In any case, as has been noted on PB several times before, Scotland is constitutionally an equal partner in the Union. She has the right to leave that voluntary union at the time of her own choosing.
Legally, she doesn't. Constitutional matters are a reserved power for the UK Parliament.
The Act of Union, which created the Union, stated that the Union would be "for ever after":
Article 1: "THAT the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN".
The point then being that England no longer exists either - it is a nominal name for a region of the United Kingdom. Interesting.
Of course one Parliament cannot bind another - so England can rise from the ashes (and is currently according to that Article part of Great Britain, not the Uniited Kingdom).
In any case, as has been noted on PB several times before, Scotland is constitutionally an equal partner in the Union. She has the right to leave that voluntary union at the time of her own choosing.
Legally, she doesn't. Constitutional matters are a reserved power for the UK Parliament.
The Act of Union, which created the Union, stated that the Union would be "for ever after":
Article 1: "THAT the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN".
The point then being that England no longer exists either - it is a nominal name for a region of the United Kingdom. Interesting.
Of course one Parliament cannot bind another - so England can rise from the ashes (and is currently according to that Article part of Great Britain, not the Uniited Kingdom).
That'll be from the 1707 Act. It was the 1801 Act which created the United Kingdom when Ireland was incorporated.
But no, Jobabob's line of reasoning that says 'Scotland (or England) decided this in the early 18th century and could undecide it now' is wrong, at least in constitutional terms. The bodies that took the decisions were abolished as independent actors as part of that process and so are incapable of exercising the sovereignty that they then did. Scots nationalists are keen to pretend that Scotland is an 'equal actor' but it's nothing more than a wish of their own making.
Of course, for practical purposes, the Scottish people can take a decision to become independent should they so wish but that's to do with the politics of the 21st century, not the constitution of the 18th.
Wow. It seems that not much of the electorate takes the line that "Some things are more important than money."
The proportion voting for Brexit is double the proportion thinking it will make them better off.
I was looking more at the thin red line - the percentage of Leavers thinking leaving will make us worse off is only 7% (precisely the same as the number of Remainers thinking remaining will make us worse off).
We're always being told that even if Leaving makes us worse off, the "more important things" will make it worthwhile. Evidently very few voters feel that way - of those who think leaving will make us worse off, 92% voted to remain.
Yes, that was the point I made earlier. A large number of leavers apparently voted that way because they genuinely think it will make us economically better off, rather than agreeing to pay a price for the sake of democracy and sovereignty. These people are going to be most upset if they don't get the £350m / week for the NHS that they were promised.
Donning the cloak of Pollyanna optimism of the average Brexiteer for a moment, I take this as simply a challenge to the desired soft Brexit. How might your three deliverables from Brexit be addressed by soft Brexit:
Control of Immigration: As I've posted already, predicate this with a serious bout of honesty about the fact we have not yet restricted non-EU net immigration in any meaningful way and a discussion of what the demographic requirements for immigration actually look like. Accept the challenge that controlling immigration with EU free movement intact is more like controlling unemployment and not like controlling an interest rate, but that it is something that can be done.
Subscription: The a la carte opt-in of many things to the EEA lends itself to some decent accounting chargeback: x million for opting in and participating in, for e.g., Erasmus program. Don't spend ON the nebulous thing that is the EU, buy specific tangible products FROM the EU and account accordingly. Ask the waiter to split the bill.
Return of sovereignty: No more CAP, no more CFP, a much more dominant position on the EFTA court.
You never wanted Brexit, Mr Herdson, and I doubt you really in your heart of hearts want Hard Brexit with all its consequences. If you had the task of getting to a softer Brexit, how would you go about it?
Wow. It seems that not much of the electorate takes the line that "Some things are more important than money."
The proportion voting for Brexit is double the proportion thinking it will make them better off.
I was looking more at the thin red line - the percentage of Leavers thinking leaving will make us worse off is only 7% (precisely the same as the number of Remainers thinking remaining will make us worse off).
We're always being told that even if Leaving makes us worse off, the "more important things" will make it worthwhile. Evidently very few voters feel that way - of those who think leaving will make us worse off, 92% voted to remain.
Yes, that was the point I made earlier. A large number of leavers apparently voted that way because they genuinely think it will make us economically better off, rather than agreeing to pay a price for the sake of democracy and sovereignty. These people are going to be most upset if they don't get the £350m / week for the NHS that they were promised.
Do you think they are more disappointed than people frightened in to voting remain, who havent seen their pensions cut, growth fall off a cliff, emergency budget, the biggest recession ever etc.... ?
Wow. It seems that not much of the electorate takes the line that "Some things are more important than money."
The proportion voting for Brexit is double the proportion thinking it will make them better off.
I was looking more at the thin red line - the percentage of Leavers thinking leaving will make us worse off is only 7% (precisely the same as the number of Remainers thinking remaining will make us worse off).
We're always being told that even if Leaving makes us worse off, the "more important things" will make it worthwhile. Evidently very few voters feel that way - of those who think leaving will make us worse off, 92% voted to remain.
Yes, that was the point I made earlier. A large number of leavers apparently voted that way because they genuinely think it will make us economically better off, rather than agreeing to pay a price for the sake of democracy and sovereignty. These people are going to be most upset if they don't get the £350m / week for the NHS that they were promised.
Do you think they are more disappointed than people frightened in to voting remain, who havent seen their pensions cut, growth fall off a cliff, emergency budget, the biggest recession ever etc.... ?
Wow. It seems that not much of the electorate takes the line that "Some things are more important than money."
The proportion voting for Brexit is double the proportion thinking it will make them better off.
I was looking more at the thin red line - the percentage of Leavers thinking leaving will make us worse off is only 7% (precisely the same as the number of Remainers thinking remaining will make us worse off).
We're always being told that even if Leaving makes us worse off, the "more important things" will make it worthwhile. Evidently very few voters feel that way - of those who think leaving will make us worse off, 92% voted to remain.
Yes, that was the point I made earlier. A large number of leavers apparently voted that way because they genuinely think it will make us economically better off, rather than agreeing to pay a price for the sake of democracy and sovereignty. These people are going to be most upset if they don't get the £350m / week for the NHS that they were promised.
Do you think they are more disappointed than people frightened in to voting remain, who havent seen their pensions cut, growth fall off a cliff, emergency budget, the biggest recession ever etc.... ?
It is too early to say
then by that measure it;s also too early to say on the various Leavers state of satisfaction
An excellent (and very well-written) article, David.
On the side-point about the slowness of the financial markets to understand that Brexit means Brexit, I do wonder if they still have further to go in accepting the reality. My gut feeling is that they aren't there yet.
I agree. At its lowest point we could be looking at dollar parity.
What will change it is if the UK start giving off massive pro business signals. That's why I think Hammond et al should annouce tax breaks and deregulation (post single market) to attract more FDI.
I wonder if it is similar to the incident here where somebody who was shocked by a clown with a knife tried to grab the knife out of the clowns hand and got injured in the struggle?
An excellent (and very well-written) article, David.
On the side-point about the slowness of the financial markets to understand that Brexit means Brexit, I do wonder if they still have further to go in accepting the reality. My gut feeling is that they aren't there yet.
I agree. At its lowest point we could be looking at dollar parity.
What will change it is if the UK start giving off massive pro business signals. That's why I think Hammond et al should annouce tax breaks and deregulation (post single market) to attract more FDI.
I wonder if having Corbyn in opposition is a negative. People look at the UK and say... "Hmmm, I like this Mrs May woman, but the main opposition make SYRIZA and Podemos look economically sensible."
I wonder if it is similar to the incident here where somebody who was shocked by a clown with a knife tried to grab the knife out of the clowns hand and got injured in the struggle?
Common assault to begin with, shouldn't be surprised if it goes wrong.
Brexit seems to have moved from damage limitation to passively accepting what happens.
I don't personally think we have to passively accept what happens. Damage limitation is better in my view. I voted Remain but strongly believe the result needs to be respected whatever my opinion of the result. This is what I would want to do in Theresa May's shoes:
- Article 50 trigger sooner rather than later. Vote in Parliament on whether to trigger. No point delaying.
- Early commitment to stay in the EU Customs Union. This should be a no-brainer for anyone who isn't totally bought into the Leave rhetoric. You get free trade on manufactured goods, a ready made set of EU trade agreements with third countries, no customs red tape adding to cost of doing business. It eliminates a level of uncertainty for some businesses, eg car manufacturers. Remaining in the Customs Union should be uncontroversial with our partners, hence we can commit early. We don't have the time or the resources to negotiate third party trade deals and there would be a long gap without deals in place.
- Focus initially on the negotiations over the WTO schedules. These will be tricky and involve agriculture, which are always the most intractable.
- The big question is how to negotiate with our EU partners. There is no point playing hardball if the other side won't or can't deliver in response. Any agreement that comes out of Article 50 is likely to be very limited. I think it's best not to try to go to final negotiations at this stage but park them to some later time when they can be dealt with more comprehensively. The immediate aim should be to foster a favourable environment with the EU.
