How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
To put in context, New Zealand imports $41.6bn of stuff every year. Belgium (which we'd all agree is not a very big or important country) has imports of $450bn. And Belgium's a lot closer, so transport costs are going to be very much less important.
Aren't Belgium's 'import/export' statistics to be treated with a degree of caution as a not inconsiderable chunk are diamonds going to & from Antwerp?
Diamonds are 3.2% of Belgium's imports, and 3.8% of its exports (presumably they are roughly in balance over time), so I don't think they have much of an effect on the overall number.
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
To put in context, New Zealand imports $41.6bn of stuff every year. Belgium (which we'd all agree is not a very big or important country) has imports of $450bn. And Belgium's a lot closer, so transport costs are going to be very much less important.
Aren't Belgium's 'import/export' statistics to be treated with a degree of caution as a not inconsiderable chunk are diamonds going to & from Antwerp?
Diamonds are 3.2% of Belgium's imports, and 3.8% of its exports (presumably they are roughly in balance over time), so I don't think they have much of an effect on the overall number.
They probably add value by cutting them. Alternatively they have some serious mines they have not told us about!
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Presupposing that he isn't representing a broader segment of interest, such as having had private discussions with key players such as leaders of the various blocks in the EU parliament. The CoM can approve it all they like, if the EU Parliament votes it down, its toast.
I'll give you good odds on the European Parliament voting down the deal, if you like.
As an aside, it would appear that we - the Brits - get to vote on this in the European parliament too. I don't know how that changes things.
Well if the MEPs vote on national lines for this rather than party lines it would need Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK and the Scandis to get a vote through with a simple majority. It's unlikely that the EUparl will vote down an agreed resolution.
I don't see why they'd suddenly start voting on national lines on this. But it'll almost certainly have been agreed by the main groups in advance.
I imagine UKIP MEPs will vote against the deal, which they will denounce as a betrayal of something.
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
To put in context, New Zealand imports $41.6bn of stuff every year. Belgium (which we'd all agree is not a very big or important country) has imports of $450bn. And Belgium's a lot closer, so transport costs are going to be very much less important.
Aren't Belgium's 'import/export' statistics to be treated with a degree of caution as a not inconsiderable chunk are diamonds going to & from Antwerp?
Diamonds are 3.2% of Belgium's imports, and 3.8% of its exports (presumably they are roughly in balance over time), so I don't think they have much of an effect on the overall number.
(Actually, thinking about it, presumably diamonds arrive uncut, polished and packaged, given the De Beers logo, and then sold at a profit, so it's not ridiculous that exports of diamonds should exceed imports.)
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
To put in context, New Zealand imports $41.6bn of stuff every year. Belgium (which we'd all agree is not a very big or important country) has imports of $450bn. And Belgium's a lot closer, so transport costs are going to be very much less important.
Aren't Belgium's 'import/export' statistics to be treated with a degree of caution as a not inconsiderable chunk are diamonds going to & from Antwerp?
Diamonds are 3.2% of Belgium's imports, and 3.8% of its exports (presumably they are roughly in balance over time), so I don't think they have much of an effect on the overall number.
They probably add value by cutting them. Alternatively they have some serious mines they have not told us about!
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Presupposing that he isn't representing a broader segment of interest, such as having had private discussions with key players such as leaders of the various blocks in the EU parliament. The CoM can approve it all they like, if the EU Parliament votes it down, its toast.
I'll give you good odds on the European Parliament voting down the deal, if you like.
As an aside, it would appear that we - the Brits - get to vote on this in the European parliament too. I don't know how that changes things.
Well if the MEPs vote on national lines for this rather than party lines it would need Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK and the Scandis to get a vote through with a simple majority. It's unlikely that the EUparl will vote down an agreed resolution.
I don't see why they'd suddenly start voting on national lines on this. But it'll almost certainly have been agreed by the main groups in advance.
I imagine UKIP MEPs will vote against the deal, which they will denounce as a betrayal of something.
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
To put in context, New Zealand imports $41.6bn of stuff every year. Belgium (which we'd all agree is not a very big or important country) has imports of $450bn. And Belgium's a lot closer, so transport costs are going to be very much less important.
Aren't Belgium's 'import/export' statistics to be treated with a degree of caution as a not inconsiderable chunk are diamonds going to & from Antwerp?
Diamonds are 3.2% of Belgium's imports, and 3.8% of its exports (presumably they are roughly in balance over time), so I don't think they have much of an effect on the overall number.
Don't they cut them or polish them or set them or something to add value? If so they wouldn't balance over time???
A yardstick is a measuring device. Supremacy of UK law is rather binary; it either is, or it isn't. What is of rather more interest is the manner of treaty/treaties we might enter into given that supremacy. Likewise control of immigration - what does May propose to do with it ?
I am entirely sympathetic with the argument that a negotiator cannot reveal their hand ahead of negotiations without detriment to their ability to negotiate. A detailed prospectus might well be self defeating. No prospectus at all is equally alarming.
All trade agreements involve signing up to binding international arbitration. So, you can't (for example) sign a trade deal with Canada that removes tariffs between the countries and then pass a law that bans all Canadian products from the UK.
If you regard UK sovereignty as completely binary, then we cannot either sign trade agreements nor be a member of NATO (which also has a court that binds its members).
I don't disagree at all, but I'd make a distinction between supremacy of UK law, and sovereignty - though I recognise that might be quibbling about definitions.
Most people's real incomes have been falling for years. More so here than the rest of Europe. To what level of penury do you wish us to descend?
That's not going to change with Brexit, I'm afraid.
Since 1997, we have borrowed to an extent that makes the Greeks look prudent. We've gone from the rest of the world owing us a great deal, to us owing them a great deal.
The savings rate is going to have to rise to close the current account. This will be extremely painful. There is really no way to get around this.
Sufficiently painful to threaten representative democracy?
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Presupposing that he isn't representing a broader segment of interest, such as having had private discussions with key players such as leaders of the various blocks in the EU parliament. The CoM can approve it all they like, if the EU Parliament votes it down, its toast.
I'll give you good odds on the European Parliament voting down the deal, if you like.
As an aside, it would appear that we - the Brits - get to vote on this in the European parliament too. I don't know how that changes things.
Well if the MEPs vote on national lines for this rather than party lines it would need Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK and the Scandis to get a vote through with a simple majority. It's unlikely that the EUparl will vote down an agreed resolution.
