the House but losing the Senate to the Democrats. "Democrats currently have a 57 percent chance of winning a Senate majority according to our polls-plus forecast and a 56 percent chance in polls-only. Those numbers have been fairly consistent since the conventions." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-update-6-really-important-races-are-really-close/
I think that's right. Split ticket voting is pretty rare now, so if Hillary wins NH,NC,NV it's probable the Dem senator candidates will win aswell.
''Whatever Savile was guilty of (plenty), I don't think he ever painted himself as a moralist. In fact Savile's constant innuendos about his supposed 'love life' are some of the sleaziest bits in the remaining footage of him.''
Sorry? All those millions he raised for Stoke Mandeville, all the posing at Marathons, all the Jim'll Fix It benevolence??
The media swallowed it all, just like they swallow Bill's bullsh8t.
Your raging Clintonophobia seems to have damaged your ability to apprehend the meaning of words.
'Moralist' is not synonymous with fund raiser or benefactor.
@tnewtondunn: Trouble ahead for PM. Tory Leavers now joining Remainers in revolt on hard Brexit. Stephen Phillips pushing for emergency debate, voted out.
That's what I posted on PB the other day, from conference I got the feeling the Liberal/Economic Leavers weren't happy with the way we were headed for a hard Brexit.
It really does screw the economy.
Dominic Raab:
Should the EU impose tariffs, forcing the UK to reciprocate, the UK government would rake in an estimated £12 billion each year (on top of the £10 billion from not paying an EU membership fee). This can be used to support vulnerable business sectors. It would be the ultimate schadenfreude, if it were to be German car manufacturers and French farmers compensating British businesses, bruised by vindictive bureaucrats in Brussels.
Britain can flourish with even the worst deal. But how can we get the best?\
That's terrible economics. If we impose tariffs on goods, then consumers will pay more. You might as well just simply charge extra income tax on people that buy those kind of products.
For the record, there is no "forcing the UK reciprocate", as there is no obligation on the UK to charge tariffs on anything. As @GeoffM has posted, there is a very good economic case for simply abolishing all import duties, irrespective of the country of origin. (Really, the only case against it, is that lowering our tariffs is a weapon to persuade others to lower theirs.)
Import tariff abolition is a bit like unilateral disarmament.
I tend to agree.
Mostly I was just disagreeing with the premise that adding tariffs makes everyone better off, which seems to be Mr Raab's argument.
(Not only that, but he his suggestions for compensating those who lost out due to others' tariffs would be in blatant violation of the 1995 World Trade Organisation Treaty.)
I think I would have to vote Johnson if I had a vote. Even at the price of letting the dreaded Clinton win. And what a price that is.
I'm glad I don't get a vote and just get to eat popcorn and watch. The future certainly isnt bright and orange though, whoever wins.
My wife is holding on to her ballot for the remote chance that Trump gets booted but will otherwise vote Johnson. As she put it last night: he may be an idiot but at least he's a sensible idiot.
The most likely scenario seems to be Hilary wins but is impotent with Repubs controlling both houses - which dosent bode well for for years time.
The only hope Trump has is that enough middle class (in the British sense) Americans see the prospect of Hillary Nominating Supreme Court Judges as a bigger issue than Trumps personality. I doubt that is the case though.
No, the most likely result is Republican's maintaining control of the House but losing the Senate to the Democrats. "Democrats currently have a 57 percent chance of winning a Senate majority according to our polls-plus forecast and a 56 percent chance in polls-only. Those numbers have been fairly consistent since the conventions." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-update-6-really-important-races-are-really-close/
Which would be significant in terms of SCOTUS nominations. That said, as the Democrats' chances of taking the Senate are lower than those of them gaining the White House, the GOP's best bet would be to pile money into the critical senate races rather than blowing it on Trump.
I think I would have to vote Johnson if I had a vote. Even at the price of letting the dreaded Clinton win. And what a price that is.
I'm glad I don't get a vote and just get to eat popcorn and watch. The future certainly isnt bright and orange though, whoever wins.
My wife is holding on to her ballot for the remote chance that Trump gets booted but will otherwise vote Johnson. As she put it last night: he may be an idiot but at least he's a sensible idiot.
The most likely scenario seems to be Hilary wins but is impotent with Repubs controlling both houses - which dosent bode well for for years time.
The only hope Trump has is that enough middle class (in the British sense) Americans see the prospect of Hillary Nominating Supreme Court Judges as a bigger issue than Trumps personality. I doubt that is the case though.
No, the most likely result is Republican's maintaining control of the House but losing the Senate to the Democrats. "Democrats currently have a 57 percent chance of winning a Senate majority according to our polls-plus forecast and a 56 percent chance in polls-only. Those numbers have been fairly consistent since the conventions." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-update-6-really-important-races-are-really-close/
I think that's right. Split ticket voting is pretty rare now, so if Hillary wins NH,NC,NV it's probable the Dem senator candidates will win aswell.
This is no normal election. The logical thing for a voter to do if they loath both candidates is vote for the least crazy of the two but make damn sure that they use their house votes to pen them in as much as possible.
I think I would have to vote Johnson if I had a vote. Even at the price of letting the dreaded Clinton win. And what a price that is.
I'm glad I don't get a vote and just get to eat popcorn and watch. The future certainly isnt bright and orange though, whoever wins.
My wife is holding on to her ballot for the remote chance that Trump gets booted but will otherwise vote Johnson. As she put it last night: he may be an idiot but at least he's a sensible idiot.
The most likely scenario seems to be Hilary wins but is impotent with Repubs controlling both houses - which dosent bode well for for years time.
The only hope Trump has is that enough middle class (in the British sense) Americans see the prospect of Hillary Nominating Supreme Court Judges as a bigger issue than Trumps personality. I doubt that is the case though.
No, the most likely result is Republican's maintaining control of the House but losing the Senate to the Democrats. "Democrats currently have a 57 percent chance of winning a Senate majority according to our polls-plus forecast and a 56 percent chance in polls-only. Those numbers have been fairly consistent since the conventions." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-update-6-really-important-races-are-really-close/
I think that's right. Split ticket voting is pretty rare now, so if Hillary wins NH,NC,NV it's probable the Dem senator candidates will win aswell.
Except that Republicans holding their noses to vote for Hillary *are* likely to split their tickets. This is the paradox for the GOP establishment: they need ABT Republicans to vote for Hillary so they get the down-ticket votes; the worst result for the GOP comes if the ABT crowd stays home on polling day.
You'd think an FT hack would remember the CBI's bare-knuckle fight in the 80s.
