Turn out could be low (favours the Party with the enthusiasts?)
Lib Dems have been focusing on Labour's best place Witney. Oodles of window banners and garden posters. Loads of Lib Dems on the streets of Witney today. They must have read my post last week I like to think
Some anecdotal evidence of Remain Tories backing Lib Dems actively.
The (numerous) LD leaflets are not in yellow, but red or blue depending on the subject (cute).
I have heard that the postal vote turnout return so far is lower than would be expected. Which is perhaps a little surprising. The LibDem take is that postal voters are either holding back watching national and local developments, or may be less motivated to vote (presumably Tory, as usual) than last time, either of which may I guess be positive for them.
Evening @stodge pity there's no such thing as soft Brexit.
Hello Geoff.
I must confess I don't like the terminology either but it's become almost the lingua franca of the debate.
I imagine Hammond is tilting for a pro-City deal which preserves as much Single Market access (financial passporting) as possible. It's probably fair to say the City has a different take on migration and freedom of movement than much of the rest of the UK
Walk along King William Street, Cornhill or Leadenhall Street on a weekday lunchtime and you hear some English but a lot of French, German and Italian spoken. For the European financial professional, London is the place to be.
Walk along any of those streets and all you see are people rushing to Pret for an Italian Chicken Salad. How you manage to hear the language spoken is anyone's guess.
They have mobile phones, into which they say "Ok, ja," rather than, "OK, yah," as in days gone by.
If anyone has been to Witney there are two aspects I'd love to hear feedback on. #1 What do voters feel about the unnecessary Byelection ? Voters tend not to like them but do people feel it's unnecessary ? #2 Do Conservative voters who liked Cameron personally feel he's been **** on at all ?
On the Sunday shows this morning the Trump surrogates line was that when Trump was talking about the election being rigged he was talking about the biased media coverage, not election fraud as that would be Crazy to do so without evidence.
The surrogate's Stirling performance was rewarded with this fabulously on message Trump tweet.
Am I the only person who is disappointed that the BBC are wimping out and will not be having the Poldark rape scene?
The storyline was even present in the 1970s version, and is kind of central to both the character and the further antagonism between Elizabeth and Poldark.
On the Sunday shows this morning the Trump surrogates line was that when Trump was talking about the election being rigged he was talking about the biased media coverage, not election fraud as that would be Crazy to do so without evidence.
The surrogate's Stirling performance was rewarded with this fabulously on message Trump tweet.
On the Sunday shows this morning the Trump surrogates line was that when Trump was talking about the election being rigged he was talking about the biased media coverage, not election fraud as that would be Crazy to do so without evidence.
The surrogate's Stirling performance was rewarded with this fabulously on message Trump tweet.
If May sorts out a credible Brexit and brings the country through with only minor damage, then she'll automatically rank amongst the top UK PM's, whatever else she does.
She may not have a Willie in her cabinet, but she's got a Johnson, and he's a right pr*ck! (Warning: that image is not safe for work.)
Meanwhile, there is nearly half a million pounds laying Clinton at 1.17-1.19 at Betfair.
The 'next president female' odds have tended to be marginally better than the democrat or Clinton Betfair figures, although the 1.20 money still on offer is now less than £25
On the Sunday shows this morning the Trump surrogates line was that when Trump was talking about the election being rigged he was talking about the biased media coverage, not election fraud as that would be Crazy to do so without evidence.
The surrogate's Stirling performance was rewarded with this fabulously on message Trump tweet.
She may not have a Willie in her cabinet, but she's got a Johnson, and he's a right pr*ck! (Warning: that image is not safe for work.)
Meanwhile, there is nearly half a million pounds laying Clinton at 1.17-1.19 at Betfair.
Barring another Clinton Collapse we could see her go off at 1.05 on election day.
That's a big proviso for a lady who will enter her 70th year in 10 days' time and who had pneumonia a month ago.
Perhaps the people staking the half a million pounds are banking on a fall in her price before a possible later rise. I am still expecting surprises.
Why isn't Trump shouting about Benghazi? "Incompetent causer of American deaths" would be a useful image to throw at his opponent, on top of his favoured "corrupt" and "weak". He isn't out of the contest yet.
On the Sunday shows this morning the Trump surrogates line was that when Trump was talking about the election being rigged he was talking about the biased media coverage, not election fraud as that would be Crazy to do so without evidence.
The surrogate's Stirling performance was rewarded with this fabulously on message Trump tweet.
Too many tweets make a ....twaaaaa....Trump...as some bloke whose name I can't remember once said.
He is right about the media.
I would support a ban on journalism (not reporting, I consider those two separate things) since it's so much debased and abused everywhere, including Britain.
Anyway the risks of a civil war in america have never been higher for the last 140 years:
A couple of quid on Trump and I'm all green. Not big numbers - I just rolled over the money I had on Trump (a trading bet pre-nomination) in this market.
If May sorts out a credible Brexit and brings the country through with only minor damage, then she'll automatically rank amongst the top UK PM's, whatever else she does.
Yes. Brexit will be the first line of her obituary just as it will be Cameron's. Too early to tell what that obituary will say but if she pulls off a successful extraction and lays solid groundwork for a Britain that proved better off out she'll go down in the peacetime pantheon of greats.
Or you could make the positive case for EU membership?
(Snip)
It's pointless to try given the attitudes of some on here.
Having said that, the EU didn't even try to make a positive case. They were complacent, and no-one has accepted responsibility for that yet. Their failure to even contemplate that people in countries around the EU do not share their vision for Europe is intensely damaging to their project.
I was thinking about mobile phones today in a slightly different context, viz. that the two most visible good things that the Romans have ever done for us are not having to buy francs and pesetas and such for European tours, and the capping of roaming charges.
JLR's criteria for choice of Eastern European country clearly include EU membership.
So, we pay to join a club, and those membership fees go to subsidise the wholesale shipping of British jobs overseas? And people still wonder why we voted to leave this club?
Why would that anger eurosceptics? Surely single market access for only the city would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Whether or not the EU would agree is another matter.
She may not have a Willie in her cabinet, but she's got a Johnson, and he's a right pr*ck! (Warning: that image is not safe for work.)
Meanwhile, there is nearly half a million pounds laying Clinton at 1.17-1.19 at Betfair.
The 'next president female' odds have tended to be marginally better than the democrat or Clinton Betfair figures, although the 1.20 money still on offer is now less than £25
I'm on the other side of that for a couple of quid, to help cover off any of the random unforeseen possibilities.
Still way too unpredictable for serious money, it could be anything from a Clinton landslide to the most epic polling failure in history.
She may not have a Willie in her cabinet, but she's got a Johnson, and he's a right pr*ck! (Warning: that image is not safe for work.)
Meanwhile, there is nearly half a million pounds laying Clinton at 1.17-1.19 at Betfair.
Barring another Clinton Collapse we could see her go off at 1.05 on election day.
That's a big proviso for a lady who will enter her 70th year in 10 days' time and who had pneumonia a month ago.