I don't see why they'd suddenly start voting on national lines on this. But it'll almost certainly have been agreed by the main groups in advance.
I imagine UKIP MEPs will vote against the deal, which they will denounce as a betrayal of something.
Why are they still turning up? We’ve left. How have they the nerve to continue to collect their salariies and expenses?
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
To put in context, New Zealand imports $41.6bn of stuff every year. Belgium (which we'd all agree is not a very big or important country) has imports of $450bn. And Belgium's a lot closer, so transport costs are going to be very much less important.
Goes to show how much potential there is outside the EU then. If we could increase our exports to just a quarter of Belgiums following a free trade deal then that would be a significant boost.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Presupposing that he isn't representing a broader segment of interest, such as having had private discussions with key players such as leaders of the various blocks in the EU parliament. The CoM can approve it all they like, if the EU Parliament votes it down, its toast.
I'll give you good odds on the European Parliament voting down the deal, if you like.
As an aside, it would appear that we - the Brits - get to vote on this in the European parliament too. I don't know how that changes things.
Well if the MEPs vote on national lines for this rather than party lines it would need Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK and the Scandis to get a vote through with a simple majority. It's unlikely that the EUparl will vote down an agreed resolution.
I don't see why they'd suddenly start voting on national lines on this. But it'll almost certainly have been agreed by the main groups in advance.
I imagine UKIP MEPs will vote against the deal, which they will denounce as a betrayal of something.
Why are they still turning up? We’ve left. How have they the nerve to continue to collect their salariies and expenses?
Most people's real incomes have been falling for years. More so here than the rest of Europe. To what level of penury do you wish us to descend?
That's not going to change with Brexit, I'm afraid.
Since 1997, we have borrowed to an extent that makes the Greeks look prudent. We've gone from the rest of the world owing us a great deal, to us owing them a great deal.
The savings rate is going to have to rise to close the current account. This will be extremely painful. There is really no way to get around this.
Sufficiently painful to threaten representative democracy?
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Presupposing that he isn't representing a broader segment of interest, such as having had private discussions with key players such as leaders of the various blocks in the EU parliament. The CoM can approve it all they like, if the EU Parliament votes it down, its toast.
I'll give you good odds on the European Parliament voting down the deal, if you like.
As an aside, it would appear that we - the Brits - get to vote on this in the European parliament too. I don't know how that changes things.
Well if the MEPs vote on national lines for this rather than party lines it would need Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK and the Scandis to get a vote through with a simple majority. It's unlikely that the EUparl will vote down an agreed resolution.
Are you sure about that. This is the EU we are talking about and I wouldn't bet on opposition parties following the national line.
Nate Silver of 538 looks at recent polls and states that Clinton's greater lead has led to a stable prediction of her high probability of victory. Clinton/Trump :
Now Cast - 90.7 .. 9.2 Polls Only - 88.1 .. 11.9 Polls Plus - 85.3 .. 14.7
Most people's real incomes have been falling for years. More so here than the rest of Europe. To what level of penury do you wish us to descend?
That's not going to change with Brexit, I'm afraid.
Since 1997, we have borrowed to an extent that makes the Greeks look prudent. We've gone from the rest of the world owing us a great deal, to us owing them a great deal.
The savings rate is going to have to rise to close the current account. This will be extremely painful. There is really no way to get around this.
Sufficiently painful to threaten representative democracy?
I am trying unsuccessfully to see a general principle underlying all these results. The best I can come up with is some kind of rule which says that for any question which is not so obviously silly that you would never ask it, answers are generally distributed evenly. The test would be to teach a class of bright 11 year olds about the eEnglish Civil War for a term, and ask whether they sided with Cavaliers or Roundheads.
It would be nice if people, at least on PB, concluded that a near 50-50 result implied that there were genuine and legitimate arguments on both sides, and it wasn't an internationalist traitor vs yahoo racist faeces-hurling competition.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Presupposing that he isn't representing a broader segment of interest, such as having had private discussions with key players such as leaders of the various blocks in the EU parliament. The CoM can approve it all they like, if the EU Parliament votes it down, its toast.
MEPs will do what they are told by their national parties. If they don't, they'll be removed from the list next there's an EP election. So, should the CoM agree a Brexit deal with us, it will be given the green light in the parliament.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Presupposing that he isn't representing a broader segment of interest, such as having had private discussions with key players such as leaders of the various blocks in the EU parliament. The CoM can approve it all they like, if the EU Parliament votes it down, its toast.
I'll give you good odds on the European Parliament voting down the deal, if you like.
As an aside, it would appear that we - the Brits - get to vote on this in the European parliament too. I don't know how that changes things.
Well if the MEPs vote on national lines for this rather than party lines it would need Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK and the Scandis to get a vote through with a simple majority. It's unlikely that the EUparl will vote down an agreed resolution.
I don't see why they'd suddenly start voting on national lines on this. But it'll almost certainly have been agreed by the main groups in advance.
I imagine UKIP MEPs will vote against the deal, which they will denounce as a betrayal of something.
Why are they still turning up? We’ve left. How have they the nerve to continue to collect their salariies and expenses?
We haven't left.
All righjt, leave that bit out, or rephrase it to say we’re leaving How... nerve ... etc?
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
To put in context, New Zealand imports $41.6bn of stuff every year. Belgium (which we'd all agree is not a very big or important country) has imports of $450bn. And Belgium's a lot closer, so transport costs are going to be very much less important.
Aren't Belgium's 'import/export' statistics to be treated with a degree of caution as a not inconsiderable chunk are diamonds going to & from Antwerp?
Diamonds are 3.2% of Belgium's imports, and 3.8% of its exports (presumably they are roughly in balance over time), so I don't think they have much of an effect on the overall number.
They probably add value by cutting them. Alternatively they have some serious mines they have not told us about!
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Presupposing that he isn't representing a broader segment of interest, such as having had private discussions with key players such as leaders of the various blocks in the EU parliament. The CoM can approve it all they like, if the EU Parliament votes it down, its toast.
MEPs will do what they are told by their national parties. If they don't, they'll be removed from the list next there's an EP election. So, should the CoM agree a Brexit deal with us, it will be given the green light in the parliament.
To date they've tended to be fairly independent, and I don't think I've ever heard of a national party threatening, let alone doing, a mass deselection. I don't see why they'd do that over this, and even if they did you need to count MEPs whose parties are in opposition.