- There will have to be some transition. My instinct is to go informal and unilateral. We exit Article 50 and the EU with a declaration of no change until we decide otherwise. In other words, adoption of EU regulations into our law, full freedom of movement as would be required internally by the EU. This is in effect dares the EU to do the same and avoids negotiations that are likely to go to the lowest common denominator.
Would this respect the vote? I think so. Formally we voted to leave the EU and we will leave. One of the government's red lines is immediately dealt with: no ECJ jurisdiction. The others - FoM and budget payments - can be dealt with later at a time of our choosing.
Will it actually happen? Unfortunately I don't think Theresa May has either the imagination or the courage to go beyond a transactional process sanctioned by her Leave faction.
Wow. It seems that not much of the electorate takes the line that "Some things are more important than money."
The proportion voting for Brexit is double the proportion thinking it will make them better off.
I was looking more at the thin red line - the percentage of Leavers thinking leaving will make us worse off is only 7% (precisely the same as the number of Remainers thinking remaining will make us worse off).
We're always being told that even if Leaving makes us worse off, the "more important things" will make it worthwhile. Evidently very few voters feel that way - of those who think leaving will make us worse off, 92% voted to remain.
Yes, that was the point I made earlier. A large number of leavers apparently voted that way because they genuinely think it will make us economically better off, rather than agreeing to pay a price for the sake of democracy and sovereignty. These people are going to be most upset if they don't get the £350m / week for the NHS that they were promised.
They'll blame the EU for any expectations not met, and claim it shows we are better off outside.
This is a fabulous take-down of generation snowflake and the case-of-the-vapours Brexit caused among so many... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn_6sU7O43w ...and I'm a remainer. Apols if posted previously.
Wow. It seems that not much of the electorate takes the line that "Some things are more important than money."
The proportion voting for Brexit is double the proportion thinking it will make them better off.
Evidently very few voters feel that way - of those who think leaving will make us worse off, 92% voted to remain.
Yes, that was the point I made earlier. A large number of leavers apparently voted that way because they genuinely think it will make us economically better off, rather than agreeing to pay a price for the sake of democracy and sovereignty. These people are going to be most upset if they don't get the £350m / week for the NHS that they were promised.
Do you think they are more disappointed than people frightened in to voting remain, who havent seen their pensions cut, growth fall off a cliff, emergency budget, the biggest recession ever etc.... ?
It is too early to say
then by that measure it;s also too early to say on the various Leavers state of satisfaction
Absolutely.
In the run up to the vote, we had lots of experts - people with years of study and experience of the relevant fields - spell out for us less informed mortals the myriad risks of Brexit.
We could of course choose to disregard the fact that nothing has actually yet changed and dismiss that our actual exit is still years away, consider that the world around us did not suddenly collapse on June 24th, and conclude that these so-called experts are a load of ignorant biased crooks and therefore their advice and forecasts can now safely be ignored.
We might, on the other hand, wonder whether some of the expert advice was spun and misreported by politicians for their own purposes, and wonder whether whilst being wrong on the timing and magnitude the experts might still have a point based on their better understanding of the complex economic world in which we live, and decide that whilst hoping for the best we should remain both aware and very fearful of the potential high seas that the good ship Britannia may shortly encounter.
Or we could just hide under the duvet until SeanT comes online again to explain why the plots of 1960s movies like Zulu and The Great Escape prove conclusively that an independent Britain freed of the EU will soon once again rule over half of the world.
Mr. 86, don't be silly. It's just a violent maniac.
Besides, assuming that would be stigmatising a group of society without any evidence.
Ahem.
Mr. 43, not sure giving the EU the power to determine our tariffs with non-EU countries would go down terribly well with the electorate. As for freedom of movement, if May announced that as her intention her premiership would be over before she finished the sentence.
Even if May had, as you term it 'the courage' to go for freedom of movement, the PCP would absolutely not tolerate it and there'd be a backlash from the electorate.
An excellent (and very well-written) article, David.
On the side-point about the slowness of the financial markets to understand that Brexit means Brexit, I do wonder if they still have further to go in accepting the reality. My gut feeling is that they aren't there yet.
I agree. At its lowest point we could be looking at dollar parity.
What will change it is if the UK start giving off massive pro business signals. That's why I think Hammond et al should annouce tax breaks and deregulation (post single market) to attract more FDI.
I wonder if having Corbyn in opposition is a negative. People look at the UK and say... "Hmmm, I like this Mrs May woman, but the main opposition make SYRIZA and Podemos look economically sensible."
Renewing her mandate through a GE and achieving a solid Conservative majority to take us through to 2022 would remove that problem.
She then has 3 years post Brexit to go hell for leather for economic growth.
Brexit seems to have moved from damage limitation to passively accepting what happens.
I don't personally think we have to passively accept what happens. Damage limitation is better in my view. I voted Remain but strongly believe the result needs to be respected whatever my opinion of the result. This is what I would want to do in Theresa May's shoes:
- Article 50 trigger sooner rather than later. Vote in Parliament on whether to trigger. No point delaying.
- Early commitment to stay in the EU Customs Union. This should be a no-brainer for anyone who isn't totally bought into the Leave rhetoric. You get free trade on manufactured goods, a ready made set of EU trade agreements with third countries, no customs red tape adding to cost of doing business. It eliminates a level of uncertainty for some businesses, eg car manufacturers. Remaining in the Customs Union should be uncontroversial with our partners, hence we can commit early. We don't have the time or the resources to negotiate third party trade deals and there would be a long gap without deals in place.
- Focus initially on the negotiations over the WTO schedules. These will be tricky and involve agriculture, which are always the most intractable.
- The big question is how to negotiate with our EU partners. There is no point playing hardball if the other side won't or can't deliver in response. Any agreement that comes out of Article 50 is likely to be very limited. I think it's best not to try to go to final negotiations at this stage but park them to some later time when they can be dealt with more comprehensively. The immediate aim should be to foster a favourable environment with the EU.
- There will have to be some transition. My instinct is to go informal and unilateral. We exit Article 50 and the EU with a declaration of no change until we decide otherwise. In other words, adoption of EU regulations into our law, full freedom of movement as would be required internally by the EU. This is in effect dares the EU to do the same and avoids negotiations that are likely to go to the lowest common denominator.
Would this respect the vote? I think so. Formally we voted to leave the EU and we will leave. One of the government's red lines is immediately dealt with: no ECJ jurisdiction. The others - FoM and budget payments - can be dealt with later at a time of our choosing.
Will it actually happen? Unfortunately I don't think Theresa May has either the imagination or the courage to go beyond a transactional process sanctioned by her Leave faction.
I don't think much of that is viable. If we leave via Article 50 with budget payments to be "dealt with later at a time of our choosing", presumably in the interim we will be making payments on a voluntary basis equivalent to what we now pay under the treaty. And the EU will be under no obligation to pay anything back (or do we do the sums and just pay what we now pay, net?)
I once rented Leeds Castle for a night, so I object to that slur. It is a fine building.
Not only that, but with a very unponcey history. In 1321 Lady Badlesmere, who had been left in charge by her husband, refused to admit Isabella of France and her armed escort, instead drawing up the drawbridge and firing arrows at them, killing six. That didn't go down terribly well with Isabella's husband Edward II, but you'd think TSE would be keen on Lady Badlesmere telling the French to get stuffed!
Les Aigles Hurlants doesn't really hate the French; he's clearly overcompensating to cover up his Francophilia.
And for Monsieur Hurlants; Hard Brexit in French is Brexit dur
Wow. It seems that not much of the electorate takes the line that "Some things are more important than money."
The proportion voting for Brexit is double the proportion thinking it will make them better off.
I was looking more at the thin red line - the percentage of Leavers thinking leaving will make us worse off is only 7% (precisely the same as the number of Remainers thinking remaining will make us worse off).
We're always being told that even if Leaving makes us worse off, the "more important things" will make it worthwhile. Evidently very few voters feel that way - of those who think leaving will make us worse off, 92% voted to remain.
Yes, that was the point I made earlier. A large number of leavers apparently voted that way because they genuinely think it will make us economically better off, rather than agreeing to pay a price for the sake of democracy and sovereignty. These people are going to be most upset if they don't get the £350m / week for the NHS that they were promised.
They'll blame the EU for any expectations not met, and claim it shows we are better off outside.
Or blame the Government for "making a hash of it."
But hey, one certain and easy win is that we won't be having one-and-a-half million Turks per year flooding in. (Yes, I know Turkey wasn't joining the EU anyway, shhhh...)
I am really struggling to grasp May's thinking here
Probably cold politics. Those North of the Border that feel strongly against Independence will stick with, or switch to, Ruth. The majority pissed off with English intransigence will stick with or switch to the SNP. In the short run the losers are Labour and the LibDems.
Plus it's an extra distraction May doesn't need; Brexit is looking challenging enough already .
But it is playing with fire if it fuels desire for independence. Thwarting genuinely supported independence demands often doesn't end well.
Yes, I cannot see how telling the Scots they can't do something is in any way wise. Their national character is to push back against being bossed about by the English.
In any case, as has been noted on PB several times before, Scotland is constitutionally an equal partner in the Union. She has the right to leave that voluntary union at the time of her own choosing.