...their director-general, Sir Terence Beckett, made a savage attack on the Thatcher government in his first speech in the post in 1980, calling for a “bare-knuckle” confrontation with her over her proposed trade union reforms. In her autobiography, Lady Thatcher wrote of how ‘The CBI was also, as usual, opposed to any “Precipitate” action.’
They undermined her in public as the legislation went through, even though ultimately they were to be the primary beneficiaries of measures such as the abolition of secondary picketing. Their arguments against trade union reforms were used by Jim Prior against her in Cabinet, and it was only once she had successfully seen the reforms through and brought round the economy, and after she won three elections in a row, that the CBI began exhibiting embarrassingly slavish devotion to her. (There is nothing the CBI admires so much as power, as their present lapdog attitude towards Brussels shows.)
I think I would have to vote Johnson if I had a vote. Even at the price of letting the dreaded Clinton win. And what a price that is.
I'm glad I don't get a vote and just get to eat popcorn and watch. The future certainly isnt bright and orange though, whoever wins.
My wife is holding on to her ballot for the remote chance that Trump gets booted but will otherwise vote Johnson. As she put it last night: he may be an idiot but at least he's a sensible idiot.
The most likely scenario seems to be Hilary wins but is impotent with Repubs controlling both houses - which dosent bode well for for years time.
The only hope Trump has is that enough middle class (in the British sense) Americans see the prospect of Hillary Nominating Supreme Court Judges as a bigger issue than Trumps personality. I doubt that is the case though.
No, the most likely result is Republican's maintaining control of the House but losing the Senate to the Democrats. "Democrats currently have a 57 percent chance of winning a Senate majority according to our polls-plus forecast and a 56 percent chance in polls-only. Those numbers have been fairly consistent since the conventions." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-update-6-really-important-races-are-really-close/
Which would be significant in terms of SCOTUS nominations. That said, as the Democrats' chances of taking the Senate are lower than those of them gaining the White House, the GOP's best bet would be to pile money into the critical senate races rather than blowing it on Trump.
Which seems to be what they're doing. Also a Senate candidate disowning Trump may soften their local problems.
@tnewtondunn: Trouble ahead for PM. Tory Leavers now joining Remainers in revolt on hard Brexit. Stephen Phillips pushing for emergency debate, voted out.
That's what I posted on PB the other day, from conference I got the feeling the Liberal/Economic Leavers weren't happy with the way we were headed for a hard Brexit.
It really does screw the economy.
Dominic Raab:
Should the EU impose tariffs, forcing the UK to reciprocate, the UK government would rake in an estimated £12 billion each year (on top of the £10 billion from not paying an EU membership fee). This can be used to support vulnerable business sectors. It would be the ultimate schadenfreude, if it were to be German car manufacturers and French farmers compensating British businesses, bruised by vindictive bureaucrats in Brussels.
Britain can flourish with even the worst deal. But how can we get the best?\
That's terrible economics. If we impose tariffs on goods, then consumers will pay more. You might as well just simply charge extra income tax on people that buy those kind of products.
For the record, there is no "forcing the UK reciprocate", as there is no obligation on the UK to charge tariffs on anything. As @GeoffM has posted, there is a very good economic case for simply abolishing all import duties, irrespective of the country of origin. (Really, the only case against it, is that lowering our tariffs is a weapon to persuade others to lower theirs.)
Import tariff abolition is a bit like unilateral disarmament.
I tend to agree.
Mostly I was just disagreeing with the premise that adding tariffs makes everyone better off, which seems to be Mr Raab's argument.
(Not only that, but he his suggestions for compensating those who lost out due to others' tariffs would be in blatant violation of the 1995 World Trade Organisation Treaty.)
Even if we did impose tariffs and they did, the fall in the pound means that cost in EU of most UK products would be lower than on June 22nd.
Wheras EU exporters to UK hit by double whammy of high Euro and Tariffs.
I'm surprised weve heard nothing yet from RoI about difficulties the high Euro vs Pound must be causing them.
I think I would have to vote Johnson if I had a vote. Even at the price of letting the dreaded Clinton win. And what a price that is.
I'm glad I don't get a vote and just get to eat popcorn and watch. The future certainly isnt bright and orange though, whoever wins.
My wife is holding on to her ballot for the remote chance that Trump gets booted but will otherwise vote Johnson. As she put it last night: he may be an idiot but at least he's a sensible idiot.
The most likely scenario seems to be Hilary wins but is impotent with Repubs controlling both houses - which dosent bode well for for years time.
The only hope Trump has is that enough middle class (in the British sense) Americans see the prospect of Hillary Nominating Supreme Court Judges as a bigger issue than Trumps personality. I doubt that is the case though.
Trump has made himself very unattractive to the middle classes, esp women and minorities. Its his own fault as well.
My mother voted leave but wouldn't vote for Trump (or Clinton). Im wondering if we will get a high third candidate vote by US standards.
We will get a high 3rd party vote by US standards (i.e. well over the 3% that's been the recent average) but i suspect that your anecdote about your mother reveals a more likely truth: turnout will be down given two candidates with such high negatives. Some TPT may turnout but it'll be more than offset by regular (i.e. once every 4 year) voters staying home.
The timing of any vote is nonsense too. If it's now, then it's either a rubber stamp or a slap in the face for the electorate. If it's when the deal's been negotiated, the only alternative to acceptance is the hardest of all possible departures.
There are issues about economy and trade, but acting like suppliants rather than one side of a negotiation is not wise.
The only sensible option is a multi-year (but time limited) EEA transition period. Otherwise, we're likely to effectively Hard Brexit without any alternative trade agreements in place.
It's also worth remembering that a few kind words from Mrs May: "this is good for us, and good for you (EU...)" would go a long way. Make it clear that the UK's presence prevents the EU from making the changes it needs work - whether in terms of the power of the parliament, or the deeper integration of the Eurozone.
"While we're willing to walk away if the deal doesn't work for the British people, we believe this is an opportunity for the UK, and for the EU. We leave as friends, not as enemies. We shall continue to share the bonds of culture, and trade. We shall continue to participate in many pan-European programmes.
But the differences between our legal systems, our histories, and even political structures are too deep to allow us ever to be happy members of the EU. This is an opportunity for both of us to find a relationship that works, not one that leads to us chafing and unhappy, and you unable to make the changes you need to make your single currency work."
You'd think an FT hack would remember the CBI's bare-knuckle fight in the 80s.
...their director-general, Sir Terence Beckett, made a savage attack on the Thatcher government in his first speech in the post in 1980, calling for a “bare-knuckle” confrontation with her over her proposed trade union reforms. In her autobiography, Lady Thatcher wrote of how ‘The CBI was also, as usual, opposed to any “Precipitate” action.’