However, like I say, they'd most likely clear the deal with the main parliamentary groups before the Council voted on it, so it's unlikely that whatever the Council passes ultimately gets voted down.
I am not an economist but I have come to the conclusion that central banks collectively have now indeed lost the plot. The whole point of their independence was that they could be brave enough to make people confront reality. Yet in reality they are blowing up a bubble of make-believe money to avoid immediate pain, except for penalising the poor and the prudent.
When pension funds renege on promises, or inequality widens further, or savers become desperate, huge public and political anger is gong to burst over the heads of the world’s central banks. The only way out is for the US Fed to summon the courage to lead the way to higher interest rates, and others to follow slowly but surely. If they fail to do so, the era of their much-vaunted independence will come, possibly quite dramatically, to its end.
For now, the anguish of sterling is a pictorial phenomenon: a line on a chart. Over time, it will become a household experience.
This depreciation has happened before the tabling of Article 50, before the inevitable deadlocks in negotiations and before Britain’s formal exit from the EU. It has happened before any adverse data on output or employment, and before ministerial fights or wounding resignations. This is why the gnomic Bank of England has resorted to plain speaking of late. It wants to prepare the country for higher inflation and for no monetary intervention against it.
Central bankers are not meant to lead the way in candour, but someone has to. Voters were never offered an honest deal in June: some economic loss for the higher treasure of national control. They were told that leaving the bloc entailed no cost, that money saved on EU budget payments might actually enrich them. That is where their expectations are set. Much less and they will come for the government, or for the idea of exit, or for both.
Can people cast their mind back to that TMay said to the nation in her keynote at the CPC.
A Great Repeal Bill to get rid of the European Communities Act – introduced in the next Parliamentary session. Our laws made not in Brussels but in Westminster. Our judges sitting not in Luxembourg but in courts across the land. The authority of EU law in this country ended forever.
But let’s state one thing loud and clear: we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen.
Anyone care to suggest how she is going to square telling people that and any of the sort of nano-BrExit solution being proposed by some parties on here ?
Florida Ohio Pennsylvania. Trump must win all three to have a viable path to 270. Clinton just one for a certain win and has other paths should she lose them all. Chances of Clinton winning :
FL - Now Cast 79.5 .. Polls Only 77.1 .. Polls Plus 71.0 OH - Now Cast 68.3 .. Polls Only 66.6 .. Polls Plus 58.5 PA - Now Cast 92.5 .. Polls Only 90.4 .. Polls Plus 88.4
Can people cast their mind back to that TMay said to the nation in her keynote at the CPC.
A Great Repeal Bill to get rid of the European Communities Act – introduced in the next Parliamentary session. Our laws made not in Brussels but in Westminster. Our judges sitting not in Luxembourg but in courts across the land. The authority of EU law in this country ended forever.
But let’s state one thing loud and clear: we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen.
Anyone care to suggest how she is going to square telling people that and any of the sort of nano-BrExit solution being proposed by some parties on here ?
She's a politician? And someone (probably quite a lot of people, maybe even all of us) is going to be disappointed, whatever happens.
I am not an economist but I have come to the conclusion that central banks collectively have now indeed lost the plot. The whole point of their independence was that they could be brave enough to make people confront reality. Yet in reality they are blowing up a bubble of make-believe money to avoid immediate pain, except for penalising the poor and the prudent.
When pension funds renege on promises, or inequality widens further, or savers become desperate, huge public and political anger is gong to burst over the heads of the world’s central banks. The only way out is for the US Fed to summon the courage to lead the way to higher interest rates, and others to follow slowly but surely. If they fail to do so, the era of their much-vaunted independence will come, possibly quite dramatically, to its end.
Central bankers are not meant to lead the way in candour, but someone has to. Voters were never offered an honest deal in June: some economic loss for the higher treasure of national control. They were told that leaving the bloc entailed no cost, that money saved on EU budget payments might actually enrich them. That is where their expectations are set. Much less and they will come for the government, or for the idea of exit, or for both.
Did they miss all that talk from remain about £4300 per year poorer then ? It would be careless if they had what with £9m of public money being used to tell them about it.
Interesting piece on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37678065 on how self-employed workers are earning less than in 1994/5. As usual the devil is in the detail but it does appear that the self employed are diffwerent from the self-employed then, in that there are a lot more jobs where self-employment is expected, and those jobs do not pay well.
When the public voted in the EU referendum, I don't think anybody was unaware that it would be down to the governing party to implement the result.
The party who won the last election are now implementing the result of the referendum, I fail to see the problem. If the problem is the change of Prime Minister, then the blame should be laid at the door of Mr D.Cameron, it was only he that made that an issue.
Florida Ohio Pennsylvania. Trump must win all three to have a viable path to 270. Clinton just one for a certain win and has other paths should she lose them all. Chances of Clinton winning :
FL - Now Cast 79.5 .. Polls Only 77.1 .. Polls Plus 71.0 OH - Now Cast 68.3 .. Polls Only 66.6 .. Polls Plus 58.5 PA - Now Cast 92.5 .. Polls Only 90.4 .. Polls Plus 88.4
It's a shame that 40% of the country are willing to vote for a racist lunatic who sexually assaults women, but at least it looks look it won't be enough to make him president.
Can people cast their mind back to that TMay said to the nation in her keynote at the CPC.
A Great Repeal Bill to get rid of the European Communities Act – introduced in the next Parliamentary session. Our laws made not in Brussels but in Westminster. Our judges sitting not in Luxembourg but in courts across the land. The authority of EU law in this country ended forever.
But let’s state one thing loud and clear: we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen.
Anyone care to suggest how she is going to square telling people that and any of the sort of nano-BrExit solution being proposed by some parties on here ?
She's a politician? And someone (probably quite a lot of people, maybe even all of us) is going to be disappointed, whatever happens.
Most vaguely competent politicians are careful not to leave hostages to fortune quite that obvious if they suspect they are going to have to backtrack, if for no other reason that it is going to get played back to her repetitively by the kippers or their successors.
Interesting piece on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37678065 on how self-employed workers are earning less than in 1994/5. As usual the devil is in the detail but it does appear that the self employed are diffwerent from the self-employed then, in that there are a lot more jobs where self-employment is expected, and those jobs do not pay well.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Presupposing that he isn't representing a broader segment of interest, such as having had private discussions with key players such as leaders of the various blocks in the EU parliament. The CoM can approve it all they like, if the EU Parliament votes it down, its toast.