Terrorist attacks could help Trump. So could a flare-up between Russia and the US in Syria. Most of the discourse about "Putin's" role in this election has been superficial and one-dimensional and not exactly flowing from a deep understanding of the capabilities of Russian intelligence and the nature of modern warfare.
She may not have a Willie in her cabinet, but she's got a Johnson, and he's a right pr*ck! (Warning: that image is not safe for work.)
Meanwhile, there is nearly half a million pounds laying Clinton at 1.17-1.19 at Betfair.
Barring another Clinton Collapse we could see her go off at 1.05 on election day.
Hmm.
The layers are currently out in force, although I expect the backers will overwhelm them in November (cf; brexit) if the polls hold steady. On current polling, an SP of 1.05-1.1 sounds right.
My broad conclusion is that the market is pretty efficient right now - eg, on the main market the ~9% chance of not-trump/clinton is now a much more sensible ~1%.
There could still be some *surprises* - ie, a last minute trump boycott that turns the electoral college completely blue - although I don't think the likelihood of that is being underestimated by punters.
Having said that, it's possible a GOTV fail by the GOP may not be being fully priced in.
On the Sunday shows this morning the Trump surrogates line was that when Trump was talking about the election being rigged he was talking about the biased media coverage, not election fraud as that would be Crazy to do so without evidence.
The surrogate's Stirling performance was rewarded with this fabulously on message Trump tweet.
Why would that anger eurosceptics? Surely single market access for only the city would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Whether or not the EU would agree is another matter.
Conor Burns is an MP, who wishes the voters and business to eat sovereignty
But Conor Burns, a Eurosceptic Conservative MP, said: “Leaving the EU doesn’t mean paying money into the EU.” He said that had been specifically rejected by the British people at the referendum on June 23.
Couple of dates in diary on the Foreign Affairs front in the US.
October 18-20th: start of main ground offensive on Mosul, IS strong point in Iraq and significant embarrassment to any player against it. Obama really wants a nice foreign policy ender to his presidency to stand at a lectern. Since his hilarious plans to bring peace to Syria via not offending Russia have gone west this may have to do just before the new president is elected.
Week beginning 17th October. The Red Sea. As the Iranians ping anti-ship missiles at US warships off the coast of Yemen, the president has been remarkably quiet about it. They will, however, have to take further action since a burst of cruise missiles hasn't done it. This might well gain more prominence in a way that the White House wishes not to talk about.
Can you explain this prediction of full scale war breaking out?
Why would that anger eurosceptics? Surely single market access for only the city would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Whether or not the EU would agree is another matter.
Conor Burns is an MP, who wishes the voters and business to eat sovereignty
But Conor Burns, a Eurosceptic Conservative MP, said: “Leaving the EU doesn’t mean paying money into the EU.” He said that had been specifically rejected by the British people at the referendum on June 23.
Sorry.. can't access it through the paywall (yep, I'm a cheap bastard). As on everything, there is a spectrum. I am sure the majority would not mind if it was in the national interest.
I don't understand how that would work. Passporting or equivalence, ok. But all that would mean would be that UK firms would have the right to sell services into the EU without local registration.
The critical issue is whether the UK would have any input into the regs as they will be formulated in future, for those UK firms. Sadly, we have given up that input. If we retain passporting or equivalence that is obviously better than nothing, but who is to set the rules in future which may or may not disadvantage our firms. Not us, it seems.
Why would that anger eurosceptics? Surely single market access for only the city would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Whether or not the EU would agree is another matter.
Conor Burns is an MP, who wishes the voters and business to eat sovereignty
But Conor Burns, a Eurosceptic Conservative MP, said: “Leaving the EU doesn’t mean paying money into the EU.” He said that had been specifically rejected by the British people at the referendum on June 23.
Sorry.. can't access it through the paywall (yep, I'm a cheap bastard). As on everything, there is a spectrum. I am sure the majority would not mind if it was in the national interest.
Google
'UK looks at paying billions into EU budget after Brexit'
Seems a good deal to me. Let's see the details. I'd prefer to stay *in* the single market with some face-saving deal on migration - in exchange for payments of some sort. Similar to the deal above, but closer still.
This week's issue looks to be Ireland, however. The border thing seems to have found a possible solution, but much chat on Twitter about the Good Friday agreement. Plus of course, the pound's fall is absolutely screwing Irish exporters.
Why would that anger eurosceptics? Surely single market access for only the city would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Whether or not the EU would agree is another matter.
Read the article. It's not just for the City. It's realpolitik and it'll pass the Commons comfortably with opposition votes but they'll be a substantial backbench rebellion by Tory ultras and it'll keep UKIP in some sort of business. Of course it's just briefing. Who knows but it's well arrested as a model. It's a watered down version of the Norway Model.
I don't understand how that would work. Passporting or equivalence, ok. But all that would mean would be that UK firms would have the right to sell services into the EU without local registration.
The critical issue is whether the UK would have any input into the regs as they will be formulated in future, for those UK firms. Sadly, we have given up that input. If we retain passporting or equivalence that is obviously better than nothing, but who is to set the rules in future which may or may not disadvantage our firms. Not us, it seems.
I think, ultimately, we decided to trade off that kind of sovereignty for repatriation of border control and judicial independence.
Why would that anger eurosceptics? Surely single market access for only the city would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Whether or not the EU would agree is another matter.
Conor Burns is an MP, who wishes the voters and business to eat sovereignty
But Conor Burns, a Eurosceptic Conservative MP, said: “Leaving the EU doesn’t mean paying money into the EU.” He said that had been specifically rejected by the British people at the referendum on June 23.
I suspect that many Brexiteers would be happy to redirect a few pounds from the overseas aid budget to ensure that the Calais Jungle is effectively managed by the French, for example.
Likewise, extending the UK border to the Irish Republic to keep free movement between Northern Ireland and the South whilst protecting our borders.
I don't understand how that would work. Passporting or equivalence, ok. But all that would mean would be that UK firms would have the right to sell services into the EU without local registration.
The critical issue is whether the UK would have any input into the regs as they will be formulated in future, for those UK firms. Sadly, we have given up that input. If we retain passporting or equivalence that is obviously better than nothing, but who is to set the rules in future which may or may not disadvantage our firms. Not us, it seems.
I would be surprised if were otherwise, access for the city is both technical, mutually beneficial, and a high priority for the British.
Why would that anger eurosceptics? Surely single market access for only the city would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Whether or not the EU would agree is another matter.
Read the article. It's not just for the City. It's realpolitik and it'll pass the Commons comfortably with opposition votes but they'll be a substantial backbench rebellion by Tory ultras and it'll keep UKIP in some sort of business. Of course it's just briefing. Who knows but it's well arrested as a model. It's a watered down version of the Norway Model.
Surprise Surprise. People need to learn how negotiation works before foaming about pre negotiation stances.
She may not have a Willie in her cabinet, but she's got a Johnson, and he's a right pr*ck! (Warning: that image is not safe for work.)
Meanwhile, there is nearly half a million pounds laying Clinton at 1.17-1.19 at Betfair.
Barring another Clinton Collapse we could see her go off at 1.05 on election day.