They undermined her in public as the legislation went through, even though ultimately they were to be the primary beneficiaries of measures such as the abolition of secondary picketing. Their arguments against trade union reforms were used by Jim Prior against her in Cabinet, and it was only once she had successfully seen the reforms through and brought round the economy, and after she won three elections in a row, that the CBI began exhibiting embarrassingly slavish devotion to her. (There is nothing the CBI admires so much as power, as their present lapdog attitude towards Brussels shows.)
Having skimmed through the comments this morning I am glad I went to bed. Two truly terrible candidates each unfit to hold office in different ways and both incapable of coming up with one memorable line between them.
The process is just not working.
But, as one poster noted, watching monkeys hurling shit at each other can be amusing.
@tnewtondunn: Trouble ahead for PM. Tory Leavers now joining Remainers in revolt on hard Brexit. Stephen Phillips pushing for emergency debate, voted out.
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
That seems to be it. I was initially a little taken aback by just how strident the Government has been in willing to tell the EU that membership of the single market would be desirable, it is not our primary concern. I was expecting a managed leave, membership of single market on a norway/iceland basis via EFTA, and a suck it and see sh*tstorm when many leave voters realise that migration hasnt really been changed. From an economic perspective this would result in practically no change with our relationship with Europe but a return of all powers/competencies that arent directly to do with the single market.
I suspect the EU institutions and leaders also worked on the assumption that we would grovel for membership of the single market, and would just mock us that we are now are in the sam situation just no longer part of the rule making body.
We shouldnt underestimate just how annoyed the rest of the EU is at us, how distracting it is to them, and how painful the loss of funds will be. There will be a desire to punish us, thats even if the punishment impacts on them also.
The ideal solution is one that is mutually beneficial. Associate membership of the single market, with some kind of labour control that can be sold to the british people (and to the rest of the EU).
Who is going to blink first on free movement? By saying we are willing to leave the single market, this will sober up some minds in the EU.
Even if we did impose tariffs and they did, the fall in the pound means that cost in EU of most UK products would be lower than on June 22nd.
Wheras EU exporters to UK hit by double whammy of high Euro and Tariffs.
I'm surprised weve heard nothing yet from RoI about difficulties the high Euro vs Pound must be causing them.
I think that's naive, frankly.
There are very few products we export that do not rely on - to varying degrees - international supply chains. Take automotive, as its a sector I know well. A car made in the UK may well have tyres made in France, its suspension from Poland, a gearbox made in Spain, and electronics from Germany. The steel for the chassis will likely have come from a European steel mill, using Norwegian gas, and Chinese iron ore. The electricity used in the plant will, for the most part, be set by the dollar price of LNG.
If you look at the final price of the car on the forecourt in - oooh... pick a country... - Sweden, then only a small part will have been affected by the devaluation of sterling; maybe 15-20% at most. So a 15% decline in sterling might knock a couple of percent off the price of the car.
@tnewtondunn: Trouble ahead for PM. Tory Leavers now joining Remainers in revolt on hard Brexit. Stephen Phillips pushing for emergency debate, voted out.
That's what I posted on PB the other day, from conference I got the feeling the Liberal/Economic Leavers weren't happy with the way we were headed for a hard Brexit.
It really does screw the economy.
Dominic Raab:
Should the EU impose tariffs, forcing the UK to reciprocate, the UK government would rake in an estimated £12 billion each year (on top of the £10 billion from not paying an EU membership fee). This can be used to support vulnerable business sectors. It would be the ultimate schadenfreude, if it were to be German car manufacturers and French farmers compensating British businesses, bruised by vindictive bureaucrats in Brussels.
Britain can flourish with even the worst deal. But how can we get the best?\
That's terrible economics. If we impose tariffs on goods, then consumers will pay more. You might as well just simply charge extra income tax on people that buy those kind of products.
For the record, there is no "forcing the UK reciprocate", as there is no obligation on the UK to charge tariffs on anything. As @GeoffM has posted, there is a very good economic case for simply abolishing all import duties, irrespective of the country of origin. (Really, the only case against it, is that lowering our tariffs is a weapon to persuade others to lower theirs.)
But most will lead to substitutions, e.g. wine from outside the EU at probably lower tariffs with trade deals and lower prices for our consumers. What trade does not move has the higher tariff. But the EU could eventually lose circa 50% of the exports to us through substitution which will be much above £100bn a year. Quite possible due to the lack of economic sense prevailing at the EU.
Diane Abbott exposes Labour splits over immigration and Brexit Labour splits over the party's approach to immigration and Brexit have been exposed after Diane Abbott put herself at odds with a senior Shadow Cabinet colleague.
It's interesting that Yougov's debate poll almost exactly matches their voting intention poll.
Interesting too that 53% say they would never vote Trump, while 47% say they would never vote Clinton. Can two candidates ever have been so disliked.
And both Pence and Kaine are much better rated by the voters.
Another big worry - quite apart from the fact that they are both manifestly unfit to hold public office - is that neither will be able to reach out to the others' supporters. That was the secret of Obama, Clinton and to a lesser extent Reagan - they were able to partially bridge that divide, which is why they had high approval ratings, higher than their voting share. Of course, they didn't actually do much in terms of policy, which may have helped, but the effort was made.
But can you really see anyone who hates Clinton enough to vote for Trump being willing to listen to her? America looks set to be as badly divided as it was in the 1960s, when many feared it was becoming ungovernable.
Whoever wins this election, the American system of democracy has clearly lost - in one party because they stitched up the nomination for a wholly unsuitable candidate, and in one party because they failed to stitch up the nomination to stop one. A radical rethink of the whole process is urgently needed.
How is Hilary Clinton a wholly unsuitable candidate? She represents the mainstream of the Democratic party, is as qualified as you could be, understands the issues deeply, has a track record of working with republicans and democrats to get things done....
On a betting point- I think there's great value in backing Clinton to get between 47 and 50% of the vote at 3.9. She might break 50% but unlikely I think... expecting Stein and Johnson to pick up enough votes to mean the winner doesn't break 50%.
If you're bullish about Trump's chances- you can extend Hilary's range down to 45% and you've probably covered everything from Trump win, to most Clinton victories... at better than evens.
That's quite a clever bet ..... in fact if you cover Hillary over both the 44% - 47% and the 47% - 50% bands asking on Betfair for odds of 7.4 and 4.1 respectively and staking 35.65% and 64.35%, should either element win, this produces winning decimal odds after 5% comm'n of 2.55 or just over 6/4 in old money.
4 weeks & 2 days till the election, and it's almost guaranteed the rest of this week will be dominated by 1) Pussygate, 2) Trump imprisoning Hillary, and 3) Trump vs. the GOP. Nothing Hillary-related will rise to that level. If more tapes drop then add another week. The clock is running out on Trump taking control of the election again.