MEPs will do what they are told by their national parties. If they don't, they'll be removed from the list next there's an EP election. So, should the CoM agree a Brexit deal with us, it will be given the green light in the parliament.
To date they've tended to be fairly independent, and I don't think I've ever heard of a national party threatening, let alone doing, a mass deselection. I don't see why they'd do that over this, and even if they did you need to count MEPs whose parties are in opposition.
However, like I say, they'd most likely clear the deal with the main parliamentary groups before the Council voted on it, so it's unlikely that whatever the Council passes ultimately gets voted down.
To date they've never had to deal with Brexit. It's very unusual for major EU legislation to be voted down in the EP.
When the public voted in the EU referendum, I don't think anybody was unaware that it would be down to the governing party to implement the result.
Certainly anyone on here that thinks that needs to pull their head out their orifice. Remainers scaremongering for months about how the country was going to be put into the hands of Nigel Farage after the referendum, without quite managing to explain how a person who was not a member of the official campaign, and wasn't in parliament, or a member of the governing party was going to achieve this feat.
It's in the nature of close referenda that people on the losing side simply refuse to accept the result and will seek out any number of reasons to question or dispute its validity. Another which Sunil omitted to mention was the Irish Republic's rejection of the EU's Treaty of Lisbon referendum in 2008 and were ordered to re-run it the following year when they finally came up with the right answer - what a joke that was. Parliamentary decision making is much more readily accepted by the people at large, even when the vote of a single MP can result in a Government falling as was the case in 1979.
I am not an economist but I have come to the conclusion that central banks collectively have now indeed lost the plot. The whole point of their independence was that they could be brave enough to make people confront reality. Yet in reality they are blowing up a bubble of make-believe money to avoid immediate pain, except for penalising the poor and the prudent.
When pension funds renege on promises, or inequality widens further, or savers become desperate, huge public and political anger is gong to burst over the heads of the world’s central banks. The only way out is for the US Fed to summon the courage to lead the way to higher interest rates, and others to follow slowly but surely. If they fail to do so, the era of their much-vaunted independence will come, possibly quite dramatically, to its end.
He is a loss to front line politics.
Not really. He wasn't a particularly successful Foreign Secretary. His heart never seemed o be in it after he lost the leadership.
@afneil: Rise in CPI led by women's clothing and motor fuels
Two things the British voting public will never notice.
Oh, wait...
Yes I can picture it now. The wife goes into M&S for a new blouse, sees that the price has gone up from £30-00p to £30-30p, quick man the barricades, break out the pitchforks and torches.
... and give the moves in petrol prices in the last year, you have got to be kidding.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Presupposing that he isn't representing a broader segment of interest, such as having had private discussions with key players such as leaders of the various blocks in the EU parliament. The CoM can approve it all they like, if the EU Parliament votes it down, its toast.
I'll give you good odds on the European Parliament voting down the deal, if you like.
As an aside, it would appear that we - the Brits - get to vote on this in the European parliament too. I don't know how that changes things.
Well if the MEPs vote on national lines for this rather than party lines it would need Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK and the Scandis to get a vote through with a simple majority. It's unlikely that the EUparl will vote down an agreed resolution.
I don't see why they'd suddenly start voting on national lines on this. But it'll almost certainly have been agreed by the main groups in advance.
I imagine UKIP MEPs will vote against the deal, which they will denounce as a betrayal of something.
Why are they still turning up? We’ve left. How have they the nerve to continue to collect their salariies and expenses?
There's the money and there's always the chance of a rumble.
Remember these are the twelve-month rate changes, so include changes from September 2015 'dropping out' of the data. To look at the Brexit-specific changes would need a shorter time horizon.
For now, the anguish of sterling is a pictorial phenomenon: a line on a chart. Over time, it will become a household experience.
This depreciation has happened before the tabling of Article 50, before the inevitable deadlocks in negotiations and before Britain’s formal exit from the EU. It has happened before any adverse data on output or employment, and before ministerial fights or wounding resignations. This is why the gnomic Bank of England has resorted to plain speaking of late. It wants to prepare the country for higher inflation and for no monetary intervention against it.
Central bankers are not meant to lead the way in candour, but someone has to. Voters were never offered an honest deal in June: some economic loss for the higher treasure of national control. They were told that leaving the bloc entailed no cost, that money saved on EU budget payments might actually enrich them. That is where their expectations are set. Much less and they will come for the government, or for the idea of exit, or for both.
I can't speak for all Leave voters, but I've always assumed there'll be short-term financial cost to Leave. And the government certain predicted all kinds of woe in the wake of a Leave vote.
Remember these are the twelve-month rate changes, so include changes from September 2015 'dropping out' of the data. To look at the Brexit-specific changes would need a shorter time horizon.
The MoM data is +0.2%, not exactly earth shattering.
It's in the nature of close referenda that people on the losing side simply refuse to accept the result and will seek out any number of reasons to question or dispute its validity. Another which Sunil omitted to mention was the Irish Republic's rejection of the EU's Treaty of Lisbon referendum in 2008 and were ordered to re-run it the following year when they finally came up with the right answer - what a joke that was. Parliamentary decision making is much more readily accepted by the people at large, even when the vote of a single MP can result in a Government falling as was the case in 1979.
I was wondering about that.
Does anyone know whether if in Parliament a vote is won by 338 votes to 312 (52% to 48%), the bill is then implemented in a different way than if it had been 390 to 260 (60% to 40%).
It's a shame that 40% of the country are willing to vote for a racist lunatic who sexually assaults women, but at least it looks look it won't be enough to make him president.
It's pin a rosette on a donkey syndrome. It happens in the UK too.
Clare Malone of 538 ran a useful article relating that for most GOP women Trump's shocking sexist behaviour was secondary to party loyalty. The same is true of Democrats forgiving Clinton's poor choices. The difference is that women, independents and swing voters see Clinton as the least worst option and that will propel her to the White House :
It's in the nature of close referenda that people on the losing side simply refuse to accept the result and will seek out any number of reasons to question or dispute its validity. Another which Sunil omitted to mention was the Irish Republic's rejection of the EU's Treaty of Lisbon referendum in 2008 and were ordered to re-run it the following year when they finally came up with the right answer - what a joke that was. Parliamentary decision making is much more readily accepted by the people at large, even when the vote of a single MP can result in a Government falling as was the case in 1979.