Well there you have it in all its glory. Apparently the Scottish can't be pushed about, it's a voluntary Union with equal partnership and they can leave "at the time of her own choosing". Not so for England and Wales apparently also in an EU.
You are the biggest remainer on here and you post that? Seriously??
You are either a massive Hypocrite or the EU is none of those things. I think both are correct.
Eh? I fully support the UK's right to leave the EU, I just don't believe it should. Calm down!!
Wriggle wriggle.....
There is no wriggle whatsoever in that position. If you think there is, you are far less intelligent than I thought.
If you were shopping in a supermarket, but hadn't bought enough wine for dinner, I would argue you have the right to leave the store, but would counsel against your doing so.
Wow. It seems that not much of the electorate takes the line that "Some things are more important than money."
The proportion voting for Brexit is double the proportion thinking it will make them better off.
I was looking more at the thin red line - the percentage of Leavers thinking leaving will make us worse off is only 7% (precisely the same as the number of Remainers thinking remaining will make us worse off).
We're always being told that even if Leaving makes us worse off, the "more important things" will make it worthwhile. Evidently very few voters feel that way - of those who think leaving will make us worse off, 92% voted to remain.
Yes, that was the point I made earlier. A large number of leavers apparently voted that way because they genuinely think it will make us economically better off, rather than agreeing to pay a price for the sake of democracy and sovereignty. These people are going to be most upset if they don't get the £350m / week for the NHS that they were promised.
They'll blame the EU for any expectations not met, and claim it shows we are better off outside.
Or blame the Government for "making a hash of it."
But hey, one certain and easy win is that we won't be having one-and-a-half million Turks per year flooding in. (Yes, I know Turkey wasn't joining the EU anyway, shhhh...)
No but plenty of folk from that part of the world will have German citizenship in a few years and be entitled to come and settle here under current rules
Mr. 86, don't be silly. It's just a violent maniac.
Besides, assuming that would be stigmatising a group of society without any evidence.
Ahem.
Mr. 43, not sure giving the EU the power to determine our tariffs with non-EU countries would go down terribly well with the electorate. As for freedom of movement, if May announced that as her intention her premiership would be over before she finished the sentence.
Even if May had, as you term it 'the courage' to go for freedom of movement, the PCP would absolutely not tolerate it and there'd be a backlash from the electorate.
Not entirely sure if your post is being serious.
Why would the electorate care whether we aligned our tariffs with the EU? Getting the electorate to accept no IMMEDIATE change on Freedom of Movement is not easy, I accept. None of this is easy.
Of course I am being serious. I don't believe Remainers have to deny the result, nor do I think only those sold on the Leave rhetoric have valid opinions and everyone else should shut up.
Mr. 86, don't be silly. It's just a violent maniac.
Besides, assuming that would be stigmatising a group of society without any evidence.
Ahem.
Mr. 43, not sure giving the EU the power to determine our tariffs with non-EU countries would go down terribly well with the electorate. As for freedom of movement, if May announced that as her intention her premiership would be over before she finished the sentence.
Even if May had, as you term it 'the courage' to go for freedom of movement, the PCP would absolutely not tolerate it and there'd be a backlash from the electorate.
Not entirely sure if your post is being serious.
Mr 43 has hit the button on this - you cannot unravel 43 years of legislative shift and globalisation which has been carried out under it under art 50 in one hit.
This is why many of us suggested a different route, one of retaining EEA status and FoM (limited by the emergency procedure in art 112 EEA), while we would have to negotiate CAP/CFP removal after a period (while we are working with the WTO), Rules of Origin, customs transactions processes (AEO certification) and mutual recognition (for when the EEA process reaches its natural end).
It's a staged Brexit. I thought at the time the Flexcit model was the best on offer, and I think it would have been politically possible had we been able to mount a more effective campaign for it. Now the politics is harder because Cummings made so many wild claims in the referendum, but it's not impossible. We want to leave, but we don't want to damage either the EU or ourselves. I would rather that (like Hitchens) we would not have had a referendum, and worked to elect a truly Conservative party with a leave manifesto. But once it was called, there was no choice but to fight it because to lose would be the green light for the full integration of the UK into the project, and that would have been irreversible.
Donning the cloak of Pollyanna optimism of the average Brexiteer for a moment, I take this as simply a challenge to the desired soft Brexit. How might your three deliverables from Brexit be addressed by soft Brexit:
Control of Immigration: As I've posted already, predicate this with a serious bout of honesty about the fact we have not yet restricted non-EU net immigration in any meaningful way and a discussion of what the demographic requirements for immigration actually look like. Accept the challenge that controlling immigration with EU free movement intact is more like controlling unemployment and not like controlling an interest rate, but that it is something that can be done.
Subscription: The a la carte opt-in of many things to the EEA lends itself to some decent accounting chargeback: x million for opting in and participating in, for e.g., Erasmus program. Don't spend ON the nebulous thing that is the EU, buy specific tangible products FROM the EU and account accordingly. Ask the waiter to split the bill.
Return of sovereignty: No more CAP, no more CFP, a much more dominant position on the EFTA court.
You never wanted Brexit, Mr Herdson, and I doubt you really in your heart of hearts want Hard Brexit with all its consequences. If you had the task of getting to a softer Brexit, how would you go about it?
I didn't want Brexit at the referendum but actually I'd prefer a hard Brexit now, both because I believe it's politically necessary (as per the article) and because a soft Brexit would be a worst-of-all-worlds, giving Britain most of the costs of membership with little of the influence. If it's worth doing something, it's worth doing it properly.
But if i was aiming for a soft Brexit then I'd be aiming for continued participation in as many EU schemes as possible on a bilateral arrangement, presumably for a fee - which is pretty much what you outlined. I'd be starting off arguing for a Three-Plus Freedoms, though that's probably not viable. The fallback position would be to go in via the EEA, whether through EFTA (which would mean applying to it and being accepted), or directly. There's no precedent for a country to join the EEA directly but the UK is bigger than all of EFTA so there's no reason it couldn't be done in principle.
Wow. It seems that not much of the electorate takes the line that "Some things are more important than money."
The proportion voting for Brexit is double the proportion thinking it will make them better off.
I was looking more at the thin red line - the percentage of Leavers thinking leaving will make us worse off is only 7% (precisely the same as the number of Remainers thinking remaining will make us worse off).
We're always being told that even if Leaving makes us worse off, the "more important things" will make it worthwhile. Evidently very few voters feel that way - of those who think leaving will make us worse off, 92% voted to remain.
Yes, that was the point I made earlier. A large number of leavers apparently voted that way because they genuinely think it will make us economically better off, rather than agreeing to pay a price for the sake of democracy and sovereignty. These people are going to be most upset if they don't get the £350m / week for the NHS that they were promised.
They'll blame the EU for any expectations not met, and claim it shows we are better off outside.
Or blame the Government for "making a hash of it."
But hey, one certain and easy win is that we won't be having one-and-a-half million Turks per year flooding in. (Yes, I know Turkey wasn't joining the EU anyway, shhhh...)
When Erdogan toyed with the introduction of the death penalty earlier this year he was immediately and forcefully told by the EU that he mustn't, because it would prevent Turkey joining the EU (which implies that it was otherwise on course to join the EU.)
An excellent (and very well-written) article, David.
On the side-point about the slowness of the financial markets to understand that Brexit means Brexit, I do wonder if they still have further to go in accepting the reality. My gut feeling is that they aren't there yet.
I agree. At its lowest point we could be looking at dollar parity.
What will change it is if the UK start giving off massive pro business signals. That's why I think Hammond et al should annouce tax breaks and deregulation (post single market) to attract more FDI.
I wonder if having Corbyn in opposition is a negative. People look at the UK and say... "Hmmm, I like this Mrs May woman, but the main opposition make SYRIZA and Podemos look economically sensible."
Not when they're 10+ points behind in the polls. It implies an electorate that's not prepared to go outside the bounds of the centre-left to the centre-right. That might change but then Britain's hardly unique in that.
There are new polls from Cvoter on 538 which feature some of their fieldwork post debate. They show Hils +7 and +8. Why not post them instead?
Also, polls published before debates are NOT "completely useless" as you claim. The evidence is that debates don't usually shift opinion that much, so as long as they are fairly recent they can still be considered, with reasonable caveats.
There are new polls from Cvoter on 538 which feature some of their fieldwork post debate. They show Hils +7 and +8. Why not post them instead?
Also, polls published before debates are NOT "completely useless" as you claim. The evidence is that debates don't usually shift opinion that much, so as long as they are fairly recent they can still be considered, with reasonable caveats.
Mr. 86, don't be silly. It's just a violent maniac.
Besides, assuming that would be stigmatising a group of society without any evidence.
Ahem.
Mr. 43, not sure giving the EU the power to determine our tariffs with non-EU countries would go down terribly well with the electorate. As for freedom of movement, if May announced that as her intention her premiership would be over before she finished the sentence.
Even if May had, as you term it 'the courage' to go for freedom of movement, the PCP would absolutely not tolerate it and there'd be a backlash from the electorate.
Not entirely sure if your post is being serious.