I think I would have to vote Johnson if I had a vote. Even at the price of letting the dreaded Clinton win. And what a price that is.
I'm glad I don't get a vote and just get to eat popcorn and watch. The future certainly isnt bright and orange though, whoever wins.
My wife is holding on to her ballot for the remote chance that Trump gets booted but will otherwise vote Johnson. As she put it last night: he may be an idiot but at least he's a sensible idiot.
The most likely scenario seems to be Hilary wins but is impotent with Repubs controlling both houses - which dosent bode well for for years time.
The only hope Trump has is that enough middle class (in the British sense) Americans see the prospect of Hillary Nominating Supreme Court Judges as a bigger issue than Trumps personality. I doubt that is the case though.
No, the most likely result is Republican's maintaining control of the House but losing the Senate to the Democrats. "Democrats currently have a 57 percent chance of winning a Senate majority according to our polls-plus forecast and a 56 percent chance in polls-only. Those numbers have been fairly consistent since the conventions." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-update-6-really-important-races-are-really-close/
Which would be significant in terms of SCOTUS nominations. That said, as the Democrats' chances of taking the Senate are lower than those of them gaining the White House, the GOP's best bet would be to pile money into the critical senate races rather than blowing it on Trump.
Even if the GOP aren't on board with Trump, they'll be desperate to hold the Senate in order to block President Clinton's SC nominees. They'll probably be belligerent enough to see if they can avoid replacing Scalia before 2020, which would leave something of a constitutional crisis with a deadlocked Supreme Court for so long.
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
@tnewtondunn: Trouble ahead for PM. Tory Leavers now joining Remainers in revolt on hard Brexit. Stephen Phillips pushing for emergency debate, voted out.
That's what I posted on PB the other day, from conference I got the feeling the Liberal/Economic Leavers weren't happy with the way we were headed for a hard Brexit.
It really does screw the economy.
Dominic Raab:
Should the EU impose tariffs, forcing the UK to reciprocate, the UK government would rake in an estimated £12 billion each year (on top of the £10 billion from not paying an EU membership fee). This can be used to support vulnerable business sectors. It would be the ultimate schadenfreude, if it were to be German car manufacturers and French farmers compensating British businesses, bruised by vindictive bureaucrats in Brussels.
Britain can flourish with even the worst deal. But how can we get the best?\
That's terrible economics. If we impose tariffs on goods, then consumers will pay more. You might as well just simply charge extra income tax on people that buy those kind of products.
For the record, there is no "forcing the UK reciprocate", as there is no obligation on the UK to charge tariffs on anything. As @GeoffM has posted, there is a very good economic case for simply abolishing all import duties, irrespective of the country of origin. (Really, the only case against it, is that lowering our tariffs is a weapon to persuade others to lower theirs.)
The conclusions I draw from Australia's Productivity Commission's detailed report on preferential trade agreements Is that there is a hierarchy from best to worse in terms of benefit to the country initiating the agreements:
1. Multilateral trade agreement 2. Unilateral dismantlement of tariffs and trading barriers 3. Bilateral trade agreement 4. No trade agreement.
They think the benefit of bilateral over no trade agreement is marginal because of trade substitution. Traders will change their pattern of trading to fulfill conditions of the agreement rather than strictly on commercial decisions.
We are walking away from our best option (multilateral EU arrangement). Unilateral reduction of trade barriers with the EU (in this case maintenance of the current schedules) is our next best, but significantly worse, option. What the EU does is up to them. It also has the advantage of not requiring negotiation, which is fraught at the moment.
That's what I posted on PB the other day, from conference I got the feeling the Liberal/Economic Leavers weren't happy with the way we were headed for a hard Brexit.
It really does screw the economy.
If only someone had pointed that out before the vote!
Oh, wait...
I had great fun at conference winding up the liberal leavers.
They were going full Dan Hannan and saying the referendum had nothing to do with immigration.
In the end, there will have to be a parliamentary vote on whatever trade arrangement (and other arrangements ) with the EU. That is where the more Liberal end of the leave movement will have its moment, because the hard negotiating will be done by then and it will be Liberal leave (a negotiated deal with some compromise) v a totally unplanned mess (Hard Brexit by turning down that deal and having no agreements at all).
There might be an interim of 'go back and talk about this some more' - but the guillotine will focus minds on something generally sensible.
Interesting thing about the LA Times tracker that I didn't realise until recently. Whilst they poll 450 every day, they give every person selected on that day a week to respond.
@tnewtondunn: Trouble ahead for PM. Tory Leavers now joining Remainers in revolt on hard Brexit. Stephen Phillips pushing for emergency debate, voted out.
That's what I posted on PB the other day, from conference I got the feeling the Liberal/Economic Leavers weren't happy with the way we were headed for a hard Brexit.
It really does screw the economy.
Dominic Raab:
Should the EU impose tariffs, forcing the UK to reciprocate, the UK government would rake in an estimated £12 billion each year (on top of the £10 billion from not paying an EU membership fee). This can be used to support vulnerable business sectors. It would be the ultimate schadenfreude, if it were to be German car manufacturers and French farmers compensating British businesses, bruised by vindictive bureaucrats in Brussels.
Britain can flourish with even the worst deal. But how can we get the best?\
That's terrible economics. If we impose tariffs on goods, then consumers will pay more. You might as well just simply charge extra income tax on people that buy those kind of products.
For the record, there is no "forcing the UK reciprocate", as there is no obligation on the UK to charge tariffs on anything. As @GeoffM has posted, there is a very good economic case for simply abolishing all import duties, irrespective of the country of origin. (Really, the only case against it, is that lowering our tariffs is a weapon to persuade others to lower theirs.)
But most will lead to substitutions, e.g. wine from outside the EU at probably lower tariffs with trade deals and lower prices for our consumers. What trade does not move has the higher tariff. But the EU could eventually lose circa 50% of the exports to us through substitution which will be much above £100bn a year. Quite possible due to the lack of economic sense prevailing at the EU.
Taking wine as your example: it's relatively fungible. If we don't buy EU wine, we buy American or New Zealand wine. But that's wine that would have been sold somewhere else. (The NZ and American wineries don't stockpile wine. They sell it at the market price.) If we're buying it rather than European wine, we'll have to outbid traditional purchasers. And the EU vinyards will, turn, sell their wines to people outside the EU.
If we impose tariffs on wine from the EU, we'll pay a little more for our wine, and the EU vinyards will get a little less for their wine. But the market will clear. The European vinyards and the US wineries will find someone who wants to buy their product. And all that flexes is the price to make the market clear.