That's a big proviso for a lady who will enter her 70th year in 10 days' time and who had pneumonia a month ago.
Terrorist attacks could help Trump. So could a flare-up between Russia and the US in Syria. Most of the discourse about "Putin's" role in this election has been superficial and one-dimensional and not exactly flowing from a deep understanding of the capabilities of Russian intelligence and the nature of modern warfare.
Anyway the risks of a civil war in america have never been higher for the last 140 years
Yes, and regardless of who wins the election.
Terrorist attacks have only helped Hillary, flare-ups with Russia have only helped Hillary.
A civil war in the United States I think has a 30% chance of happening regardless who wins.
If a civil war happens who do we support, if we support, and for what price ?
In the last american civil war Britain and France wanted to aid the Confederacy in order to keep the USA divided, but they couldn't actually morally do it because the confederates where about slavery.
In this case Democrats and Republicans hate each other for a variety of economic and social reasons which are morally less serious than slavery, so we could openly support whoever we like.
Why would that anger eurosceptics? Surely single market access for only the city would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Whether or not the EU would agree is another matter.
Conor Burns is an MP, who wishes the voters and business to eat sovereignty
But Conor Burns, a Eurosceptic Conservative MP, said: “Leaving the EU doesn’t mean paying money into the EU.” He said that had been specifically rejected by the British people at the referendum on June 23.
Sorry.. can't access it through the paywall (yep, I'm a cheap bastard). As on everything, there is a spectrum. I am sure the majority would not mind if it was in the national interest.
Google
'UK looks at paying billions into EU budget after Brexit'
She may not have a Willie in her cabinet, but she's got a Johnson, and he's a right pr*ck! (Warning: that image is not safe for work.)
Meanwhile, there is nearly half a million pounds laying Clinton at 1.17-1.19 at Betfair.
Barring another Clinton Collapse we could see her go off at 1.05 on election day.
That's a big proviso for a lady who will enter her 70th year in 10 days' time and who had pneumonia a month ago.
Perhaps the people staking the half a million pounds are banking on a fall in her price before a possible later rise. I am still expecting surprises.
Why isn't Trump shouting about Benghazi? "Incompetent causer of American deaths" would be a useful image to throw at his opponent, on top of his favoured "corrupt" and "weak". He isn't out of the contest yet.
Because Clinton was the subject of two hostile congressional hearings that couldn't pin anything on her. Although the second one found out about the email server.
As far as I remember Benghazi plays well with the Republican base in polling but doesn't move Dems or Independents whilst the emails do hurt her with Dems and Independents.
Seems a good deal to me. Let's see the details. I'd prefer to stay *in* the single market with some face-saving deal on migration - in exchange for payments of some sort. Similar to the deal above, but closer still.
This week's issue looks to be Ireland, however. The border thing seems to have found a possible solution, but much chat on Twitter about the Good Friday agreement. Plus of course, the pound's fall is absolutely screwing Irish exporters.
Oh sure. I favour saving every scrap of the eurosphere we can and the FT briefing would save a lot. It's Methadone Brexit. Doubtless it would satisfy no one and ultras would start campaigning for Cold Turkey but politics is an art not a science.
Why would that anger eurosceptics? Surely single market access for only the city would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Whether or not the EU would agree is another matter.
Conor Burns is an MP, who wishes the voters and business to eat sovereignty
But Conor Burns, a Eurosceptic Conservative MP, said: “Leaving the EU doesn’t mean paying money into the EU.” He said that had been specifically rejected by the British people at the referendum on June 23.
Sorry.. can't access it through the paywall (yep, I'm a cheap bastard). As on everything, there is a spectrum. I am sure the majority would not mind if it was in the national interest.
I'm not so sure; as shown downthread, if anyone has the temerity to hazard that the EU might have done *one* thing good, Europhobes jump on it. It cannot possibly be true.
In the same manner, they will see any money being sent to the EU as a betrayal. After all, it means the NHS won't be getting it.
Also: am I the only person thinking that, in the long run, we might end up paying more into the EU's coffers for less?
She may not have a Willie in her cabinet, but she's got a Johnson, and he's a right pr*ck! (Warning: that image is not safe for work.)
Meanwhile, there is nearly half a million pounds laying Clinton at 1.17-1.19 at Betfair.
Barring another Clinton Collapse we could see her go off at 1.05 on election day.
That's a big proviso for a lady who will enter her 70th year in 10 days' time and who had pneumonia a month ago.
Terrorist attacks could help Trump. So could a flare-up between Russia and the US in Syria. Most of the discourse about "Putin's" role in this election has been superficial and one-dimensional and not exactly flowing from a deep understanding of the capabilities of Russian intelligence and the nature of modern warfare.
Anyway the risks of a civil war in america have never been higher for the last 140 years
Yes, and regardless of who wins the election.
Terrorist attacks have only helped Hillary, flare-ups with Russia have only helped Hillary.
A civil war in the United States I think has a 30% chance of happening regardless who wins.
If a civil war happens who do we support, if we support, and for what price ?
In the last american civil war Britain and France wanted to aid the Confederacy in order to keep the USA divided, but they couldn't actually morally do it because the confederates where about slavery.
In this case Democrats and Republicans hate each other for a variety of economic and social reasons which are morally less serious than slavery, so we could openly support whoever we like.
I don't understand how that would work. Passporting or equivalence, ok. But all that would mean would be that UK firms would have the right to sell services into the EU without local registration.
The critical issue is whether the UK would have any input into the regs as they will be formulated in future, for those UK firms. Sadly, we have given up that input. If we retain passporting or equivalence that is obviously better than nothing, but who is to set the rules in future which may or may not disadvantage our firms. Not us, it seems.
I would be surprised if were otherwise, access for the city is both technical, mutually beneficial, and a high priority for the British.
Access for the city means not much. It is a soundbite.
The critical issue is whether the UK can fight within the EU (or now of course outside it) for a regulatory regime that doesn't discriminate against non-EU members. Or for a regime that allows the UK's strengths in financial services to compete against anyone else's.
There are plenty of issues which the UK believes are important for UK firms to be competitive in financial services. Leaving the EU means we are not able to fight our corner to make those issues, or rather, the regulatory environment, UK firm-friendly.
Oh sure. I favour saving every scrap of the eurosphere we can and the FT briefing would save a lot. It's Methadone Brexit. Doubtless it would satisfy no one and ultras would start campaigning for Cold Turkey but politics is an art not a science.
I'm on the side that no negotiation can take place whilst we are still members of the EU.
The EU will not be interested in any serious negotiations for emotional reasons until we actually leave de jure, and neither will euroskeptics be happy in any negotiations while we are still in.
@Roger Great to see you back here. I ventured back a couple of weeks ago to wind up the Brexit morons a bit, only to start finding myself feeling sorry for them. I cannot begin to think how it must be to live with that kind of negativity to others, delusion, and stupidity in your soul. A sad affliction. As for Plato's OCD for Trump, I worry for the welfare of her cats. How has she time to tend to anything else in her life, let alone feed the poor moggies.