Mr 43 has hit the button on this - you cannot unravel 43 years of legislative shift and globalisation which has been carried out under it under art 50 in one hit.
This is why many of us suggested a different route, one of retaining EEA status and FoM (limited by the emergency procedure in art 112 EEA), while we would have to negotiate CAP/CFP removal after a period (while we are working with the WTO), Rules of Origin, customs transactions processes (AEO certification) and mutual recognition (for when the EEA process reaches its natural end).
It's a staged Brexit. I thought at the time the Flexcit model was the best on offer, and I think it would have been politically possible had we been able to mount a more effective campaign for it. Now the politics is harder because Cummings made so many wild claims in the referendum, but it's not impossible. We want to leave, but we don't want to damage either the EU or ourselves. I would rather that (like Hitchens) we would not have had a referendum, and worked to elect a truly Conservative party with a leave manifesto. But once it was called, there was no choice but to fight it because to lose would be the green light for the full integration of the UK into the project, and that would have been irreversible.
It doesn't work because all the variables are binary. Either there is FoM or there isn't, either we are obliged to make payments or we aren't. There is no halfway house where we can have a bit of freedom of movement, or pay quite a bit of what we would pay under the treaty in a not-legally-binding-but-we-feel-we-ought-to-contribute sort of way.
then by that measure it;s also too early to say on the various Leavers state of satisfaction
Certainly it's too early to say about how the electorate will feel in the medium to long term.
But if there are Brexit supporters who are prefacing their arguments with an acceptance that leaving will make us worse off (as the "more important things than money" refrain suggests), then they must also accept that 85% of those who voted to leave did so in the inaccurate belief that leaving wouldn't make us worse off.
Mr. 86, don't be silly. It's just a violent maniac.
Besides, assuming that would be stigmatising a group of society without any evidence.
Ahem.
Mr. 43,....
Mr 43 has hit the button on this - you cannot unravel 43 years of legislative shift and globalisation which has been carried out under it under art 50 in one hit.
This is why many of us suggested a different route, one of retaining EEA status and FoM (limited by the emergency procedure in art 112 EEA), while we would have to negotiate CAP/CFP removal after a period (while we are working with the WTO), Rules of Origin, customs transactions processes (AEO certification) and mutual recognition (for when the EEA process reaches its natural end).
It's a staged Brexit. I thought at the time the Flexcit model was the best on offer, and I think it would have been politically possible had we been able to mount a more effective campaign for it. Now the politics is harder because Cummings made so many wild claims in the referendum, but it's not impossible. We want to leave, but we don't want to damage either the EU or ourselves. I would rather that (like Hitchens) we would not have had a referendum, and worked to elect a truly Conservative party with a leave manifesto. But once it was called, there was no choice but to fight it because to lose would be the green light for the full integration of the UK into the project, and that would have been irreversible.
It doesn't work because all the variables are binary. Either there is FoM or there isn't, either we are obliged to make payments or we aren't. There is no halfway house where we can have a bit of freedom of movement, or pay quite a bit of what we would pay under the treaty in a not-legally-binding-but-we-feel-we-ought-to-contribute sort of way.
CHAPTER 4 SAFEGUARD MEASURES Article 112 1. If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contra cting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and pr ocedures laid down in Article 113. 2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement. 3. The safeguard measures shall apply wit h regard to all Contracting Parties
I am really struggling to grasp May's thinking here
Probably cold politics. Those North of the Border that feel strongly against Independence will stick with, or switch to, Ruth. The majority pissed off with English intransigence will stick with or switch to the SNP. In the short run the losers are Labour and the LibDems.
Plus it's an extra distraction May doesn't need; Brexit is looking challenging enough already .
But it is playing with fire if it fuels desire for independence. Thwarting genuinely supported independence demands often doesn't end well.
Yes, I cannot see how telling the Scots they can't do something is in any way wise. Their national character is to push back against being bossed about by the English.
In any case, as has been noted on PB several times before, Scotland is constitutionally an equal partner in the Union. She has the right to leave that voluntary union at the time of her own choosing.
Well there you have it in all its glory. Apparently the Scottish can't be pushed about, it's a voluntary Union with equal partnership and they can leave "at the time of her own choosing". Not so for England and Wales apparently also in an EU.
You are the biggest remainer on here and you post that? Seriously??
You are either a massive Hypocrite or the EU is none of those things. I think both are correct.
Remainers don't question Britain's right to leave, merely where it is right to leave.
There are new polls from Cvoter on 538 which feature some of their fieldwork post debate. They show Hils +7 and +8. Why not post them instead?
Also, polls published before debates are NOT "completely useless" as you claim. The evidence is that debates don't usually shift opinion that much, so as long as they are fairly recent they can still be considered, with reasonable caveats.
Because they don't, Cvoter shows a reduction of Hillary's lead from 6.5 to 5 now, and they are a 7 day tracker so they won't post their full post-debate numbers until Tuesday.
This is a fabulous take-down of generation snowflake and the case-of-the-vapours Brexit caused among so many... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn_6sU7O43w ...and I'm a remainer. Apols if posted previously.
He got the numbers wrong. 64% of young people not 34%. I remember young people being slagged off for much the same kind of stuff many years ago when I was one myself. I think it is just human nature.
Mr. 86, don't be silly. It's just a violent maniac.
Besides, assuming that would be stigmatising a group of society without any evidence.
Ahem.
Mr. 43, not sure giving the EU the power to determine our tariffs with non-EU countries would go down terribly well with the electorate. As for freedom of movement, if May announced that as her intention her premiership would be over before she finished the sentence.
Even if May had, as you term it 'the courage' to go for freedom of movement, the PCP would absolutely not tolerate it and there'd be a backlash from the electorate.
Not entirely sure if your post is being serious.
Mr 43 has hit the button on this - you cannot unravel 43 years of legislative shift and globalisation which has been carried out under it under art 50 in one hit.
This is why many of us suggested a different route, one of retaining EEA status and FoM (limited by the emergency procedure in art 112 EEA), while we would have to negotiate CAP/CFP removal after a period (while we are working with the WTO), Rules of Origin, customs transactions processes (AEO certification) and mutual recognition (for when the EEA process reaches its natural end).
It's a staged Brexit. I thought at the time the Flexcit model was the best on offer, and I think it would have been politically possible had we been able to mount a more effective campaign for it. Now the politics is harder because Cummings made so many wild claims in the referendum, but it's not impossible. We want to leave, but we don't want to damage either the EU or ourselves. I would rather that (like Hitchens) we would not have had a referendum, and worked to elect a truly Conservative party with a leave manifesto. But once it was called, there was no choice but to fight it because to lose would be the green light for the full integration of the UK into the project, and that would have been irreversible.
It doesn't work because all the variables are binary. Either there is FoM or there isn't, either we are obliged to make payments or we aren't. There is no halfway house where we can have a bit of freedom of movement, or pay quite a bit of what we would pay under the treaty in a not-legally-binding-but-we-feel-we-ought-to-contribute sort of way.
That's simply not true, there are many factors to freedom of movement.
There is freedom for workers, their families, those looking for work (but without a job), those with sufficient financial means, people generally. There is temporary residence and there is the right to citizenship. There are non-discriminatory rights to benefits (in/out of work) relevant to migration.
Those are all recognised under the treaties and 2004/38/EC, one can always come up with more.
What is politics coming to when the primary prospective leaders of Her Majesty's Opposition are nincompoops and nonentities that nobody has ever heard of? Owen "Thingy" Smith and Clive "Who?" Lewis? I am old enough to remember when Denis Healey and John Smith were prominent.
Is it like this for everybody as we get older? Does everybody look to the figures of the past as being towering colossuses like Aneurin Bevan and Rab Butler? Or were even they mediocre scheming nonentities in their day?
Mr. 86, don't be silly. It's just a violent maniac.
Besides, assuming that would be stigmatising a group of society without any evidence.
Ahem.
Mr. 43,....
Mr 43 has hit the button on this - you cannot unravel 43 years of legislative shift and globalisation which has been carried out under it under art 50 in one hit.
This is why many of us suggested a different route, one of retaining EEA status and FoM (limited by the emergency procedure in art 112 EEA), while we would have to negotiate CAP/CFP removal after a period (while we are working with the WTO), Rules of Origin, customs transactions processes (AEO certification) and mutual recognition (for when the EEA process reaches its natural end).
It's a staged Brexit. I thought at the time the Flexcit model was the best on offer, and I think it would have been politically possible had we been able to mount a more effective campaign for it. Now the politics is harder because Cummings made so many wild claims in the referendum, but it's not impossible. We want to leave, but we don't want to damage either the EU or ourselves. I would rather that (like Hitchens) we would not have had a referendum, and worked to elect a truly Conservative party with a leave manifesto. But once it was called, there was no choice but to fight it because to lose would be the green light for the full integration of the UK into the project, and that would have been irreversible.
It doesn't work because all the variables are binary. Either there is FoM or there isn't, either we are obliged to make payments or we aren't. There is no halfway house where we can have a bit of freedom of movement, or pay quite a bit of what we would pay under the treaty in a not-legally-binding-but-we-feel-we-ought-to-contribute sort of way.