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
I didn't see that. Did they mention any precursors? I.e. it might happen anyway, it'll happen if they don't do a 'good' deal for us, or it'll happen if they give us a 'good' deal?
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
I haven't really followed the twists and turns of the US debate but it "seems" the second debate has changed little so far. I get the sense those Republicans aghast at Trump will simply abstain rather than vote for Clinton but that won't matter too much for HRC.
Just as an aside, looking at some poll numbers, I wonder if Alaska might be a long shot for HRC ? If memory serves, Obama did better there in 2012 than in 2008 (when Palin was on the GOP ticket). Latest polls I've seen put Trump only 3-4% ahead. As always, DYOR.
On the impending A50 negotiations, we're seeing plenty of posturing both from us and from the EU, plenty of stamping around and looking "tough" for internal consumption. The reality of the negotiation will be more obtuse and nuanced.
Clearly, the EU want not so much to "punish" us for leaving but "ne pas encourager les autres" by making the process as difficult as possible. Nonetheless, it remains in their interests and ours to work out a mutually advantageous settlement - that will inevitably mean compromise but it may not be presented by either side to their audiences in those terms. The devil will be in the detail but not many will bother with that until everything is done and signed off.
2020s Britain outside the EU is for now "the undiscovered country" but perhaps we'll get some clues as the negotiations progress.
CBI and its EC/EU/Euro statements on behalf of its members...
"In 1994, as the pro-single currency movement was starting to rumble, the CBI published the result of a survey which claimed to show that 84% of industry backed British membership of the Euro – potentially, an incredibly valuable propaganda tool for the pro-single currency campaign. To (Professor) Cowgill‘s experienced eye, however, it looked distinctly fishy. And when he came to examine how the CBI had reached these figures, he discovered that the business organisation had not carried out a scientific survey of the views of its member firms. Indeed the CBI had sent out questionnaires to only 624 companies, of which just 206 had replied. Of those 206 only 59 – 28% – had positively supported the single currency. However, a further 56% of respondents had been more lukewarm, without being hostile to the single currency. Only once they were added in was the CBI able to make their claim that a majority of members were in favour." Guilty Men by PETER OBORNE AND FRANCES WEAVER
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
Are you making it up ? Source, please. A precise one.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
Clutching at straws. Our membership of the EU is over. Get used to it.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
Clutching at straws. Our membership of the EU is over. Get used to it.
Indeed. Those who preferred Remain to Leave but also preferred EEA to Completely Out have had over three months to advocate EEA, but have wasted that time fighting the battle they'd already lost.
I think I would have to vote Johnson if I had a vote. Even at the price of letting the dreaded Clinton win. And what a price that is.
I'm glad I don't get a vote and just get to eat popcorn and watch. The future certainly isnt bright and orange though, whoever wins.
The most likely scenario seems to be Hilary wins but is impotent with Repubs controlling both houses - which dosent bode well for for years time.
The only hope Trump has is that enough middle class (in the British sense) Americans see the prospect of Hillary Nominating Supreme Court Judges as a bigger issue than Trumps personality. I doubt that is the case though.
No, the most likely result is Republican's maintaining control of the House but losing the Senate to the Democrats. "Democrats currently have a 57 percent chance of winning a Senate majority according to our polls-plus forecast and a 56 percent chance in polls-only. Those numbers have been fairly consistent since the conventions." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-update-6-really-important-races-are-really-close/
Which would be significant in terms of SCOTUS nominations. That said, as the Democrats' chances of taking the Senate are lower than those of them gaining the White House, the GOP's best bet would be to pile money into the critical senate races rather than blowing it on Trump.
Even if the GOP aren't on board with Trump, they'll be desperate to hold the Senate in order to block President Clinton's SC nominees. They'll probably be belligerent enough to see if they can avoid replacing Scalia before 2020, which would leave something of a constitutional crisis with a deadlocked Supreme Court for so long.
I think that Republican Senators would be punished by the electorate if they tried to block a moderate appointment for such a long time. "Once the Committee reports out the nomination, the whole Senate considers it. A simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee, but a successful filibuster threat could add the requirement of a supermajority of 60 needed in favor of cloture, which would allow debate to end and force a final vote on confirmation. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees in its history. The most recent rejection of a nominee by vote of the full Senate came in 1987, when the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
Clutching at straws. Our membership of the EU is over. Get used to it.
I'm getting a grim enjoyment from hearing the wails of EEA Leavers as they belatedly realise that riding the tiger of nativist anti-immigrants isn't all that good a strategy. I have many more grim pleasures to get from other parts of the Leave coalition in the coming months and years.
But yes, Brexit is Brexit. The public have spoken and we must follow that course.
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
I didn't see that. Did they mention any precursors? I.e. it might happen anyway, it'll happen if they don't do a 'good' deal for us, or it'll happen if they give us a 'good' deal?
My recollection was that it was just viewed as an increase in the chance of a bust up of the eurozone because we wee exiting. If we look at the rhetoric coming out from various EU folk some of the leading figures lean to the "economically stupid" line to try and maintain these EU freedoms. That in turn could lead to eurozone economic decline and further eurozone pressures so maybe the US institution is reading it right?
Interesting thing about the LA Times tracker that I didn't realise until recently. Whilst they poll 450 every day, they give every person selected on that day a week to respond.
ha, so they are only now getting to the last debate/pussygate?
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
Clutching at straws. Our membership of the EU is over. Get used to it.
I'm getting a grim enjoyment from hearing the wails of EEA Leavers as they belatedly realise that riding the tiger of nativist anti-immigrants isn't all that good a strategy. I have many more grim pleasures to get from other parts of the Leave coalition in the coming months and years.
But yes, Brexit is Brexit. The public have spoken and we must follow that course.
Why would having, for example, a 50% cut in the unskilled immigrants from the EU be such a catastrophy? That would be circa 100,000 workers a year.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
Clutching at straws. Our membership of the EU is over. Get used to it.
I'm getting a grim enjoyment from hearing the wails of EEA Leavers as they belatedly realise that riding the tiger of nativist anti-immigrants isn't all that good a strategy. I have many more grim pleasures to get from other parts of the Leave coalition in the coming months and years.
But yes, Brexit is Brexit. The public have spoken and we must follow that course.
Alistair- I am still clinging on hoping sense will prevail, clutching at straws, but clinging on by my fingertips
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
Your de haute en bas condescension worked so persuasively (along with the REMAIN campaign in general) during the referendum one wonders at you continuing to deploy it....
Are these the same 'useful idiots' who predicted economic calamity and factory closures if we didn't join the Euro, and when that didn't happen, again promised economic calamity and factory closures if we leave the EU?
The only handbrake turns so far are from those who predicted an Immediate shock and recession if we had the temerity even to vote to leave.....