On the Sunday shows this morning the Trump surrogates line was that when Trump was talking about the election being rigged he was talking about the biased media coverage, not election fraud as that would be Crazy to do so without evidence.
The surrogate's Stirling performance was rewarded with this fabulously on message Trump tweet.
Too many tweets make a ....twaaaaa....Trump...as some bloke whose name I can't remember once said.
He is right about the media.
I would support a ban on journalism (not reporting, I consider those two separate things) since it's so much debased and abused everywhere, including Britain.
Anyway the risks of a civil war in america have never been higher for the last 140 years:
On the Sunday shows this morning the Trump surrogates line was that when Trump was talking about the election being rigged he was talking about the biased media coverage, not election fraud as that would be Crazy to do so without evidence.
The surrogate's Stirling performance was rewarded with this fabulously on message Trump tweet.
Too many tweets make a ....twaaaaa....Trump...as some bloke whose name I can't remember once said.
He is right about the media.
I would support a ban on journalism (not reporting, I consider those two separate things) since it's so much debased and abused everywhere, including Britain.
Anyway the risks of a civil war in america have never been higher for the last 140 years:
And so it begins. The GOP are reaping the whirlwind of the conspirtal seeds they sowed during Obamas presidency. They need to speak out immediately or civil war is indeed coming.
But in a move likely to upset many Conservative Eurosceptics, Mrs May has not ruled out making future payments to the EU to secure privileged access to the single market.
She may not have a Willie in her cabinet, but she's got a Johnson, and he's a right pr*ck! (Warning: that image is not safe for work.)
Meanwhile, there is nearly half a million pounds laying Clinton at 1.17-1.19 at Betfair.
Barring another Clinton Collapse we could see her go off at 1.05 on election day.
Hmm.
The layers are currently out in force, although I expect the backers will overwhelm them in November (cf; brexit) if the polls hold steady. On current polling, an SP of 1.05-1.1 sounds right.
My broad conclusion is that the market is pretty efficient right now - eg, on the main market the ~9% chance of not-trump/clinton is now a much more sensible ~1%.
There could still be some *surprises* - ie, a last minute trump boycott that turns the electoral college completely blue - although I don't think the likelihood of that is being underestimated by punters.
Having said that, it's possible a GOTV fail by the GOP may not be being fully priced in.
I'm not betting on it, i'm green all round +23k
People on here have been a bit dismissive about the GOTV differential between the GOP and Dems and I think people are not quite understanding the scale of differential. It's not two different GOTV one of which is a bit better but one side has no national GOTV operation at all as far as I can tell vs a side with a GOTV operation so innovative and ground breaking the 2012 version's techniques and software have been adopted by industry.
I am still long Clinton but it is getting to the stage where I may green out or at least free bet on Clinton and focus on the state betting once more early returns come in.
Why would that anger eurosceptics? Surely single market access for only the city would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Whether or not the EU would agree is another matter.
Conor Burns is an MP, who wishes the voters and business to eat sovereignty
But Conor Burns, a Eurosceptic Conservative MP, said: “Leaving the EU doesn’t mean paying money into the EU.” He said that had been specifically rejected by the British people at the referendum on June 23.
Sorry.. can't access it through the paywall (yep, I'm a cheap bastard). As on everything, there is a spectrum. I am sure the majority would not mind if it was in the national interest.
I'm not so sure; as shown downthread, if anyone has the temerity to hazard that the EU might have done *one* thing good, Europhobes jump on it. It cannot possibly be true.
In the same manner, they will see any money being sent to the EU as a betrayal. After all, it means the NHS won't be getting it.
Also: am I the only person thinking that, in the long run, we might end up paying more into the EU's coffers for less?
I for one expect us to pay in as much as we do now. *More* would be difficult to sell.
In terms of getting less, I'm not so sure. We would regain control of our agriculture and fisheries. We would have some "control" over immigration. And our common law judicial system would stop rubbing up against a Naploeonic ECJ.
That's not nothing.
But certainly, we sacrifice influence on standards setting, and progress on service liberalisation - the big prize for us - becomes harder one would have thought.
We also sacrifice what influence we had in the world as a "leading member of the EU". So a less important voice in US, Japan, and China. We are shut out of 90% of European diplomatic channels. And we leave Germany as unrivalled economic hegemon of Europe, which she pretty much is anyway but this makes it totally clear.
The security (defence) implications of Brexit are interesting, but my post is already too long...
Why would that anger eurosceptics? Surely single market access for only the city would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Whether or not the EU would agree is another matter.
Conor Burns is an MP, who wishes the voters and business to eat sovereignty
But Conor Burns, a Eurosceptic Conservative MP, said: “Leaving the EU doesn’t mean paying money into the EU.” He said that had been specifically rejected by the British people at the referendum on June 23.
Sorry.. can't access it through the paywall (yep, I'm a cheap bastard). As on everything, there is a spectrum. I am sure the majority would not mind if it was in the national interest.
Also: am I the only person thinking that, in the long run, we might end up paying more into the EU's coffers for less?
Why would that anger eurosceptics? Surely single market access for only the city would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Whether or not the EU would agree is another matter.
Leaving the EU means we are not able to fight our corner
Do you really believe this kind of thing? I don't mean that we won't have influence; more that our existing "influence" really exists?
If you look at the history of EU financial services regulation, much of it is FSA/FCA inspired. It has been our regulatory regime that has driven the direction of the EU regulatory regime. Hence once we are out of the EU, our concerns and priorities will be relegated.
Just out of interest did you ask the question because you understand the history of financial services regulation since, ok let's say CP176, and onwards, or are you asking from a general interest?
Oh sure. I favour saving every scrap of the eurosphere we can and the FT briefing would save a lot. It's Methadone Brexit. Doubtless it would satisfy no one and ultras would start campaigning for Cold Turkey but politics is an art not a science.
I'm on the side that no negotiation can take place whilst we are still members of the EU.
The EU will not be interested in any serious negotiations for emotional reasons until we actually leave de jure, and neither will euroskeptics be happy in any negotiations while we are still in.
They'll be strong psychological forces on both sides working to prove you right. It comes down to Cui Bono. Who benefits from the demonstration of a member state leaving and then negotiating a good, workable and durable settlement with 3 years of a referendum. The answer to which is A: All Europeans B: A tiny number of British politicans. Those pro leave but in office. It's all a bit too much like a divorce with no children to think of.
Why would that anger eurosceptics? Surely single market access for only the city would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. Whether or not the EU would agree is another matter.
Conor Burns is an MP, who wishes the voters and business to eat sovereignty
But Conor Burns, a Eurosceptic Conservative MP, said: “Leaving the EU doesn’t mean paying money into the EU.” He said that had been specifically rejected by the British people at the referendum on June 23.
Sorry.. can't access it through the paywall (yep, I'm a cheap bastard). As on everything, there is a spectrum. I am sure the majority would not mind if it was in the national interest.
Also: am I the only person thinking that, in the long run, we might end up paying more into the EU's coffers for less?
Only if Tony Blair's negotiating it.
BTW, and I hope you don't mind me asking, but what does the 'TC' in your username stand for? I cannot help but read it as 'Terms and Conditions' every time.