CHAPTER 4 SAFEGUARD MEASURES Article 112 1. If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contra cting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and pr ocedures laid down in Article 113. 2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement. 3. The safeguard measures shall apply wit h regard to all Contracting Parties
What is politics coming to when the primary prospective leaders of Her Majesty's Opposition are nincompoops and nonentities that nobody has ever heard of? Owen "Thingy" Smith and Clive "Who?" Lewis? I am old enough to remember when Denis Healey and John Smith were prominent.
Is it like this for everybody as we get older? Does everybody look to the figures of the past as being towering colossuses like Aneurin Bevan and Rab Butler? Or were even they mediocre scheming nonentities in their day?
There are well-known and (in some cases) reasonably well-respected figures on the opposition benches who are ruled out from the leadership because of the nature of the new membership.
Mr. 86, don't be silly. It's just a violent maniac.
Besides, assuming that would be stigmatising a group of society without any evidence.
Ahem.
Mr. 43,....
Mr ....irreversible.
It doesn't work because all the variables are binary. Either there is FoM or there isn't, either we are obliged to make payments or we aren't. There is no halfway house where we can have a bit of freedom of movement, or pay quite a bit of what we would pay under the treaty in a not-legally-binding-but-we-feel-we-ought-to-contribute sort of way.
CHAPTER 4 SAFEGUARD MEASURES Article 112 1. If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contra cting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and pr ocedures laid down in Article 113. 2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement. 3. The safeguard measures shall apply wit h regard to all Contracting Parties
Why does that apply?
Because it allows temporary or partial suspension of the four freedoms inside the EEA - which is exactly what Iceland did (though via a slightly different route) with freedom of capital after the crash. Our agreement with the EU was that an emergency situation had been reached and therefore we could exercise certain limits to benefits. However, the EEA route is a unilateral one which does not require agreement, only notification. The other states may then impose a reciprocal penalty that must be (under art 113) proportionate to the potential losses or distortions to the market which might occur from the unilateral action.
This is a fabulous take-down of generation snowflake and the case-of-the-vapours Brexit caused among so many...
...and I'm a remainer. Apols if posted previously.
He got the numbers wrong. 64% of young people not 34%. I remember young people being slagged off for much the same kind of stuff many years ago when I was one myself. I think it is just human nature.
Fair enough. Doesn't invalidate his other points. The interviews with protesters were hilarious. "The best thing about the EU is the NHS".
Mr. 86, don't be silly. It's just a violent maniac.
Besides, assuming that would be stigmatising a group of society without any evidence.
Ahem.
Mr. 43, not sure giving the EU the power to determine our tariffs with non-EU countries would go down terribly well with the electorate. As for freedom of movement, if May announced that as her intention her premiership would be over before she finished the sentence.
Even if May had, as you term it 'the courage' to go for freedom of movement, the PCP would absolutely not tolerate it and there'd be a backlash from the electorate.
Not entirely sure if your post is being serious.
Mr 43 has hit the button on this - you cannot unravel 43 years of legislative shift and globalisation which has been carried out under it under art 50 in one hit.
This is why many of us suggested a different route, one of retaining EEA status and FoM (limited by the emergency procedure in art 112 EEA), while we would have to negotiate CAP/CFP removal after a period (while we are working with the WTO), Rules of Origin, customs transactions processes (AEO certification) and mutual recognition (for when the EEA process reaches its natural end).
It's a staged Brexit. I thought at the time the Flexcit model was the best on offer, and I think it would have been politically possible had we been able to mount a more effective campaign for it. Now the politics is harder becausesnip4spacelose would be the green light for the full integration of the UK into the project, and that would have been irreversible.
It doesn't work because all the variables are binary. Either there is FoM or there isn't, either we are obliged to make payments or we aren't. There is no halfway house where we can have a bit of freedom of movement, or pay quite a bit of what we would pay under the treaty in a not-legally-binding-but-we-feel-we-ought-to-contribute sort of way.
That's simply not true, there are many factors to freedom of movement.
There is freedom for workers, their families, those looking for work (but without a job), those with sufficient financial means, people generally. There is temporary residence and there is the right to citizenship. There are non-discriminatory rights to benefits (in/out of work) relevant to migration.
Those are all recognised under the treaties and 2004/38/EC, one can always come up with more.
But you can't whittle any of that lot down without the EU saying "that is not Freedom of Movement as defined in the directive".
Scots nationalists are keen to pretend that Scotland is an 'equal actor' but it's nothing more than a wish of their own making.
If only Unionists would stop reinforcing that wish.
Darling: 'Today we are equal partners in the United Kingdom.' Davidson: 'The overwhelming majority of Scots believe in the United Kingdom and want to remain part of this 300-year-long equal partnership of prosperity, security, and pride.' Lamont: 'It is a union of equals and partnership: not a contractual union or marriage of convenience.' May: 'A future in which Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England continue to flourish side-by-side as equal partners.'
Mr. 86, don't be silly. It's just a violent maniac.
Besides, assuming that would be stigmatising a group of society without any evidence.
Ahem.
Mr. 43,....
Mr ....irreversible.
It doesn't work because all the variables are binary. Either there is FoM or there isn't, either we are obliged to make payments or we aren't. There is no halfway house where we can have a bit of freedom of movement, or pay quite a bit of what we would pay under the treaty in a not-legally-binding-but-we-feel-we-ought-to-contribute sort of way.
CHAPTER 4 SAFEGUARD MEASURES Article 112 1. If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contra cting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and pr ocedures laid down in Article 113. 2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement. 3. The safeguard measures shall apply wit h regard to all Contracting Parties
Why does that apply?
Because it allows temporary or partial suspension of the four freedoms inside the EEA - which is exactly what Iceland did (though via a slightly different route) with freedom of capital after the crash. Our agreement with the EU was that an emergency situation had been reached and therefore we could exercise certain limits to benefits. However, the EEA route is a unilateral one which does not require agreement, only notification. The other states may then impose a reciprocal penalty that must be (under art 113) proportionate to the potential losses or distortions to the market which might occur from the unilateral action.
It allows those things "If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising". I don't think we can fit the Brexit vote within that definition; serious Remainers may disagree, of course, but there is the added problem that the difficulties are self-inflicted by the exercise of a right under the treaty.
Wow. It seems that not much of the electorate takes the line that "Some things are more important than money."
The proportion voting for Brexit is double the proportion thinking it will make them better off.
I was looking more at the thin red line - the percentage of Leavers thinking leaving will make us worse off is only 7% (precisely the same as the number of Remainers thinking remaining will make us worse off).
We're always being told that even if Leaving makes us worse off, the "more important things" will make it worthwhile. Evidently very few voters feel that way - of those who think leaving will make us worse off, 92% voted to remain.
Yes, that was the point I made earlier. A large number of leavers apparently voted that way because they genuinely think it will make us economically better off, rather than agreeing to pay a price for the sake of democracy and sovereignty. These people are going to be most upset if they don't get the £350m / week for the NHS that they were promised.
They'll blame the EU for any expectations not met, and claim it shows we are better off outside.
Or blame the Government for "making a hash of it."
But hey, one certain and easy win is that we won't be having one-and-a-half million Turks per year flooding in. (Yes, I know Turkey wasn't joining the EU anyway, shhhh...)
When Erdogan toyed with the introduction of the death penalty earlier this year he was immediately and forcefully told by the EU that he mustn't, because it would prevent Turkey joining the EU (which implies that it was otherwise on course to join the EU.)
So which is it, and how do you know?
That presumes that Turkey and its various governments have been stupid enough not to know the game. They used a potential EU membership for their own ends, especially diplomatic, and to a certain extent against their own civil service.
It's been a dance. Both sides know the moves, and both sides know that it will not lead to marriage. But the appearance of the dance is to the advantage of both sides, at least until now.
U.K. gvt 10-yr bond yields now up to 1.15% from 0.7% pre-June
Yields are still way down on where they were 6 months ago, and they were incredibly low then. Any rise is good news for pension schemes. They have a long way to go to recover yet. A long long way.
That presumes that Turkey and its various governments have been stupid enough not to know the game. They used a potential EU membership for their own ends, especially diplomatic, and to a certain extent against their own civil service.
It's been a dance. Both sides know the moves, and both sides know that it will not lead to marriage. But the appearance of the dance is to the advantage of both sides, at least until now.
The problem is if you partake in the dance you can't then protest naivety when someone says that you've been dancing. There is a have cake and eat it too delusion by those quite content to have this dance go along and then protest angrily at it being pointed out.
Question for those who may know (rcs perhaps). If we assume QE debt is never going to be repaid then.what is our real level of government debt excluding QE debt?
I can't see any problems with allowing some cars to ignore one way systems. It'll work wonderfully.
Some years ago while being driven to lunch by a customer in Palermo I looked around and said to the driver: "Isn't this a one-way street?" He answered: "Sometimes my friend, sometimes".
Wow. It seems that not much of the electorate takes the line that "Some things are more important than money."
The proportion voting for Brexit is double the proportion thinking it will make them better off.