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
Are you making it up ? Source, please. A precise one.
It think it was Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan.
The exact quote was something like "This has increased the possibility of the Eurozone not lasting another decade by a factor of about five." Of course, without knowing the initial probability, it's not that useful. 15% -> 75% is a very big move. 0.1% -> 0.5% is not.
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
Are you making it up ? Source, please. A precise one.
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
I didn't see that. Did they mention any precursors? I.e. it might happen anyway, it'll happen if they don't do a 'good' deal for us, or it'll happen if they give us a 'good' deal?
My recollection was that it was just viewed as an increase in the chance of a bust up of the eurozone because we wee exiting. If we look at the rhetoric coming out from various EU folk some of the leading figures lean to the "economically stupid" line to try and maintain these EU freedoms. That in turn could lead to eurozone economic decline and further eurozone pressures so maybe the US institution is reading it right?
Only one currency is going down the swanny and it is not the Euro.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
Clutching at straws. Our membership of the EU is over. Get used to it.
Indeed. Those who preferred Remain to Leave but also preferred EEA to Completely Out have had over three months to advocate EEA, but have wasted that time fighting the battle they'd already lost.
I think some are now more interested in being able to say 'told you so' at some indefinite point in the future, rather than contribute to improving the outcome.
Just like they did after we failed to join the Euro......oh......
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
Are you making it up ? Source, please. A precise one.
Listening to the debate on the Radio the fist twenty minutes was utterly excruciating in a way that I couldn't imagine. Secretly many of us lefties were hoping for a Trump GOP nomination just for the debates, for the entertainment value. But when it came as it did last night it was bleak, utterly depressing and about as enjoyable as a colonoscopy- not that I have had one, but I can imagine.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The " screeching handbrake turn" as you put it would be ignoring the democratic will of the people. Here is the crux of the argument about the EU project. They have no democratic basis and will readily ignore democratic process when they don't agree with it. To boot they describe those that excercise the democratic right as " useful idiots" .
I think you will find this approach and the " I know best" attitude is why remain lost the argument and the right to pontificate on what happens next. Remain is as responsible if not more responsible for this " car crash BREXIT" as you describe it by lying to the people for nearly half a century.
On June 23rd the fog certainly lifted and when the people were finally given an opportunity to speak, having been promised and then denised by successive governments Remain lost. You have only yourself to blame and the arrogance that oozes out of your postings on this subject.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
I didn't see that. Did they mention any precursors? I.e. it might happen anyway, it'll happen if they don't do a 'good' deal for us, or it'll happen if they give us a 'good' deal?
My recollection was that it was just viewed as an increase in the chance of a bust up of the eurozone because we wee exiting. If we look at the rhetoric coming out from various EU folk some of the leading figures lean to the "economically stupid" line to try and maintain these EU freedoms. That in turn could lead to eurozone economic decline and further eurozone pressures so maybe the US institution is reading it right?
Only one currency is going down the swanny and it is not the Euro.
@tnewtondunn: Trouble ahead for PM. Tory Leavers now joining Remainers in revolt on hard Brexit. Stephen Phillips pushing for emergency debate, voted out.
That's what I posted on PB the other day, from conference I got the feeling the Liberal/Economic Leavers weren't happy with the way we were headed for a hard Brexit.
It really does screw the economy.
Dominic Raab:
Should the EU impose tariffs, forcing the UK to reciprocate, the UK government would rake in an estimated £12 billion each year (on top of the £10 billion from not paying an EU membership fee). This can be used to support vulnerable business sectors. It would be the ultimate schadenfreude, if it were to be German car manufacturers and French farmers compensating British businesses, bruised by vindictive bureaucrats in Brussels.
Britain can flourish with even the worst deal. But how can we get the best?\
That's terrible economics. If we impose tariffs on goods, then consumers will pay more. You might as well just simply charge extra income tax on people that buy those kind of products.
For the record, there is no "forcing the UK reciprocate", as there is no obligation on the UK to charge tariffs on anything. As @GeoffM has posted, there is a very good economic case for simply abolishing all import duties, irrespective of the country of origin. (Really, the only case against it, is that lowering our tariffs is a weapon to persuade others to lower theirs.)
But most will lead to substitutions, e.g. wine from outside the EU at probably lower tariffs with trade deals and lower prices for our consumers. What trade does not move has the higher tariff. But the EU could eventually lose circa 50% of the exports to us through substitution which will be much above £100bn a year. Quite possible due to the lack of economic sense prevailing at the EU.
If be frankly astonished if we could replace 50% of EU imports domestically. The opportunities from leaving the EU are selling existing goods and services we produce into new markets. There will be some domestic substitution, but nothing like 50%. We simply don't have the capacity.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
Clutching at straws. Our membership of the EU is over. Get used to it.
I'm getting a grim enjoyment from hearing the wails of EEA Leavers as they belatedly realise that riding the tiger of nativist anti-immigrants isn't all that good a strategy. I have many more grim pleasures to get from other parts of the Leave coalition in the coming months and years.
But yes, Brexit is Brexit. The public have spoken and we must follow that course.
Alistair- I am still clinging on hoping sense will prevail, clutching at straws, but clinging on by my fingertips
* political reality stamps on Tyson's fingertips...*
Interesting u-turn by Remainers who were slagging off poor old Norway up until June the 22nd, saying that they have 'the worst of both worlds', i.e. implying that Clean Brexit > EEA.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
Six months ago some of the same posters who are currently exulting in the prospect of car crash Brexit were angrily denying that it was even conceivable.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
One man's ameliorated damage is another man's car crash further up the road.
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
Are you making it up ? Source, please. A precise one.
It think it was Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan.
The exact quote was something like "This has increased the possibility of the Eurozone not lasting another decade by a factor of about five." Of course, without knowing the initial probability, it's not that useful. 15% -> 75% is a very big move. 0.1% -> 0.5% is not.
That's exactly what Brexit ideologues are desperate to happen....for the EU to implode, then they could say they were ahead of the curve.
I'd say now there is much less chance of the EU splitting apart because of Brexit Why?.... less chance of plebiscites, less chance of populist governments, more chance of elites holding the fort and making the union work......and the price...that the UK will be punished heavily.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
It is.
Maybe they might start doing that rather than continuing to campaign against Leave...
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
I didn't see that. Did they mention any precursors? I.e. it might happen anyway, it'll happen if they don't do a 'good' deal for us, or it'll happen if they give us a 'good' deal?
My recollection was that it was just viewed as an increase in the chance of a bust up of the eurozone because we wee exiting. If we look at the rhetoric coming out from various EU folk some of the leading figures lean to the "economically stupid" line to try and maintain these EU freedoms. That in turn could lead to eurozone economic decline and further eurozone pressures so maybe the US institution is reading it right?