I was wondering about that.
Does anyone know whether if in Parliament a vote is won by 338 votes to 312 (52% to 48%), the bill is then implemented in a different way than if it had been 390 to 260 (60% to 40%).
@afneil: Rise in CPI led by women's clothing and motor fuels
Two things the British voting public will never notice.
Oh, wait...
My guess is that most people can live with modest inflation.
So long as their wages rise accordingly.
Well the lowest paid are getting inflation busting pay rises anyway. The next NLW rise will be from £7.20/h to around £7.70, a 7% pay rise vs 1% inflation. If anything it is middle and higher income people who will see real terms wage stagnation in order to pay for wage rises at the bottom.
It's in the nature of close referenda that people on the losing side simply refuse to accept the result and will seek out any number of reasons to question or dispute its validity. Another which Sunil omitted to mention was the Irish Republic's rejection of the EU's Treaty of Lisbon referendum in 2008 and were ordered to re-run it the following year when they finally came up with the right answer - what a joke that was. Parliamentary decision making is much more readily accepted by the people at large, even when the vote of a single MP can result in a Government falling as was the case in 1979.
I was wondering about that.
Does anyone know whether if in Parliament a vote is won by 338 votes to 312 (52% to 48%), the bill is then implemented in a different way than if it had been 390 to 260 (60% to 40%).
and of course if a general election is very close (as say the most recent was) its perfectly normal practise to ask the opposition what they want and how the government can help them out as well. At the Olympics I definitely remember someone coming a close second in a race being handed part of the gold medal of the winner.
Can people cast their mind back to that TMay said to the nation in her keynote at the CPC.
A Great Repeal Bill to get rid of the European Communities Act – introduced in the next Parliamentary session. Our laws made not in Brussels but in Westminster. Our judges sitting not in Luxembourg but in courts across the land. The authority of EU law in this country ended forever.
But let’s state one thing loud and clear: we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen.
Anyone care to suggest how she is going to square telling people that and any of the sort of nano-BrExit solution being proposed by some parties on here ?
She's a politician? And someone (probably quite a lot of people, maybe even all of us) is going to be disappointed, whatever happens.
Most vaguely competent politicians are careful not to leave hostages to fortune quite that obvious if they suspect they are going to have to backtrack, if for no other reason that it is going to get played back to her repetitively by the kippers or their successors.
Let me make a very clear prediction: there will be no Brexit deal that doesn't offer meaningful additional controls over low skilled migration. Nor would the public stand for it.
Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves.
I think that's a reasonable forecast.
However, I think it's highly likely we will be paying a very large sum to Brussels (one way or another).
Agreed.
Yep, that'a a cast iron certainty - ultimately the key Brexit negotiations will inevitably be all about two-way numbers. That is to say the number of (unskilled) EU migrants we continue to allow to enter the UK, measured against the number of billions of pounds we agree to continue paying towards the insatiable EU budget.
It's in the nature of close referenda that people on the losing side simply refuse to accept the result and will seek out any number of reasons to question or dispute its validity. Another which Sunil omitted to mention was the Irish Republic's rejection of the EU's Treaty of Lisbon referendum in 2008 and were ordered to re-run it the following year when they finally came up with the right answer - what a joke that was. Parliamentary decision making is much more readily accepted by the people at large, even when the vote of a single MP can result in a Government falling as was the case in 1979.
I was wondering about that.
Does anyone know whether if in Parliament a vote is won by 338 votes to 312 (52% to 48%), the bill is then implemented in a different way than if it had been 390 to 260 (60% to 40%).
No, a parliamentary vote is the same regardless of margin. However, a parliamentary vote is usually on a much more detailed proposal, which can be refined by multiple votes on amendments, so there's less need to go back afterwards and work out WTF parliament meant.
"After more than seven years of haggling, it was meant to open up business between the two economies, dismantle non-tariff barriers and boost the exchange of services as well as goods. It should have been passed into law this month, and, on the original schedule, would have been ratified today.
That figured without Wallonia. Its socialist parliament – think the Welsh Assembly but, er, not quite so interesting – decided to veto the deal. And if Wallonia can’t OK it, then Belgium can’t. And if Belgium can’t, then the EU can’t. Some arm-twisting is now going on to get the Wallonians to change their minds, but after hundreds of man hours of haggling, and legal fees running into millions, the whole thing could be scrapped."
It's in the nature of close referenda that people on the losing side simply refuse to accept the result and will seek out any number of reasons to question or dispute its validity. Another which Sunil omitted to mention was the Irish Republic's rejection of the EU's Treaty of Lisbon referendum in 2008 and were ordered to re-run it the following year when they finally came up with the right answer - what a joke that was. Parliamentary decision making is much more readily accepted by the people at large, even when the vote of a single MP can result in a Government falling as was the case in 1979.
I was wondering about that.
Does anyone know whether if in Parliament a vote is won by 338 votes to 312 (52% to 48%), the bill is then implemented in a different way than if it had been 390 to 260 (60% to 40%).
and of course if a general election is very close (as say the most recent was) its perfectly normal practise to ask the opposition what they want and how the government can help them out as well. At the Olympics I definitely remember someone coming a close second in a race being handed part of the gold medal of the winner.
I suppose House of Commons votes do go to the Lords for verification though in either case, which is what those in the House of Commons who want a vote on the terms of Brexit are after, to be a revising chamber in this situation.
It's in the nature of close referenda that people on the losing side simply refuse to accept the result and will seek out any number of reasons to question or dispute its validity. Another which Sunil omitted to mention was the Irish Republic's rejection of the EU's Treaty of Lisbon referendum in 2008 and were ordered to re-run it the following year when they finally came up with the right answer - what a joke that was. Parliamentary decision making is much more readily accepted by the people at large, even when the vote of a single MP can result in a Government falling as was the case in 1979.
I was wondering about that.
Does anyone know whether if in Parliament a vote is won by 338 votes to 312 (52% to 48%), the bill is then implemented in a different way than if it had been 390 to 260 (60% to 40%).
No, a parliamentary vote is the same regardless of margin. However, a parliamentary vote is usually on a much more detailed proposal, which can be refined by multiple votes on amendments, so there's less need to go back afterwards and work out WTF parliament meant.
Maybe that's is why MP's are so irked by the finality of the referendum vote? They usually have the mechanism to fiddle around the edges which they don't in this case,
Remember these are the twelve-month rate changes, so include changes from September 2015 'dropping out' of the data. To look at the Brexit-specific changes would need a shorter time horizon.