I was looking more at the thin red line - the percentage of Leavers thinking leaving will make us worse off is only 7% (precisely the same as the number of Remainers thinking remaining will make us worse off).
We're always being told that even if Leaving makes us worse off, the "more important things" will make it worthwhile. Evidently very few voters feel that way - of those who think leaving will make us worse off, 92% voted to remain.
Yes, that was the point I made earlier. A large number of leavers apparently voted that way because they genuinely think it will make us economically better off, rather than agreeing to pay a price for the sake of democracy and sovereignty. These people are going to be most upset if they don't get the £350m / week for the NHS that they were promised.
They'll blame the EU for any expectations not met, and claim it shows we are better off outside.
This seems plausible. The more that figures like Tusk, Juncker and Hollande issue hardline statements, the more that at least a critical plurality of the British electorate will look at the EU and conclude that it is belligerent, held together by the glue of fear, and that we were therefore right to leave it behind.
The EU was never particularly loved in this country, and then its reputation was ruined by its mismanagement of the Eurozone and migration crises. If the Government doesn't get what it considers to be a reasonable deal from the EU, then the EU's lack of credibility in Britain should make the task of apportioning blame straightforward.
Page 37 of the Warwick report looks at the Betting Markets and why Remain was expected to win in betting markets:
"Overall, we can only speculate that large parts of the media and the ‘West- minster bubble’ were out of touch with the sentiment felt by the majority of voters, in particular in England and Wales. Perhaps the problem was com- pounded by ‘group-think’ pressure on pollsters to adjust their figures to the average. These observations are consistent with the ‘contact hypothesis’ in that too many key actors in public life are concentrated amongst their own kind and lack interaction with outsiders so that they fail to understand their concerns."
Not all. Some of us on PB were very in touch and made a handsome evening's winnings!!
I can't see any problems with allowing some cars to ignore one way systems. It'll work wonderfully.
Some years ago while being driven to lunch by a customer in Palermo I looked around and said to the driver: "Isn't this a one-way street?" He answered: "Sometimes my friend, sometimes".
My introduction to driving in Palermo was coming off the motorway to discover that a favoured way of joining the same road amongst the local drivers was reversing fast up the 'off' sliproad. I then got to marvel at the old town's historic grid pattern of roads, where every intersection had no signposted priority and it was simply a matter of who didn't blink as to which direction got to cross.
As the well known Italian saying goes, "in Milan the traffic lights are an instruction, in Rome a suggestion, and in Naples, decoration". Palermo is south of Naples.
I can't see any problems with allowing some cars to ignore one way systems. It'll work wonderfully.
Some years ago while being driven to lunch by a customer in Palermo I looked around and said to the driver: "Isn't this a one-way street?" He answered: "Sometimes my friend, sometimes".
When I was young living in Australia my grandparents came to visit. At the end of their visit we were taking them to the airport and my dad got lost and as a shortcut took a wrong turn down a one way street only to have blue lights start flashing. An angry looking policeman came over with his notepad open and before he could say anything my nan called out with a thick English accent "can you give us directions to the airport". He closed his book and gave directions clearly deciding it was more hassle than its worth to give a ticket to the pommies who were leaving the country anyway.
Not sure he'd have been so forgiving if he'd realised we lived there.
Mr. 86, don't be silly. It's just a violent maniac.
Besides, assuming that would be stigmatising a group of society without any evidence.
Ahem.
Mr. 43,....
Mr ....irreversible.
It doesn't work because all the variables are binary. Either there is FoM or there isn't, either we are obliged to make payments or we aren't. There is no halfway house where we can have a bit of freedom of movement, or pay quite a bit of what we would pay under the treaty in a not-legally-binding-but-we-feel-we-ought-to-contribute sort of way.
CHAPTER 4 SAFEGUARD MEASURES Article 112 1. If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contra cting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and pr ocedures laid down in Article 113. 2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement. 3. The safeguard measures shall apply wit h regard to all Contracting Parties
Why does that apply?
Because it allows temporary or partial suspension of the four freedoms inside the EEA - which is exactly what Iceland did (though via a slightly different route) with freedom of capital after the crash. Our agreement with the EU was that an emergency situation had been reached and therefore we could exercise certain limits to benefits. However, the EEA route is a unilateral one which does not require agreement, only notification. The other states may then impose a reciprocal penalty that must be (under art 113) proportionate to the potential losses or distortions to the market which might occur from the unilateral action.
It allows those things "If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising". I don't think we can fit the Brexit vote within that definition; serious Remainers may disagree, of course, but there is the added problem that the difficulties are self-inflicted by the exercise of a right under the treaty.
The EU already agreed that we had reached an emergency position, due to the pressure on social cohesion and public services and housing
Question for those who may know (rcs perhaps). If we assume QE debt is never going to be repaid then.what is our real level of government debt excluding QE debt?
I have a chart in my excellent Debt & Delusion piece...
Here you go:
Privately Held Debt Japan 177 Italy 117 USA 88 Spain 83 France 80 UK 67 Germany 60
Page 37 of the Warwick report looks at the Betting Markets and why Remain was expected to win in betting markets:
"Overall, we can only speculate that large parts of the media and the ‘West- minster bubble’ were out of touch with the sentiment felt by the majority of voters, in particular in England and Wales. Perhaps the problem was com- pounded by ‘group-think’ pressure on pollsters to adjust their figures to the average. These observations are consistent with the ‘contact hypothesis’ in that too many key actors in public life are concentrated amongst their own kind and lack interaction with outsiders so that they fail to understand their concerns."
Not all. Some of us on PB were very in touch and made a handsome evening's winnings!!
I was out of touch and still made a lot of money, largely because this site was an hour or two quicker to analyse the results than was the BBC
Question for those who may know (rcs perhaps). If we assume QE debt is never going to be repaid then.what is our real level of government debt excluding QE debt?
I have a chart in my excellent Debt & Delusion piece...
Here you go:
Privately Held Debt Japan 177 Italy 117 USA 88 Spain 83 France 80 UK 67 Germany 60
Fascinating if true. Lends more weight to previous evidence suggesting that the activities of Leave and Remain activists during the short campaign did not have much influence on the outcome. However, the notion that austerity may have tipped the vote in favour of Leave is something new, AFAIK.
I still reckon that the main drivers of the Leave vote were sovereignty and immigration concerns, but I suppose that the referendum was sufficiently close (in proportionate terms) for other factors to have come into play...
That's simply not true, there are many factors to freedom of movement.
There is freedom for workers, their families, those looking for work (but without a job), those with sufficient financial means, people generally. There is temporary residence and there is the right to citizenship. There are non-discriminatory rights to benefits (in/out of work) relevant to migration.
Those are all recognised under the treaties and 2004/38/EC, one can always come up with more.
Indeed, up until the Maastricht Treaty, the freedom was solely to work. You had no automatic right to reside unless you were working, and there certainly wasn't any entitlement of benefits.
Mr. 86, don't be silly. It's just a violent maniac.
Besides, assuming that would be stigmatising a group of society without any evidence.
Ahem.
Mr. 43,....
Mr ....irreversible.
It doesn't work because all the variables are binary. Either there is FoM or there isn't, either we are obliged to make payments or we aren't. There is no halfway house where we can have a bit of freedom of movement, or pay quite a bit of what we would pay under the treaty in a not-legally-binding-but-we-feel-we-ought-to-contribute sort of way.
CHAPTER 4 SAFEGUARD MEASURES Article 112 1. If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contra cting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and pr ocedures laid down in Article 113. 2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement. 3. The safeguard measures shall apply wit h regard to all Contracting Parties
Why does that apply?
Because it allows temporary or partial suspension of the four freedoms inside the EEA - which is exactly what Iceland did (though via a slightly different route) with freedom of capital after the crash. Our agreement with the EU was that an emergency situation had been reached and therefore we could exercise certain limits to benefits. However, the EEA route is a unilateral one which does not require agreement, only notification. The other states may then impose a reciprocal penalty that must be (under art 113) proportionate to the potential losses or distortions to the market which might occur from the unilateral action.
It allows those things "If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising". I don't think we can fit the Brexit vote within that definition; serious Remainers may disagree, of course, but there is the added problem that the difficulties are self-inflicted by the exercise of a right under the treaty.
The EU already agreed that we had reached an emergency position, due to the pressure on social cohesion and public services and housing
Question for those who may know (rcs perhaps). If we assume QE debt is never going to be repaid then.what is our real level of government debt excluding QE debt?
I have a chart in my excellent Debt & Delusion piece...
Here you go:
Privately Held Debt Japan 177 Italy 117 USA 88 Spain 83 France 80 UK 67 Germany 60
(As percentage of GDP)
Thank you. 67% looks a lot less scary than the 90% commonly referred to. If we could ever run a surplus for a few good years of growth it would be quite possible to get that back to a manageable figure.
Question for those who may know (rcs perhaps). If we assume QE debt is never going to be repaid then.what is our real level of government debt excluding QE debt?
I have a chart in my excellent Debt & Delusion piece...
Here you go:
Privately Held Debt Japan 177 Italy 117 USA 88 Spain 83 France 80 UK 67 Germany 60
(As percentage of GDP)
Government debt (ex QE) ?