Only one currency is going down the swanny and it is not the Euro.
2003: £1= €1.37
2016: £1= €1.11
Remember, it's not the size of a currency but what you do with it that counts...
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
Are you making it up ? Source, please. A precise one.
It think it was Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan.
The exact quote was something like "This has increased the possibility of the Eurozone not lasting another decade by a factor of about five." Of course, without knowing the initial probability, it's not that useful. 15% -> 75% is a very big move. 0.1% -> 0.5% is not.
That's exactly what Brexit ideologues are desperate to happen....for the EU to implode, then they could say they were ahead of the curve.
I'd say now there is much less chance of the EU splitting apart because of Brexit Why?.... less chance of plebiscites, less chance of populist governments, more chance of elites holding the fort and making the union work......and the price...that the UK will be punished heavily.
If we are to be punished for having the temerity to decide we should go in a different direction, we are right to go in a different direction.
The Republicans should write off this election, and focus on what they need to do to win in 4 years time. Get the right candidate and Hiliary will be beatable for sure.
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
Are you making it up ? Source, please. A precise one.
It think it was Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan.
The exact quote was something like "This has increased the possibility of the Eurozone not lasting another decade by a factor of about five." Of course, without knowing the initial probability, it's not that useful. 15% -> 75% is a very big move. 0.1% -> 0.5% is not.
That's exactly what Brexit ideologues are desperate to happen....for the EU to implode, then they could say they were ahead of the curve.
I'd say now there is much less chance of the EU splitting apart because of Brexit Why?.... less chance of plebiscites, less chance of populist governments, more chance of elites holding the fort and making the union work......and the price...that the UK will be punished heavily.
Actually, the lesser the chance of referendums the more likely it makes populist victories. Brexit was a safety valve which has made a lot of noise but stopped the whole system from going bang.
You're hoping that the UK will be punished, but I expected nothing less from a traitor.
Samsung’s smartphone recall crisis has deepened after South Korean media said the tech giant had suspended production of its troubled Galaxy Note 7 model amid reports that replacement devices had caught fire.
One of the *replacement* devices caught fire on a plane in the US last week. Luckily while it was on the ground.
Samsung are probably best off admitting defeat and cancelling the Note 7 product now, the rushed replacement didn't work.
What this does illustrate is how close to the cutting edge we are working with battery technology these days, if a company with the resources of Samsung can screw it up so spectacularly.
I feel sorry for Samsung on this. There but for the grace of God go I (or at least some of my ex-colleagues).
Phone manufacturers want increased battery life from smaller batteries. The state-of-the-art allows you to push only so far before you touch the bleeding edge.
Absolutely. Samsung are just the latest in a long line of boundary-pushers who pushed too far. Remember a few years ago Boeing managed to put a flammable battery in the middle of their 787 Dreamliner, and there were a few exploding Teslas in the early days too. It's not just the cheap Chinese wheelboard thingies.
I always thank the Lord that he gave us energy sources with high densities and easy transportability as coal and oil. Imagine if we had no fossil fuels: how would we have managed to have an industrial revolution?
I wonder how long it will be before batteries get the same, or better, energy density as petrol?
A very long time, probably never, I should think.
Petrol has a specific energy of 46.4 MJ/kg, while the best rechargeable batteries have specific energies of less than 1 MJ/kg with increasingly diminishing returns from intense development over the past few years. I imagine there are probably hard physical limits that prevent battery technology from ever reaching the specific energies of hydrocarbon fuels.
That's the best current production technologies. I would expect lithium/air batteries to be a commercial reality within a decade, with around a quarter of the energy density of gasoline. Given the advantages of electric motors over the ICE, that would be more than enough. (And there are other more exotic technologies on the horizon.)
Those who preferred Remain to Leave but also preferred EEA to Completely Out have had over three months to advocate EEA, but have wasted that time fighting the battle they'd already lost.
Are they a bigger or a smaller number than those who preferred Leave to Remain, but also preferred EEA to Completely Out?
Comments
However what we dont know is how many of the Trailer Park Trash (© Bill Clinton) will come out of the woodwork.
https://twitter.com/fleetstreetfox/status/785389486905528320
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AFGiZT-MnI4
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/785362922239324161
It's on Channel 5, yes?
Sorry? All those millions he raised for Stoke Mandeville, all the posing at Marathons, all the Jim'll Fix It benevolence??
The media swallowed it all, just like they swallow Bill's bullsh8t.
"Democrats currently have a 57 percent chance of winning a Senate majority according to our polls-plus forecast and a 56 percent chance in polls-only. Those numbers have been fairly consistent since the conventions."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-update-6-really-important-races-are-really-close/
I must look that docu up.
For the record, there is no "forcing the UK reciprocate", as there is no obligation on the UK to charge tariffs on anything. As @GeoffM has posted, there is a very good economic case for simply abolishing all import duties, irrespective of the country of origin. (Really, the only case against it, is that lowering our tariffs is a weapon to persuade others to lower theirs.)
'Moralist' is not synonymous with fund raiser or benefactor.
Mostly I was just disagreeing with the premise that adding tariffs makes everyone better off, which seems to be Mr Raab's argument.
(Not only that, but he his suggestions for compensating those who lost out due to others' tariffs would be in blatant violation of the 1995 World Trade Organisation Treaty.)
Apparently 54 Labour frontbench positions still unfilled for now.... https://t.co/pokRiIWTSg
They undermined her in public as the legislation went through, even though ultimately they were to be the primary beneficiaries of measures such as the abolition of secondary picketing. Their arguments against trade union reforms were used by Jim Prior against her in Cabinet, and it was only once she had successfully seen the reforms through and brought round the economy, and after she won three elections in a row, that the CBI began exhibiting embarrassingly slavish devotion to her. (There is nothing the CBI admires so much as power, as their present lapdog attitude towards Brussels shows.)
http://capx.co/find-out-what-the-cbi-thinks-and-do-the-opposite/
Wheras EU exporters to UK hit by double whammy of high Euro and Tariffs.
I'm surprised weve heard nothing yet from RoI about difficulties the high Euro vs Pound must be causing them.
It's also worth remembering that a few kind words from Mrs May: "this is good for us, and good for you (EU...)" would go a long way. Make it clear that the UK's presence prevents the EU from making the changes it needs work - whether in terms of the power of the parliament, or the deeper integration of the Eurozone.
"While we're willing to walk away if the deal doesn't work for the British people, we believe this is an opportunity for the UK, and for the EU. We leave as friends, not as enemies. We shall continue to share the bonds of culture, and trade. We shall continue to participate in many pan-European programmes.