The MoM data is +0.2%, not exactly earth shattering.
It's between 1.9% and 2.9% full-year, depending on the next decimal place, which I agree is not shattering, but a lot more than we are used to. And the price rises consequent to the fall in the £ so far are only just beginning - existing stock, currency hedging and margin squeezes are damping and delaying the effect for us consumers.
"After more than seven years of haggling, it was meant to open up business between the two economies, dismantle non-tariff barriers and boost the exchange of services as well as goods. It should have been passed into law this month, and, on the original schedule, would have been ratified today.
That figured without Wallonia. Its socialist parliament – think the Welsh Assembly but, er, not quite so interesting – decided to veto the deal. And if Wallonia can’t OK it, then Belgium can’t. And if Belgium can’t, then the EU can’t. Some arm-twisting is now going on to get the Wallonians to change their minds, but after hundreds of man hours of haggling, and legal fees running into millions, the whole thing could be scrapped."
I think the deal can be pushed through via QMV if push comes to shove even if Belgium vote against it the deal should go through anyway.
Let me make a very clear prediction: there will be no Brexit deal that doesn't offer meaningful additional controls over low skilled migration. Nor would the public stand for it.
Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves.
I think that's a reasonable forecast.
However, I think it's highly likely we will be paying a very large sum to Brussels (one way or another).
Agreed.
Yep, that'a a cast iron certainty - ultimately the key Brexit negotiations will inevitably be all about two-way numbers. That is to say the number of (unskilled) EU migrants we continue to allow to enter the UK, measured against the number of billions of pounds we agree to continue paying towards the insatiable EU budget.
There are also the UK citizens that migrate to other EU countries to throw into the mix.
Interesting piece on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37678065 on how self-employed workers are earning less than in 1994/5. As usual the devil is in the detail but it does appear that the self employed are diffwerent from the self-employed then, in that there are a lot more jobs where self-employment is expected, and those jobs do not pay well.
1994/5 was pre-IR35.
Fair point. Don’t know why that was used as the starter, about 20 year suggestion. I’ve tried unsuccessfully to copy & paste the graph. It goes up and down, but the trend is downwards.
Can people cast their mind back to that TMay said to the nation in her keynote at the CPC.
A Great Repeal Bill to get rid of the European Communities Act – introduced in the next Parliamentary session. Our laws made not in Brussels but in Westminster. Our judges sitting not in Luxembourg but in courts across the land. The authority of EU law in this country ended forever.
But let’s state one thing loud and clear: we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen.
Anyone care to suggest how she is going to square telling people that and any of the sort of nano-BrExit solution being proposed by some parties on here ?
She's a politician? And someone (probably quite a lot of people, maybe even all of us) is going to be disappointed, whatever happens.
Most vaguely competent politicians are careful not to leave hostages to fortune quite that obvious if they suspect they are going to have to backtrack, if for no other reason that it is going to get played back to her repetitively by the kippers or their successors.
£350m anyone?
You appear to have difficulty differentiating the pronouncements of a campaign group which has neither its CEO nor its campaign manager in parliament, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and First Lord of the Treasury. It appears to be a common complaint of the remain side.
Well done sunil. Good to see you write something more challenging than a stream of one line soundbites.
I'm convinced that Brexit was a calamitous decision which when enacted will turn us from the fifth largest economy in the world to a basket case with a third world currency disintegrating public services and social squalour the like of which we haven't seen for decades.
France is a country which is visibly buzzing again and nothing was as telling as their bemusement and certainty that the UK had committed hara-kiri. As the currency collapsed it became even clearer who the new poor men of Europe were going to be. While the French shrugged British shoulders dropped.
I believe the decision should now be reversed by parliament. This was a decision taken by some very ignorant people (in the literal sense of the word) against the unanimous judgement of experts and against the overwhelming will of parliament.
Parliament owes the people a duty of care. There are several examples where under exceptional circumstances professional bodies can override the rights of the individual. If saving a country from impoverishment doesn't come into that category then nothing does
Remember these are the twelve-month rate changes, so include changes from September 2015 'dropping out' of the data. To look at the Brexit-specific changes would need a shorter time horizon.
The MoM data is +0.2%, not exactly earth shattering.
It's between 1.9% and 2.9% full-year, depending on the next decimal place, which I agree is not shattering, but a lot more than we are used to. And the price rises consequent to the fall in the £ so far are only just beginning - existing stock, currency hedging and margin squeezes are damping and delaying the effect for us consumers.
Isn't it actually almost exactly the Bank of England target inflation rate ?
Remember these are the twelve-month rate changes, so include changes from September 2015 'dropping out' of the data. To look at the Brexit-specific changes would need a shorter time horizon.
The MoM data is +0.2%, not exactly earth shattering.
It's between 1.9% and 2.9% full-year, depending on the next decimal place, which I agree is not shattering, but a lot more than we are used to. And the price rises consequent to the fall in the £ so far are only just beginning - existing stock, currency hedging and margin squeezes are damping and delaying the effect for us consumers.
More than we are used to? In 2011 we had 5.5% CPI and 6% RPI, that wasn't too long ago. It's only since oil prices crashed we've had very low inflation. Two years isn't a long enough period of time for people to get used to.
In terms of falling currency, I think peak inflation is estimated at about 3.5% with a 15% drop in Sterling. Again, we're not talking about a runaway figure. Some think it will show over a longer period of time than just one year as domestic companies hold down prices at the expense of wages and margins in order to gain market share vs foreign companies.
Remember these are the twelve-month rate changes, so include changes from September 2015 'dropping out' of the data. To look at the Brexit-specific changes would need a shorter time horizon.
The MoM data is +0.2%, not exactly earth shattering.
It's between 1.9% and 2.9% full-year, depending on the next decimal place, which I agree is not shattering, but a lot more than we are used to. And the price rises consequent to the fall in the £ so far are only just beginning - existing stock, currency hedging and margin squeezes are damping and delaying the effect for us consumers.
Isn't it actually almost exactly the Bank of England target inflation rate ?
If the next eleven months are the same but no higher, yes.