Exactly. Those numbers are about a year out of date, so you probably need to knock about 5% off the Eurozone ones to reflect (a) debt-to-GDP is declining there already, and (b) the additional QE that happened in the period.
Question for those who may know (rcs perhaps). If we assume QE debt is never going to be repaid then.what is our real level of government debt excluding QE debt?
I have a chart in my excellent Debt & Delusion piece... Here you go:
Privately Held Debt Japan 177 Italy 117 USA 88 Spain 83 France 80 UK 67 Germany 60
Mr. 86, don't be silly. It's just a violent maniac.
Besides, assuming that would be stigmatising a group of society without any evidence.
Ahem.
Mr. 43,....
Mr ....irreversible.
It doesn't work because all the variables are binary. Either there is FoM or there isn't, either we are obliged to make payments or we aren't. There is no halfway house where we can have a bit of freedom of movement, or pay quite a bit of what we would pay under the treaty in a not-legally-binding-but-we-feel-we-ought-to-contribute sort of way.
CHAPTER 4 SAFEGUARD MEASURES Article 112 1. If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contra cting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and pr ocedures laid down in Article 113. 2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement. 3. The safeguard measures shall apply wit h regard to all Contracting Parties
Why does that apply?
Because it allows temporary or partial suspension of the four freedoms inside the EEA - which is exactly what Iceland did (though via a slightly different route) with freedom of capital after the crash. Our agreement with the EU was that an emergency situation had been reached and therefore we could exercise certain limits to benefits. However, the EEA route is a unilateral one which does not require agreement, only notification. The other states may then impose a reciprocal penalty that must be (under art 113) proportionate to the potential losses or distortions to the market which might occur from the unilateral action.
It allows those things "If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising". I don't think we can fit the Brexit vote within that definition; serious Remainers may disagree, of course, but there is the added problem that the difficulties are self-inflicted by the exercise of a right under the treaty.
The EU already agreed that we had reached an emergency position, due to the pressure on social cohesion and public services and housing
Golly. Didn't know that. When was this?
Cameron's deal - that was the basis of the Benefits restriction line - emergency situation
Question for those who may know (rcs perhaps). If we assume QE debt is never going to be repaid then.what is our real level of government debt excluding QE debt?
I have a chart in my excellent Debt & Delusion piece...
Here you go:
Privately Held Debt Japan 177 Italy 117 USA 88 Spain 83 France 80 UK 67 Germany 60
(As percentage of GDP)
Thank you. 67% looks a lot less scary than the 90% commonly referred to. If we could ever run a surplus for a few good years of growth it would be quite possible to get that back to a manageable figure.
To be honest, if we string together a period of 2.5% GDP growth, 2.5% inflation, no budget deficit, then we'll get back down to 50% in no time at all. (I.e., under a decade.)
Fascinating if true. Lends more weight to previous evidence suggesting that the activities of Leave and Remain activists during the short campaign did not have much influence on the outcome. However, the notion that austerity may have tipped the vote in favour of Leave is something new, AFAIK.
I still reckon that the main drivers of the Leave vote were sovereignty and immigration concerns, but I suppose that the referendum was sufficiently close (in proportionate terms) for other factors to have come into play...
It looks like their findings are similar to the earlier study, linked from PB, that the two most strong correlations with Leave voting were age and not having a university education. Despite all the flak that such a conclusion got from the more educated leavers who post here, you can't argue with hard fact and the findings of two separate independent analyses.
Question for those who may know (rcs perhaps). If we assume QE debt is never going to be repaid then.what is our real level of government debt excluding QE debt?
I have a chart in my excellent Debt & Delusion piece... Here you go:
Privately Held Debt Japan 177 Italy 117 USA 88 Spain 83 France 80 UK 67 Germany 60
(As percentage of GDP)
Where is China?
I don't know, I haven't done those numbers... And do you include government company debt? And local governemnt debt?
Question for those who may know (rcs perhaps). If we assume QE debt is never going to be repaid then.what is our real level of government debt excluding QE debt?
I have a chart in my excellent Debt & Delusion piece...
Here you go:
Privately Held Debt Japan 177 Italy 117 USA 88 Spain 83 France 80 UK 67 Germany 60
(As percentage of GDP)
Thank you. 67% looks a lot less scary than the 90% commonly referred to. If we could ever run a surplus for a few good years of growth it would be quite possible to get that back to a manageable figure.
To be honest, if we string together a period of 2.5% GDP growth, 2.5% inflation, no budget deficit, then we'll get back down to 50% in no time at all. (I.e., under a decade.)
Question for those who may know (rcs perhaps). If we assume QE debt is never going to be repaid then.what is our real level of government debt excluding QE debt?
I have a chart in my excellent Debt & Delusion piece...
Here you go:
Privately Held Debt Japan 177 Italy 117 USA 88 Spain 83 France 80 UK 67 Germany 60
(As percentage of GDP)
Thank you. 67% looks a lot less scary than the 90% commonly referred to. If we could ever run a surplus for a few good years of growth it would be quite possible to get that back to a manageable figure.
To be honest, if we string together a period of 2.5% GDP growth, 2.5% inflation, no budget deficit, then we'll get back down to 50% in no time at all. (I.e., under a decade.)
That's three big ifs for a decade.
But the issue is surely that getting to 2.5% may prove somewhat easier than stopping at 2.5%?
That presumes that Turkey and its various governments have been stupid enough not to know the game. They used a potential EU membership for their own ends, especially diplomatic, and to a certain extent against their own civil service.
It's been a dance. Both sides know the moves, and both sides know that it will not lead to marriage. But the appearance of the dance is to the advantage of both sides, at least until now.
The problem is if you partake in the dance you can't then protest naivety when someone says that you've been dancing. There is a have cake and eat it too delusion by those quite content to have this dance go along and then protest angrily at it being pointed out.
There is a naivety in those who point out that they're dancing, as if the participants did not know it.
Makes sense. ITV really can't get enough of stars it finds via shows like X Factor so why shouldn't the BBC take advantage of talent it found in its shows?
I don't watch Bake Off and never seen any of her shows but she can't be anywhere near as bad as Rylan who seems to be on half of ITVs shows nowadays.
Comments
But no, Jobabob's line of reasoning that says 'Scotland (or England) decided this in the early 18th century and could undecide it now' is wrong, at least in constitutional terms. The bodies that took the decisions were abolished as independent actors as part of that process and so are incapable of exercising the sovereignty that they then did. Scots nationalists are keen to pretend that Scotland is an 'equal actor' but it's nothing more than a wish of their own making.
Of course, for practical purposes, the Scottish people can take a decision to become independent should they so wish but that's to do with the politics of the 21st century, not the constitution of the 18th.
Control of Immigration: As I've posted already, predicate this with a serious bout of honesty about the fact we have not yet restricted non-EU net immigration in any meaningful way and a discussion of what the demographic requirements for immigration actually look like. Accept the challenge that controlling immigration with EU free movement intact is more like controlling unemployment and not like controlling an interest rate, but that it is something that can be done.
Subscription: The a la carte opt-in of many things to the EEA lends itself to some decent accounting chargeback: x million for opting in and participating in, for e.g., Erasmus program. Don't spend ON the nebulous thing that is the EU, buy specific tangible products FROM the EU and account accordingly. Ask the waiter to split the bill.
Return of sovereignty: No more CAP, no more CFP, a much more dominant position on the EFTA court.
You never wanted Brexit, Mr Herdson, and I doubt you really in your heart of hearts want Hard Brexit with all its consequences. If you had the task of getting to a softer Brexit, how would you go about it?
What will change it is if the UK start giving off massive pro business signals. That's why I think Hammond et al should annouce tax breaks and deregulation (post single market) to attract more FDI.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37657072
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37624008
Should this even be a question?
I don't personally think we have to passively accept what happens. Damage limitation is better in my view. I voted Remain but strongly believe the result needs to be respected whatever my opinion of the result. This is what I would want to do in Theresa May's shoes:
- Article 50 trigger sooner rather than later. Vote in Parliament on whether to trigger. No point delaying.
- Early commitment to stay in the EU Customs Union. This should be a no-brainer for anyone who isn't totally bought into the Leave rhetoric. You get free trade on manufactured goods, a ready made set of EU trade agreements with third countries, no customs red tape adding to cost of doing business. It eliminates a level of uncertainty for some businesses, eg car manufacturers. Remaining in the Customs Union should be uncontroversial with our partners, hence we can commit early. We don't have the time or the resources to negotiate third party trade deals and there would be a long gap without deals in place.
- Focus initially on the negotiations over the WTO schedules. These will be tricky and involve agriculture, which are always the most intractable.
- The big question is how to negotiate with our EU partners. There is no point playing hardball if the other side won't or can't deliver in response. Any agreement that comes out of Article 50 is likely to be very limited. I think it's best not to try to go to final negotiations at this stage but park them to some later time when they can be dealt with more comprehensively. The immediate aim should be to foster a favourable environment with the EU.