40% of Republicans think Hillary is a demon, there is open talk of taking up arms against the democrats in the case Hillary wins in an election where 75% of republicans think is rigged.
And only 30% of the population has trust in the media, only 16% have faith in their government, both candidates are hate figures.
In any other country those would have been recognized as ingredients for civil war.
This election has two hated persons as candidates where one side, who is heavily armed, is feeling this election is being rigged by a demon, in a country with little trust to it's civil structures and huge economic inequality.
I think the chances of 30% are correct, if it was a latin american country I would have put the chances at 90%.
Leaving the EU means we are not able to fight our corner
Do you really believe this kind of thing? I don't mean that we won't have influence; more that our existing "influence" really exists?
If you look at the history of EU financial services regulation, much of it is FSA/FCA inspired. It has been our regulatory regime that has driven the direction of the EU regulatory regime. Hence once we are out of the EU, our concerns and priorities will be relegated.
Just out of interest did you ask the question because you understand the history of financial services regulation since, ok let's say CP176, and onwards, or are you asking from a general interest?
I'm asking generally because I read that we are opposed to things like FTT, yet countries proceed anyway.
I ask because we oppose bailouts to EZ countries, yet we end up paying anyway.
I ask because we went into a negotiation wanting immigration properly controlled, yet ended up with nothing anyway.
Perhaps, you've heard otherwise?
By influence - do you mean they let us offer an opinion, and then proceed anyway?
If TMpm negotiates a price for passporting rights, she should also arrange for it to be paid by the beneficiaries, i.e. "the City". I will applaud if she manages that.
If TMpm negotiates a price for passporting rights, she should also arrange for it to be paid by the beneficiaries, i.e. "the City". I will applaud if she manages that.
Given her marvellous conference speech, that is a tremendous idea.
Couple of dates in diary on the Foreign Affairs front in the US.
October 18-20th: start of main ground offensive on Mosul, IS strong point in Iraq and significant embarrassment to any player against it. Obama really wants a nice foreign policy ender to his presidency to stand at a lectern. Since his hilarious plans to bring peace to Syria via not offending Russia have gone west this may have to do just before the new president is elected.
Week beginning 17th October. The Red Sea. As the Iranians ping anti-ship missiles at US warships off the coast of Yemen, the president has been remarkably quiet about it. They will, however, have to take further action since a burst of cruise missiles hasn't done it. This might well gain more prominence in a way that the White House wishes not to talk about.
And the town of Dabiq was taken from Daesh this morning, which could have major consequences given the significance they ascribe to it in their eschatology.
If TMpm negotiates a price for passporting rights, she should also arrange for it to be paid by the beneficiaries, i.e. "the City". I will applaud if she manages that.
What do you think 'The City' will do? Pay costs they don't currently have to pay or move somewhere where they won't have to pay those costs?
Leaving the EU means we are not able to fight our corner
Do you really believe this kind of thing? I don't mean that we won't have influence; more that our existing "influence" really exists?
If you look at the history of EU financial services regulation, much of it is FSA/FCA inspired. It has been our regulatory regime that has driven the direction of the EU regulatory regime. Hence once we are out of the EU, our concerns and priorities will be relegated.
Just out of interest did you ask the question because you understand the history of financial services regulation since, ok let's say CP176, and onwards, or are you asking from a general interest?
I'm asking generally because I read that we are opposed to things like FTT, yet countries proceed anyway.
I ask because we oppose bailouts to EZ countries, yet we end up paying anyway.
I ask because we went into a negotiation wanting immigration properly controlled, yet ended up with nothing anyway.
Perhaps, you've heard otherwise?
By influence - do you mean they let us offer an opinion, and the proceed anyway?
OK cool thanks. So an uninformed comment.
How does immigration control relate to an FTT?
Look I know you are angry at the whole EU thing and that's fine. But you won!
If you are going to comment on specifics, ie the City, then perhaps it's best to do some homework. Start with French and Italian FTT and then let me know your thoughts.
If TMpm negotiates a price for passporting rights, she should also arrange for it to be paid by the beneficiaries, i.e. "the City". I will applaud if she manages that.
What do you think 'The City' will do? Pay costs they don't currently have to pay or move somewhere where they won't have to pay those costs?
Just like they threatened if we didn't join the Euro?
40% of Republicans think Hillary is a demon, there is open talk of taking up arms against the democrats in the case Hillary wins in an election where 75% of republicans think is rigged.
And only 30% of the population has trust in the media, only 16% have faith in their government, both candidates are hate figures.
In any other country those would have been recognized as ingredients for civil war.
This election has two hated persons as candidates where one side, who is heavily armed, is feeling this election is being rigged by a demon, in a country with little trust to it's civil structures and huge economic inequality.
I think the chances of 30% are correct, if it was a latin american country I would have put the chances at 90%.
This sort of language by trump etc is unacceptable. GOP need to forget their short term interests and distance themselves immediately, their union is at risk. No exaggeration. Scary.
If TMpm negotiates a price for passporting rights, she should also arrange for it to be paid by the beneficiaries, i.e. "the City". I will applaud if she manages that.
What do you think 'The City' will do? Pay costs they don't currently have to pay or move somewhere where they won't have to pay those costs?
Tbh, a slow adjustment in the bank levy will probably do it quite easily.
If TMpm negotiates a price for passporting rights, she should also arrange for it to be paid by the beneficiaries, i.e. "the City". I will applaud if she manages that.
What do you think 'The City' will do? Pay costs they don't currently have to pay or move somewhere where they won't have to pay those costs?
Just like they threatened if we didn't join the Euro?
Most of them didn't, but you keep on perpetuating the myth
If TMpm negotiates a price for passporting rights, she should also arrange for it to be paid by the beneficiaries, i.e. "the City". I will applaud if she manages that.
The briefing to the FT is either designed to halt the decline in the £ for a few weeks or provoke a backlash from europhobes. Possibly both. Noone who wanted that deal would leak it so early. Firstly every other sector is now going to go " but what about us ? ". Putting the City of London first is sound economics but awful internal politics. Secondly it's a sign of weakness. If we're conversing budget payments this early, before A50 is invoked, what will be offer when the clock is ticking ?
40% of Republicans think Hillary is a demon, there is open talk of taking up arms against the democrats in the case Hillary wins in an election where 75% of republicans think is rigged.
And only 30% of the population has trust in the media, only 16% have faith in their government, both candidates are hate figures.
In any other country those would have been recognized as ingredients for civil war.
This election has two hated persons as candidates where one side, who is heavily armed, is feeling this election is being rigged by a demon, in a country with little trust to it's civil structures and huge economic inequality.
I think the chances of 30% are correct, if it was a latin american country I would have put the chances at 90%.
The elites are all on the same side - as are the military and policing structures.
There's a non-negligible short-medium term possibility of some serious civil unrest - specifically right wing terrorism / political assassinations - but nowhere near enough fuel for a civil war.
We're in the middle of a very dirty election campaign - the situ will look very different in three months.