But the differences between our legal systems, our histories, and even political structures are too deep to allow us ever to be happy members of the EU. This is an opportunity for both of us to find a relationship that works, not one that leads to us chafing and unhappy, and you unable to make the changes you need to make your single currency work."
Now it seems that much the same applies but with invention of the internet substituting for colour photos.
I suspect the EU institutions and leaders also worked on the assumption that we would grovel for membership of the single market, and would just mock us that we are now are in the sam situation just no longer part of the rule making body.
We shouldnt underestimate just how annoyed the rest of the EU is at us, how distracting it is to them, and how painful the loss of funds will be. There will be a desire to punish us, thats even if the punishment impacts on them also.
The ideal solution is one that is mutually beneficial. Associate membership of the single market, with some kind of labour control that can be sold to the british people (and to the rest of the EU).
Who is going to blink first on free movement? By saying we are willing to leave the single market, this will sober up some minds in the EU.
There are very few products we export that do not rely on - to varying degrees - international supply chains. Take automotive, as its a sector I know well. A car made in the UK may well have tyres made in France, its suspension from Poland, a gearbox made in Spain, and electronics from Germany. The steel for the chassis will likely have come from a European steel mill, using Norwegian gas, and Chinese iron ore. The electricity used in the plant will, for the most part, be set by the dollar price of LNG.
If you look at the final price of the car on the forecourt in - oooh... pick a country... - Sweden, then only a small part will have been affected by the devaluation of sterling; maybe 15-20% at most. So a 15% decline in sterling might knock a couple of percent off the price of the car.
Labour splits over the party's approach to immigration and Brexit have been exposed after Diane Abbott put herself at odds with a senior Shadow Cabinet colleague.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/79714/diane-abbott-exposes-labour-splits-over
DYOR.
Clinton 42.7 .. Trump 45.8
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
1. Multilateral trade agreement
2. Unilateral dismantlement of tariffs and trading barriers
3. Bilateral trade agreement
4. No trade agreement.
They think the benefit of bilateral over no trade agreement is marginal because of trade substitution. Traders will change their pattern of trading to fulfill conditions of the agreement rather than strictly on commercial decisions.
We are walking away from our best option (multilateral EU arrangement). Unilateral reduction of trade barriers with the EU (in this case maintenance of the current schedules) is our next best, but significantly worse, option. What the EU does is up to them. It also has the advantage of not requiring negotiation, which is fraught at the moment.
There might be an interim of 'go back and talk about this some more' - but the guillotine will focus minds on something generally sensible.
If we impose tariffs on wine from the EU, we'll pay a little more for our wine, and the EU vinyards will get a little less for their wine. But the market will clear. The European vinyards and the US wineries will find someone who wants to buy their product. And all that flexes is the price to make the market clear.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
I haven't really followed the twists and turns of the US debate but it "seems" the second debate has changed little so far. I get the sense those Republicans aghast at Trump will simply abstain rather than vote for Clinton but that won't matter too much for HRC.
Just as an aside, looking at some poll numbers, I wonder if Alaska might be a long shot for HRC ? If memory serves, Obama did better there in 2012 than in 2008 (when Palin was on the GOP ticket). Latest polls I've seen put Trump only 3-4% ahead. As always, DYOR.
On the impending A50 negotiations, we're seeing plenty of posturing both from us and from the EU, plenty of stamping around and looking "tough" for internal consumption. The reality of the negotiation will be more obtuse and nuanced.
Clearly, the EU want not so much to "punish" us for leaving but "ne pas encourager les autres" by making the process as difficult as possible. Nonetheless, it remains in their interests and ours to work out a mutually advantageous settlement - that will inevitably mean compromise but it may not be presented by either side to their audiences in those terms. The devil will be in the detail but not many will bother with that until everything is done and signed off.
2020s Britain outside the EU is for now "the undiscovered country" but perhaps we'll get some clues as the negotiations progress.
"In 1994, as the pro-single currency movement was starting to rumble, the CBI published the result of a survey which claimed to show that 84% of industry backed British membership of the Euro – potentially, an incredibly valuable propaganda tool for the pro-single currency campaign. To (Professor) Cowgill‘s experienced eye, however, it looked distinctly fishy. And when he came to examine how the CBI had reached these figures, he discovered that the business organisation had not carried out a scientific survey of the views of its member firms.
Indeed the CBI had sent out questionnaires to only 624 companies, of which just 206 had replied. Of those 206 only 59 – 28% – had positively supported the single currency. However, a further 56% of respondents had been more lukewarm, without being hostile to the single currency. Only once they were added in was the CBI able to make their claim that a majority of members were in favour."
Guilty Men by PETER OBORNE AND FRANCES WEAVER
I'm getting a grim enjoyment from hearing the wails of EEA Leavers as they belatedly realise that riding the tiger of nativist anti-immigrants isn't all that good a strategy. I have many more grim pleasures to get from other parts of the Leave coalition in the coming months and years.
But yes, Brexit is Brexit. The public have spoken and we must follow that course.
Are these the same 'useful idiots' who predicted economic calamity and factory closures if we didn't join the Euro, and when that didn't happen, again promised economic calamity and factory closures if we leave the EU?
The only handbrake turns so far are from those who predicted an Immediate shock and recession if we had the temerity even to vote to leave.....
The exact quote was something like "This has increased the possibility of the Eurozone not lasting another decade by a factor of about five." Of course, without knowing the initial probability, it's not that useful. 15% -> 75% is a very big move. 0.1% -> 0.5% is not.
2003: £1= €1.37
2016: £1= €1.11
I think some are now more interested in being able to say 'told you so' at some indefinite point in the future, rather than contribute to improving the outcome.
Just like they did after we failed to join the Euro......oh......
I think you will find this approach and the " I know best" attitude is why remain lost the argument and the right to pontificate on what happens next. Remain is as responsible if not more responsible for this " car crash BREXIT" as you describe it by lying to the people for nearly half a century.
On June 23rd the fog certainly lifted and when the people were finally given an opportunity to speak, having been promised and then denised by successive governments Remain lost. You have only yourself to blame and the arrogance that oozes out of your postings on this subject.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
I'd say now there is much less chance of the EU splitting apart because of Brexit Why?.... less chance of plebiscites, less chance of populist governments, more chance of elites holding the fort and making the union work......and the price...that the UK will be punished heavily.
Maybe they might start doing that rather than continuing to campaign against Leave...
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/arizona/#now
You're hoping that the UK will be punished, but I expected nothing less from a traitor.
I would expect lithium/air batteries to be a commercial reality within a decade, with around a quarter of the energy density of gasoline. Given the advantages of electric motors over the ICE, that would be more than enough.
(And there are other more exotic technologies on the horizon.)