- There will have to be some transition. My instinct is to go informal and unilateral. We exit Article 50 and the EU with a declaration of no change until we decide otherwise. In other words, adoption of EU regulations into our law, full freedom of movement as would be required internally by the EU. This is in effect dares the EU to do the same and avoids negotiations that are likely to go to the lowest common denominator.
Would this respect the vote? I think so. Formally we voted to leave the EU and we will leave. One of the government's red lines is immediately dealt with: no ECJ jurisdiction. The others - FoM and budget payments - can be dealt with later at a time of our choosing.
Will it actually happen? Unfortunately I don't think Theresa May has either the imagination or the courage to go beyond a transactional process sanctioned by her Leave faction.
Then going back out the same way like a cuckoo back into its clock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn_6sU7O43w
...and I'm a remainer. Apols if posted previously.
In the run up to the vote, we had lots of experts - people with years of study and experience of the relevant fields - spell out for us less informed mortals the myriad risks of Brexit.
We could of course choose to disregard the fact that nothing has actually yet changed and dismiss that our actual exit is still years away, consider that the world around us did not suddenly collapse on June 24th, and conclude that these so-called experts are a load of ignorant biased crooks and therefore their advice and forecasts can now safely be ignored.
We might, on the other hand, wonder whether some of the expert advice was spun and misreported by politicians for their own purposes, and wonder whether whilst being wrong on the timing and magnitude the experts might still have a point based on their better understanding of the complex economic world in which we live, and decide that whilst hoping for the best we should remain both aware and very fearful of the potential high seas that the good ship Britannia may shortly encounter.
Or we could just hide under the duvet until SeanT comes online again to explain why the plots of 1960s movies like Zulu and The Great Escape prove conclusively that an independent Britain freed of the EU will soon once again rule over half of the world.
Besides, assuming that would be stigmatising a group of society without any evidence.
Ahem.
Mr. 43, not sure giving the EU the power to determine our tariffs with non-EU countries would go down terribly well with the electorate. As for freedom of movement, if May announced that as her intention her premiership would be over before she finished the sentence.
Even if May had, as you term it 'the courage' to go for freedom of movement, the PCP would absolutely not tolerate it and there'd be a backlash from the electorate.
Not entirely sure if your post is being serious.
She then has 3 years post Brexit to go hell for leather for economic growth.
And for Monsieur Hurlants; Hard Brexit in French is Brexit dur
But hey, one certain and easy win is that we won't be having one-and-a-half million Turks per year flooding in.
(Yes, I know Turkey wasn't joining the EU anyway, shhhh...)
If you were shopping in a supermarket, but hadn't bought enough wine for dinner, I would argue you have the right to leave the store, but would counsel against your doing so.
(Apologies for the analogy).
"Electric cars could be given priority at traffic lights and exempted from one-way systems, under new proposals."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37654584
I can't see any problems with allowing some cars to ignore one way systems. It'll work wonderfully.
Of course I am being serious. I don't believe Remainers have to deny the result, nor do I think only those sold on the Leave rhetoric have valid opinions and everyone else should shut up.
This is why many of us suggested a different route, one of retaining EEA status and FoM (limited by the emergency procedure in art 112 EEA), while we would have to negotiate CAP/CFP removal after a period (while we are working with the WTO), Rules of Origin, customs transactions processes (AEO certification) and mutual recognition (for when the EEA process reaches its natural end).
It's a staged Brexit. I thought at the time the Flexcit model was the best on offer, and I think it would have been politically possible had we been able to mount a more effective campaign for it. Now the politics is harder because Cummings made so many wild claims in the referendum, but it's not impossible. We want to leave, but we don't want to damage either the EU or ourselves. I would rather that (like Hitchens) we would not have had a referendum, and worked to elect a truly Conservative party with a leave manifesto. But once it was called, there was no choice but to fight it because to lose would be the green light for the full integration of the UK into the project, and that would have been irreversible.
But if i was aiming for a soft Brexit then I'd be aiming for continued participation in as many EU schemes as possible on a bilateral arrangement, presumably for a fee - which is pretty much what you outlined. I'd be starting off arguing for a Three-Plus Freedoms, though that's probably not viable. The fallback position would be to go in via the EEA, whether through EFTA (which would mean applying to it and being accepted), or directly. There's no precedent for a country to join the EEA directly but the UK is bigger than all of EFTA so there's no reason it couldn't be done in principle.
Pew, National, survey dates Sept.27th-Oct.10th, so completely useless.
Hillary +7
http://www.people-press.org/2016/10/14/in-presidential-contest-voters-say-basic-facts-not-just-policies-are-in-dispute/
When Erdogan toyed with the introduction of the death penalty earlier this year he was immediately and forcefully told by the EU that he mustn't, because it would prevent Turkey joining the EU (which implies that it was otherwise on course to join the EU.)
So which is it, and how do you know?
Also, polls published before debates are NOT "completely useless" as you claim. The evidence is that debates don't usually shift opinion that much, so as long as they are fairly recent they can still be considered, with reasonable caveats.
As for postal votes less than 0.5 million have voted before the survey's end date out of an expected 130 million.
Good man.
Oh, and we are not supposed to mention the 'c' word.
But if there are Brexit supporters who are prefacing their arguments with an acceptance that leaving will make us worse off (as the "more important things than money" refrain suggests), then they must also accept that 85% of those who voted to leave did so in the inaccurate belief that leaving wouldn't make us worse off.
Article 112
1. If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional
nature liable to persist are arising, a Contra
cting Party may unilaterally take appropriate
measures under the conditions and pr
ocedures laid down in Article 113.
2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted
with regard to their scope and duration to
what is strictly necessary in
order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such
measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement.
3. The safeguard measures shall apply wit
h regard to all Contracting Parties
Here see for yourself:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/10/14/UPICVoter-poll-Hillary-Clinton-leads-Donald-Trump-by-5-points/5771476450376/?spt=sec&or=tn
The trackers have turned the corner for Trump, but most are 7 day ones so they won't fully get rid of the tape numbers before Monday-Tuesday.
There is freedom for workers, their families, those looking for work (but without a job), those with sufficient financial means, people generally. There is temporary residence and there is the right to citizenship. There are non-discriminatory rights to benefits (in/out of work) relevant to migration.
Those are all recognised under the treaties and 2004/38/EC, one can always come up with more.
What is politics coming to when the primary prospective leaders of Her Majesty's Opposition are nincompoops and nonentities that nobody has ever heard of? Owen "Thingy" Smith and Clive "Who?" Lewis? I am old enough to remember when Denis Healey and John Smith were prominent.
Is it like this for everybody as we get older? Does everybody look to the figures of the past as being towering colossuses like Aneurin Bevan and Rab Butler? Or were even they mediocre scheming nonentities in their day?
Our agreement with the EU was that an emergency situation had been reached and therefore we could exercise certain limits to benefits. However, the EEA route is a unilateral one which does not require agreement, only notification. The other states may then impose a reciprocal penalty that must be (under art 113) proportionate to the potential losses or distortions to the market which might occur from the unilateral action.
Darling: 'Today we are equal partners in the United Kingdom.'
Davidson: 'The overwhelming majority of Scots believe in the United Kingdom and want to remain part of this 300-year-long equal partnership of prosperity, security, and pride.'
Lamont: 'It is a union of equals and partnership: not a contractual union or marriage of convenience.'
May: 'A future in which Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England continue to flourish side-by-side as equal partners.'
It's been a dance. Both sides know the moves, and both sides know that it will not lead to marriage. But the appearance of the dance is to the advantage of both sides, at least until now.
See @JohnRentoul for the link
The EU was never particularly loved in this country, and then its reputation was ruined by its mismanagement of the Eurozone and migration crises. If the Government doesn't get what it considers to be a reasonable deal from the EU, then the EU's lack of credibility in Britain should make the task of apportioning blame straightforward.
"Overall, we can only speculate that large parts of the media and the ‘West- minster bubble’ were out of touch with the sentiment felt by the majority of voters, in particular in England and Wales. Perhaps the problem was com- pounded by ‘group-think’ pressure on pollsters to adjust their figures to the average. These observations are consistent with the ‘contact hypothesis’ in that too many key actors in public life are concentrated amongst their own kind and lack interaction with outsiders so that they fail to understand their concerns."
Not all. Some of us on PB were very in touch and made a handsome evening's winnings!!
As the well known Italian saying goes, "in Milan the traffic lights are an instruction, in Rome a suggestion, and in Naples, decoration". Palermo is south of Naples.
Not sure he'd have been so forgiving if he'd realised we lived there.
Here you go: (As percentage of GDP)
Brilliant. Of course none of these are on PB.
Fascinating if true. Lends more weight to previous evidence suggesting that the activities of Leave and Remain activists during the short campaign did not have much influence on the outcome. However, the notion that austerity may have tipped the vote in favour of Leave is something new, AFAIK.
I still reckon that the main drivers of the Leave vote were sovereignty and immigration concerns, but I suppose that the referendum was sufficiently close (in proportionate terms) for other factors to have come into play...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37658478
I don't watch Bake Off and never seen any of her shows but she can't be anywhere near as bad as Rylan who seems to be on half of ITVs shows nowadays.