If TMpm negotiates a price for passporting rights, she should also arrange for it to be paid by the beneficiaries, i.e. "the City". I will applaud if she manages that.
What do you think 'The City' will do? Pay costs they don't currently have to pay or move somewhere where they won't have to pay those costs?
Just like they threatened if we didn't join the Euro?
Most of them didn't, but you keep on perpetuating the myth
The reality is that finance wants to stay in London.
I expect they'd be willing to accept paying for that privilege.
You think they'd rather leave:
- a useful legal jurisdiction - a useful corp tax jurisdiction - the most popular European city for recruitment purposes - THE English language city
Seems a good deal to me. Let's see the details. I'd prefer to stay *in* the single market with some face-saving deal on migration - in exchange for payments of some sort. Similar to the deal above, but closer still.
This week's issue looks to be Ireland, however. The border thing seems to have found a possible solution, but much chat on Twitter about the Good Friday agreement. Plus of course, the pound's fall is absolutely screwing Irish exporters.
Oh sure. I favour saving every scrap of the eurosphere we can and the FT briefing would save a lot. It's Methadone Brexit. Doubtless it would satisfy no one and ultras would start campaigning for Cold Turkey but politics is an art not a science.
This outcome was what I predicted about two days after the vote. A fudge where we end up paying hefty contributions, to maintain SM access, but these payments will be called something else to save British face. Free Movement will be "qualified" to "Free Movement if you have a job offer".
The Europeans will be able to point at us and laugh for losing influence while still paying cash, UK voters will begrudgingly accept that this is as good as it gets, for now. And it probably is. Once we are technically out we can slowly pivot further away from the EU over time.
So only the ultra Remainers and ultra Leavers will fume. Perhaps rightly.
That this is the best and most obvious outcome does not mean it will happen. The emotional forces pointing us towards Hard Brexit are significant.
Seems a good deal to me. Let's see the details. I'd prefer to stay *in* the single market with some face-saving deal on migration - in exchange for payments of some sort. Similar to the deal above, but closer still.
This week's issue looks to be Ireland, however. The border thing seems to have found a possible solution, but much chat on Twitter about the Good Friday agreement. Plus of course, the pound's fall is absolutely screwing Irish exporters.
Oh sure. I favour saving every scrap of the eurosphere we can and the FT briefing would save a lot. It's Methadone Brexit. Doubtless it would satisfy no one and ultras would start campaigning for Cold Turkey but politics is an art not a science.
This outcome was what I predicted about two days after the vote. A fudge where we end up paying hefty contributions, to maintain SM access, but these payments will be called something else to save British face. Free Movement will be "qualified" to "Free Movement if you have a job offer".
The Europeans will be able to point at us and laugh for losing influence while still paying cash, UK voters will begrudgingly accept that this is as good as it gets, for now. And it probably is. Once we are technically out we can slowly pivot further away from the EU over time.
So only the ultra Remainers and ultra Leavers will fume. Perhaps rightly.
That this is the best and most obvious outcome does not mean it will happen. The emotional forces pointing us towards Hard Brexit are significant.
Even the SNP get the difference between single market membership and single market access.
Allow me to remind you. As Alec Salmond noted, Peruvian shoe manufacturers get single market access. Single market membership means being a part of, and influencing the rules for that single market.
This latter is what we have just given up. Nor can we reclaim it, regardess of how much we pay (see: Norway).
Of all discussion boards I would have hoped that on PB we need not remind ourselves of the distinction.
She may not have a Willie in her cabinet, but she's got a Johnson, and he's a right pr*ck! (Warning: that image is not safe for work.)
Meanwhile, there is nearly half a million pounds laying Clinton at 1.17-1.19 at Betfair.
Barring another Clinton Collapse we could see her go off at 1.05 on election day.
That's a big proviso for a lady who will enter her 70th year in 10 days' time and who had pneumonia a month ago.
Terrorist attacks could help Trump. So could a flare-up between Russia and the US in Syria. Most of the discourse about "Putin's" role in this election has been superficial and one-dimensional and not exactly flowing from a deep understanding of the capabilities of Russian intelligence and the nature of modern warfare.
Anyway the risks of a civil war in america have never been higher for the last 140 years
Yes, and regardless of who wins the election.
Terrorist attacks have only helped Hillary, flare-ups with Russia have only helped Hillary.
I watched Trump's price rise for several hours in response to the New York skip bombing of 17 September.
There haven't been any flare-ups between the US and Russia yet. Not a single shot fired at the other side in anger or even by accident. A few ships getting buzzed doesn't amount to a flare-up.
If a civil war happens who do we support, if we support, and for what price ?
In the last american civil war Britain and France wanted to aid the Confederacy in order to keep the USA divided, but they couldn't actually morally do it because the confederates where about slavery.
In this case Democrats and Republicans hate each other for a variety of economic and social reasons which are morally less serious than slavery, so we could openly support whoever we like.
I doubt the fascist side would need much external support. No Guernica by the RAF required.
Anger from the Europhobes at any deal where we contribute to the EU budget would be a feature not a bug. Any deal which is in our interests will have to be one where our EU friends can claim political victory domestically and in the EU parliament, otherwise they won't be able to get it through. Some idiot indignation from the usual suspects in the UK will help a lot in that.
Seems a good deal to me. Let's see the details. I'd prefer to stay *in* the single market with some face-saving deal on migration - in exchange for payments of some sort. Similar to the deal above, but closer still.
This week's issue looks to be Ireland, however. The border thing seems to have found a possible solution, but much chat on Twitter about the Good Friday agreement. Plus of course, the pound's fall is absolutely screwing Irish exporters.
Oh sure. I favour saving every scrap of the eurosphere we can and the FT briefing would save a lot. It's Methadone Brexit. Doubtless it would satisfy no one and ultras would start campaigning for Cold Turkey but politics is an art not a science.
This outcome was what I predicted about two days after the vote. A fudge where we end up paying hefty contributions, to maintain SM access, but these payments will be called something else to save British face. Free Movement will be "qualified" to "Free Movement if you have a job offer".
The Europeans will be able to point at us and laugh for losing influence while still paying cash, UK voters will begrudgingly accept that this is as good as it gets, for now. And it probably is. Once we are technically out we can slowly pivot further away from the EU over time.
So only the ultra Remainers and ultra Leavers will fume. Perhaps rightly.
That this is the best and most obvious outcome does not mean it will happen. The emotional forces pointing us towards Hard Brexit are significant.
PROPER Brexit for PROPER People!
Local Brexit for local people who were born here? Be careful what you cheer for...
And so it begins. The GOP are reaping the whirlwind of the conspirtal seeds they sowed during Obamas presidency. They need to speak out immediately or civil war is indeed coming.
The last time America almost went into civil war was in the 60's over Civil Rights and Vietnam, but those where transient issues and the Cold War helped to keep the United States together (bipartisanship ect).
The hatred between Republicans and Democrats really started the day the Cold War ended, it's about the economy, it's about culture, and with a stagnating economy and rising islamic terrorism everything is in place for armed conflict between the 2 different societies that exist in america today.