It's in the nature of close referenda that people on the losing side simply refuse to accept the result and will seek out any number of reasons to question or dispute its validity. Another which Sunil omitted to mention was the Irish Republic's rejection of the EU's Treaty of Lisbon referendum in 2008 and were ordered to re-run it the following year when they finally came up with the right answer - what a joke that was. Parliamentary decision making is much more readily accepted by the people at large, even when the vote of a single MP can result in a Government falling as was the case in 1979.
I was wondering about that.
Does anyone know whether if in Parliament a vote is won by 338 votes to 312 (52% to 48%), the bill is then implemented in a different way than if it had been 390 to 260 (60% to 40%).
and of course if a general election is very close (as say the most recent was) its perfectly normal practise to ask the opposition what they want and how the government can help them out as well. At the Olympics I definitely remember someone coming a close second in a race being handed part of the gold medal of the winner.
I suppose House of Commons votes do go to the Lords for verification though in either case, which is what those in the House of Commons who want a vote on the terms of Brexit are after, to be a revising chamber in this situation.
I am sure their lordships will tell us shortly, but its currently unclear to me that an A50 proposal even needs to go to the lords. A vote on a substantive motion by the commons might well be enough. There is no "revising" to be done on a yes/no question, especially one in keeping with the government manifesto:
And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome - Conservative Manifesto 2015 p.73
Can people cast their mind back to that TMay said to the nation in her keynote at the CPC.
A Great Repeal Bill to get rid of the European Communities Act – introduced in the next Parliamentary session. Our laws made not in Brussels but in Westminster. Our judges sitting not in Luxembourg but in courts across the land. The authority of EU law in this country ended forever.
But let’s state one thing loud and clear: we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen.
Anyone care to suggest how she is going to square telling people that and any of the sort of nano-BrExit solution being proposed by some parties on here ?
She's a politician? And someone (probably quite a lot of people, maybe even all of us) is going to be disappointed, whatever happens.
Most vaguely competent politicians are careful not to leave hostages to fortune quite that obvious if they suspect they are going to have to backtrack, if for no other reason that it is going to get played back to her repetitively by the kippers or their successors.
£350m anyone?
You appear to have difficulty differentiating the pronouncements of a campaign group which has neither its CEO nor its campaign manager in parliament, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and First Lord of the Treasury. It appears to be a common complaint of the remain side.
The same argument can be applied by your implicit suggestion that a "nano-Brexit" was not voted for (apologies if I have misconstrued you).
"After more than seven years of haggling, it was meant to open up business between the two economies, dismantle non-tariff barriers and boost the exchange of services as well as goods. It should have been passed into law this month, and, on the original schedule, would have been ratified today.
That figured without Wallonia. Its socialist parliament – think the Welsh Assembly but, er, not quite so interesting – decided to veto the deal. And if Wallonia can’t OK it, then Belgium can’t. And if Belgium can’t, then the EU can’t. Some arm-twisting is now going on to get the Wallonians to change their minds, but after hundreds of man hours of haggling, and legal fees running into millions, the whole thing could be scrapped."
I think the deal can be pushed through via QMV if push comes to shove even if Belgium vote against it the deal should go through anyway.
Very important that when it comes to Uk trade deals with Canada and the US that our socialist basket case regional talking shops don't have a veto.
Most of the comments I've seen about the close result focus on the fact that there is no clear mandate for a particular type of Brexit - recent polling suggests that the voters are not keen on a version of hard Brexit which will trash the economy. That seems a very fair criticism and I for one resent the idiot posts on here which seek to slap down any critic simply by re-posting the result ad infinitum as if that was an argument! Now, I wonder which poster is guilty of that particular piece of inanity???
Remember these are the twelve-month rate changes, so include changes from September 2015 'dropping out' of the data. To look at the Brexit-specific changes would need a shorter time horizon.
The MoM data is +0.2%, not exactly earth shattering.
It's between 1.9% and 2.9% full-year, depending on the next decimal place, which I agree is not shattering, but a lot more than we are used to. And the price rises consequent to the fall in the £ so far are only just beginning - existing stock, currency hedging and margin squeezes are damping and delaying the effect for us consumers.
Isn't it actually almost exactly the Bank of England target inflation rate ?
If the next eleven months are the same but no higher, yes.
Assuming no behavioural changes (in terms of importation of goods and services) a 15% drop in sterling would cause a 15% rise in import prices, resulting in 3-4% inflation (the BoE model points to this as well). Assuming a bit of margin erosion and import substitution we may be looking at a figure of about 2.5-3.5%, total inflation.
If we can fix our BoP in the next two years on the back of weak Sterling and couple that with 2-3% annual inflation we will be in a very good position economically. Nominal growth of between 4-6% would do wonders for our debt levels.
Just to put it into perspective of what we're actually seeing, factory gate prices rose by 7.2% YoY, which tells future inflation of about 2%.
It's in the nature of close referenda that people on the losing side simply refuse to accept the result and will seek out any number of reasons to question or dispute its validity. Another which Sunil omitted to mention was the Irish Republic's rejection of the EU's Treaty of Lisbon referendum in 2008 and were ordered to re-run it the following year when they finally came up with the right answer - what a joke that was. Parliamentary decision making is much more readily accepted by the people at large, even when the vote of a single MP can result in a Government falling as was the case in 1979.
I was wondering about that.
Does anyone know whether if in Parliament a vote is won by 338 votes to 312 (52% to 48%), the bill is then implemented in a different way than if it had been 390 to 260 (60% to 40%).
and of course if a general election is very close (as say the most recent was) its perfectly normal practise to ask the opposition what they want and how the government can help them out as well. At the Olympics I definitely remember someone coming a close second in a race being handed part of the gold medal of the winner.
I suppose House of Commons votes do go to the Lords for verification though in either case, which is what those in the House of Commons who want a vote on the terms of Brexit are after, to be a revising chamber in this situation.
I am sure their lordships will tell us shortly, but its currently unclear to me that an A50 proposal even needs to go to the lords. A vote on a substantive motion by the commons might well be enough. There is no "revising" to be done on a yes/no question, especially one in keeping with the government manifesto:
And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome - Conservative Manifesto 2015 p.73
I think it will be looked upon as extraordinary by historians in years to come, that the government didn't give clear options for both scenarios that could immediately be carried out. The Prime Minister should be neutral in referendums, and prepared to deliver the peoples wishes, whatever they may be. All the problems we have today were caused by that.
Well done sunil. Good to see you write something more challenging than a stream of one line soundbites.