You could say there are 2 different societies in Britain too today, but the glue is being kept by a single national identity and a common enemy: Europe.
If civil war does happen in the USA, if we choose to intervene I guess we should ask for Hawaii in return, so SeanT can go on holiday to Hawaii while spending pounds.
Look I know you are angry at the whole EU thing and that's fine. But you won!
If you are going to comment on specifics, ie the City, then perhaps it's best to do some homework. Start with French and Italian FTT and then let me know your thoughts.
I'm far from angry. I'm bemused.
People keep mentioning 'influence' and I am struggling to see it.
I'm also struck by the difference between influence (1/28th) and independence and authority.
No to bailouts - here's £1.7bn for Greece No to asylum deals - here's £500m for Turkey.
If TMpm negotiates a price for passporting rights, she should also arrange for it to be paid by the beneficiaries, i.e. "the City". I will applaud if she manages that.
What do you think 'The City' will do? Pay costs they don't currently have to pay or move somewhere where they won't have to pay those costs?
I don't think they would choose to move to within the EU27 because they would then be vulnerable to the mooted Tobin tax, higher corporation tax (though not in Dublin tbs) and general skepticism of "Anglo-Saxon finance". And anyway I am sure they appreciate the regulatory regime here.
On the Sunday shows this morning the Trump surrogates line was that when Trump was talking about the election being rigged he was talking about the biased media coverage, not election fraud as that would be Crazy to do so without evidence.
The surrogate's Stirling performance was rewarded with this fabulously on message Trump tweet.
Too many tweets make a ....twaaaaa....Trump...as some bloke whose name I can't remember once said.
He is right about the media.
I would support a ban on journalism (not reporting, I consider those two separate things) since it's so much debased and abused everywhere, including Britain.
Anyway the risks of a civil war in america have never been higher for the last 140 years:
Seems a good deal to me. Let's see the details. I'd prefer to stay *in* the single market with some face-saving deal on migration - in exchange for payments of some sort. Similar to the deal above, but closer still.
This week's issue looks to be Ireland, however. The border thing seems to have found a possible solution, but much chat on Twitter about the Good Friday agreement. Plus of course, the pound's fall is absolutely screwing Irish exporters.
Oh sure. I favour saving every scrap of the eurosphere we can and the FT briefing would save a lot. It's Methadone Brexit. Doubtless it would satisfy no one and ultras would start campaigning for Cold Turkey but politics is an art not a science.
This outcome was what I predicted about two days after the vote. A fudge where we end up paying hefty contributions, to maintain SM access, but these payments will be called something else to save British face. Free Movement will be "qualified" to.
The Europeans will be able to point at us and laugh for losing influence while still paying cash, UK voters will begrudgingly accept that this is as good as it gets, for now. And it probably is. Once we are technically out we can slowly pivot further away from the EU over time.
So only the ultra Remainers and ultra Leavers will fume. Perhaps rightly.
That this is the best and most obvious outcome does not mean it will happen. The emotional forces pointing us towards Hard Brexit are significant.
Even the SNP get the difference between single market membership and single market access.
Allow me to remind you. As Alec Salmond noted, Peruvian shoe manufacturers get single market access. Single market membership means being a part of, and influencing the rules for that single market.
This latter is what we have just given up. Nor can we reclaim it, regardess of how much we pay (see: Norway).
Of all discussion boards I would have hoped that on PB we need not remind ourselves of the distinction.
Oh sure. What the FT and SeanT are describing is Taxation without Representation. It's what the Norwegian's call Fax Democracy. In my more contrarian moods I'd argue it's a much more illiberal outcome than hard Brexit. It won't suit us in the long term and I suspect it won't be stable in the long term. But then it's Methadone Brexit and Methadone programmes make no sense until you reluctantly accept something's are a horrible mess and making them marginally less horrible has benefits if not any virtue or aesthetics.
Seems a good deal to me. Let's see the details. I'd prefer to stay *in* the single market with some face-saving deal on migration - in exchange for payments of some sort. Similar to the deal above, but closer still.
This week's issue looks to be Ireland, however. The border thing seems to have found a possible solution, but much chat on Twitter about the Good Friday agreement. Plus of course, the pound's fall is absolutely screwing Irish exporters.
Oh sure. I favour saving every scrap of the eurosphere we can and the FT briefing would save a lot. It's Methadone Brexit. Doubtless it would satisfy no one and ultras would start campaigning for Cold Turkey but politics is an art not a science.
This outcome was what I predicted about two days after the vote. A fudge where we end up paying hefty contributions, to maintain SM access, but these payments will be called something else to save British face. Free Movement will be "qualified" to "Free Movement if you have a job offer".
The Europeans will be able to point at us and laugh for losing influence while still paying cash, UK voters will begrudgingly accept that this is as good as it gets, for now. And it probably is. Once we are technically out we can slowly pivot further away from the EU over time.
So only the ultra Remainers and ultra Leavers will fume. Perhaps rightly.
That this is the best and most obvious outcome does not mean it will happen. The emotional forces pointing us towards Hard Brexit are significant.
PROPER Brexit for PROPER People!
Stop being so childish ! REAL people will lose REAL jobs with your silly Brexit.
The other day someone wrote about a free tariff entry with Australia.
Great ! WE give up one with 500m people and enter one with 22m.
Comments
"... A lot of nice villages and pleasant people, good pubs ..."
Change the word villages for districts and you could say the same about anywhere in England, even Liverpool.
And I'm afraid Labour has had its bacon stolen by a bunch of (censored).
Meanwhile, there is nearly half a million pounds laying Clinton at 1.17-1.19 at Betfair.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/hillary-clinton-has-11-point-lead-over-donald-trump-in-latest-nationwide-poll-nbc-a7364416.html
Am I the only person who is disappointed that the BBC are wimping out and will not be having the Poldark rape scene?
The storyline was even present in the 1970s version, and is kind of central to both the character and the further antagonism between Elizabeth and Poldark.
No matter who are the two idiots up for election, the public needs to have faith in the actual process of choosing a president.
http://abc.go.com/shows/this-week-with-george-stephanopoulos/episode-guide/2016-10/16-some-polls-indicate-2016-presidential-race-remains-close
Perhaps the people staking the half a million pounds are banking on a fall in her price before a possible later rise. I am still expecting surprises.
Why isn't Trump shouting about Benghazi? "Incompetent causer of American deaths" would be a useful image to throw at his opponent, on top of his favoured "corrupt" and "weak". He isn't out of the contest yet.
I would support a ban on journalism (not reporting, I consider those two separate things) since it's so much debased and abused everywhere, including Britain.
Anyway the risks of a civil war in america have never been higher for the last 140 years:
https://twitter.com/jimmorrill/status/787730586622423041
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/787736416117751810
Still way too unpredictable for serious money, it could be anything from a Clinton landslide to the most epic polling failure in history.
The layers are currently out in force, although I expect the backers will overwhelm them in November (cf; brexit) if the polls hold steady. On current polling, an SP of 1.05-1.1 sounds right.
My broad conclusion is that the market is pretty efficient right now - eg, on the main market the ~9% chance of not-trump/clinton is now a much more sensible ~1%.
There could still be some *surprises* - ie, a last minute trump boycott that turns the electoral college completely blue - although I don't think the likelihood of that is being underestimated by punters.
Having said that, it's possible a GOTV fail by the GOP may not be being fully priced in.
I'm not betting on it, i'm green all round +23k
But Conor Burns, a Eurosceptic Conservative MP, said: “Leaving the EU doesn’t mean paying money into the EU.” He said that had been specifically rejected by the British people at the referendum on June 23.
https://www.ft.com/content/a8ec5e90-938c-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582
The critical issue is whether the UK would have any input into the regs as they will be formulated in future, for those UK firms. Sadly, we have given up that input. If we retain passporting or equivalence that is obviously better than nothing, but who is to set the rules in future which may or may not disadvantage our firms. Not us, it seems.
'UK looks at paying billions into EU budget after Brexit'
and you'll be able to view the story for free
This week's issue looks to be Ireland, however.
The border thing seems to have found a possible solution, but much chat on Twitter about the Good Friday agreement. Plus of course, the pound's fall is absolutely screwing Irish exporters.
You can argue it either way.
I suspect that many Brexiteers would be happy to redirect a few pounds from the overseas aid budget to ensure that the Calais Jungle is effectively managed by the French, for example.
Likewise, extending the UK border to the Irish Republic to keep free movement between Northern Ireland and the South whilst protecting our borders.
A civil war in the United States I think has a 30% chance of happening regardless who wins.
If a civil war happens who do we support, if we support, and for what price ?
In the last american civil war Britain and France wanted to aid the Confederacy in order to keep the USA divided, but they couldn't actually morally do it because the confederates where about slavery.
In this case Democrats and Republicans hate each other for a variety of economic and social reasons which are morally less serious than slavery, so we could openly support whoever we like.
As far as I remember Benghazi plays well with the Republican base in polling but doesn't move Dems or Independents whilst the emails do hurt her with Dems and Independents.
In the same manner, they will see any money being sent to the EU as a betrayal. After all, it means the NHS won't be getting it.
Also: am I the only person thinking that, in the long run, we might end up paying more into the EU's coffers for less?
The critical issue is whether the UK can fight within the EU (or now of course outside it) for a regulatory regime that doesn't discriminate against non-EU members. Or for a regime that allows the UK's strengths in financial services to compete against anyone else's.
There are plenty of issues which the UK believes are important for UK firms to be competitive in financial services. Leaving the EU means we are not able to fight our corner to make those issues, or rather, the regulatory environment, UK firm-friendly.
The EU will not be interested in any serious negotiations for emotional reasons until we actually leave de jure, and neither will euroskeptics be happy in any negotiations while we are still in.
Great to see you back here. I ventured back a couple of weeks ago to wind up the Brexit morons a bit, only to start finding myself feeling sorry for them. I cannot begin to think how it must be to live with that kind of negativity to others, delusion, and stupidity in your soul. A sad affliction. As for Plato's OCD for Trump, I worry for the welfare of her cats. How has she time to tend to anything else in her life, let alone feed the poor moggies.
But in a move likely to upset many Conservative Eurosceptics, Mrs May has not ruled out making future payments to the EU to secure privileged access to the single market.
I am still long Clinton but it is getting to the stage where I may green out or at least free bet on Clinton and focus on the state betting once more early returns come in.
In terms of getting less, I'm not so sure.
We would regain control of our agriculture and fisheries. We would have some "control" over immigration. And our common law judicial system would stop rubbing up against a Naploeonic ECJ.
That's not nothing.
But certainly, we sacrifice influence on standards setting, and progress on service liberalisation - the big prize for us - becomes harder one would have thought.
We also sacrifice what influence we had in the world as a "leading member of the EU". So a less important voice in US, Japan, and China. We are shut out of 90% of European diplomatic channels. And we leave Germany as unrivalled economic hegemon of Europe, which she pretty much is anyway but this makes it totally clear.
The security (defence) implications of Brexit are interesting, but my post is already too long...
Just out of interest did you ask the question because you understand the history of financial services regulation since, ok let's say CP176, and onwards, or are you asking from a general interest?
I've obviously read too much small print.
And only 30% of the population has trust in the media, only 16% have faith in their government, both candidates are hate figures.
In any other country those would have been recognized as ingredients for civil war.
This election has two hated persons as candidates where one side, who is heavily armed, is feeling this election is being rigged by a demon, in a country with little trust to it's civil structures and huge economic inequality.
I think the chances of 30% are correct, if it was a latin american country I would have put the chances at 90%.
I ask because we oppose bailouts to EZ countries, yet we end up paying anyway.
I ask because we went into a negotiation wanting immigration properly controlled, yet ended up with nothing anyway.
Perhaps, you've heard otherwise?
By influence - do you mean they let us offer an opinion, and then proceed anyway?
I will applaud if she manages that.
How does immigration control relate to an FTT?
Look I know you are angry at the whole EU thing and that's fine. But you won!
If you are going to comment on specifics, ie the City, then perhaps it's best to do some homework. Start with French and Italian FTT and then let me know your thoughts.
https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/787734024655663104
There's a non-negligible short-medium term possibility of some serious civil unrest - specifically right wing terrorism / political assassinations - but nowhere near enough fuel for a civil war.
We're in the middle of a very dirty election campaign - the situ will look very different in three months.
I expect they'd be willing to accept paying for that privilege.
You think they'd rather leave:
- a useful legal jurisdiction
- a useful corp tax jurisdiction
- the most popular European city for recruitment purposes
- THE English language city
It is a view.....
Allow me to remind you. As Alec Salmond noted, Peruvian shoe manufacturers get single market access. Single market membership means being a part of, and influencing the rules for that single market.
This latter is what we have just given up. Nor can we reclaim it, regardess of how much we pay (see: Norway).
Of all discussion boards I would have hoped that on PB we need not remind ourselves of the distinction.
There haven't been any flare-ups between the US and Russia yet. Not a single shot fired at the other side in anger or even by accident. A few ships getting buzzed doesn't amount to a flare-up. I doubt the fascist side would need much external support. No Guernica by the RAF required.
The hatred between Republicans and Democrats really started the day the Cold War ended, it's about the economy, it's about culture, and with a stagnating economy and rising islamic terrorism everything is in place for armed conflict between the 2 different societies that exist in america today.
You could say there are 2 different societies in Britain too today, but the glue is being kept by a single national identity and a common enemy: Europe.
If civil war does happen in the USA, if we choose to intervene I guess we should ask for Hawaii in return, so SeanT can go on holiday to Hawaii while spending pounds.
People keep mentioning 'influence' and I am struggling to see it.
I'm also struck by the difference between influence (1/28th) and independence and authority.
No to bailouts - here's £1.7bn for Greece
No to asylum deals - here's £500m for Turkey.
Only from the PB Leaver Corbynista Trumpers.
Only on PB.
The other day someone wrote about a free tariff entry with Australia.
Great ! WE give up one with 500m people and enter one with 22m.