I'm convinced that Brexit was a calamitous decision which when enacted will turn us from the fifth largest economy in the world to a basket case with a third world currency disintegrating public services and social squalour the like of which we haven't seen for decades.
France is a country which is visibly buzzing again and nothing was as telling as their bemusement and certainty that the UK had committed hara-kiri. As the currency collapsed it became even clearer who the new poor men of Europe were going to be. While the French shrugged British shoulders dropped.
I believe the decision should now be reversed by parliament. This was a decision taken by some very ignorant people (in the literal sense of the word) against the unanimous judgement of experts and against the overwhelming will of parliament.
Parliament owes the people a duty of care. There are several examples where under exceptional circumstances professional bodies can override the rights of the individual. If saving a country from impoverishment doesn't come into that category then nothing does
I was in Avignon recently - shocked to confirm that much of what SeanT said about the declining quality of French food was true. Italy has far surpassed French cuisine, and the mediocre wines were eye wateringly expensive.
I love France, but it appears to be a society stuck in the 1980s with an approach to labour rules from the 1960s.
Oh - and you're wrong, quel surprise, about Brexit. Worse, you clearly don't care a fig for democracy.
Can people cast their mind back to that TMay said to the nation in her keynote at the CPC.
A Great Repeal Bill to get rid of the European Communities Act – introduced in the next Parliamentary session. Our laws made not in Brussels but in Westminster. Our judges sitting not in Luxembourg but in courts across the land. The authority of EU law in this country ended forever.
But let’s state one thing loud and clear: we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen.
Anyone care to suggest how she is going to square telling people that and any of the sort of nano-BrExit solution being proposed by some parties on here ?
She's a politician? And someone (probably quite a lot of people, maybe even all of us) is going to be disappointed, whatever happens.
Most vaguely competent politicians are careful not to leave hostages to fortune quite that obvious if they suspect they are going to have to backtrack, if for no other reason that it is going to get played back to her repetitively by the kippers or their successors.
£350m anyone?
You appear to have difficulty differentiating the pronouncements of a campaign group which has neither its CEO nor its campaign manager in parliament, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and First Lord of the Treasury. It appears to be a common complaint of the remain side.
Politicians' promises as to what they will or won't do only count when they are actually in office, but not when they are campaigning? Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Comments
I imagine UKIP MEPs will vote against the deal, which they will denounce as a betrayal of something.
Anyway, got to work.
Now Cast - 90.7 .. 9.2
Polls Only - 88.1 .. 11.9
Polls Plus - 85.3 .. 14.7
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-big-lead-means-a-steadier-forecast/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus
It would be nice if people, at least on PB, concluded that a near 50-50 result implied that there were genuine and legitimate arguments on both sides, and it wasn't an internationalist traitor vs yahoo racist faeces-hurling competition.
However, like I say, they'd most likely clear the deal with the main parliamentary groups before the Council voted on it, so it's unlikely that whatever the Council passes ultimately gets voted down.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/central-bankers-have-collectively-lost-the-plot-they-must-raise/
I am not an economist but I have come to the conclusion that central banks collectively have now indeed lost the plot. The whole point of their independence was that they could be brave enough to make people confront reality. Yet in reality they are blowing up a bubble of make-believe money to avoid immediate pain, except for penalising the poor and the prudent.
When pension funds renege on promises, or inequality widens further, or savers become desperate, huge public and political anger is gong to burst over the heads of the world’s central banks. The only way out is for the US Fed to summon the courage to lead the way to higher interest rates, and others to follow slowly but surely. If they fail to do so, the era of their much-vaunted independence will come, possibly quite dramatically, to its end.
This depreciation has happened before the tabling of Article 50, before the inevitable deadlocks in negotiations and before Britain’s formal exit from the EU. It has happened before any adverse data on output or employment, and before ministerial fights or wounding resignations. This is why the gnomic Bank of England has resorted to plain speaking of late. It wants to prepare the country for higher inflation and for no monetary intervention against it.
Central bankers are not meant to lead the way in candour, but someone has to. Voters were never offered an honest deal in June: some economic loss for the higher treasure of national control. They were told that leaving the bloc entailed no cost, that money saved on EU budget payments might actually enrich them. That is where their expectations are set. Much less and they will come for the government, or for the idea of exit, or for both.
https://www.ft.com/content/15dadb7e-944d-11e6-a80e-bcd69f323a8b
Can people cast their mind back to that TMay said to the nation in her keynote at the CPC.
A Great Repeal Bill to get rid of the European Communities Act – introduced in the next Parliamentary session.
Our laws made not in Brussels but in Westminster.
Our judges sitting not in Luxembourg but in courts across the land.
The authority of EU law in this country ended forever.
But let’s state one thing loud and clear: we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen.
Anyone care to suggest how she is going to square telling people that and any of the sort of nano-BrExit solution being proposed by some parties on here ?
Florida Ohio Pennsylvania. Trump must win all three to have a viable path to 270. Clinton just one for a certain win and has other paths should she lose them all. Chances of Clinton winning :
FL - Now Cast 79.5 .. Polls Only 77.1 .. Polls Plus 71.0
OH - Now Cast 68.3 .. Polls Only 66.6 .. Polls Plus 58.5
PA - Now Cast 92.5 .. Polls Only 90.4 .. Polls Plus 88.4
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/florida/#plus
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ohio/#plus
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/pennsylvania/#plus
http://www.270towin.com/maps/Gw8WK
The party who won the last election are now implementing the result of the referendum, I fail to see the problem. If the problem is the change of Prime Minister, then the blame should be laid at the door of Mr D.Cameron, it was only he that made that an issue.
Two things the British voting public will never notice.
Oh, wait...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDAinHgaViI
Another which Sunil omitted to mention was the Irish Republic's rejection of the EU's Treaty of Lisbon referendum in 2008 and were ordered to re-run it the following year when they finally came up with the right answer - what a joke that was.
Parliamentary decision making is much more readily accepted by the people at large, even when the vote of a single MP can result in a Government falling as was the case in 1979.
... and give the moves in petrol prices in the last year, you have got to be kidding.
Thanks for publishing my threader, Exalted One
Does anyone know whether if in Parliament a vote is won by 338 votes to 312 (52% to 48%), the bill is then implemented in a different way than if it had been 390 to 260 (60% to 40%).
Clare Malone of 538 ran a useful article relating that for most GOP women Trump's shocking sexist behaviour was secondary to party loyalty. The same is true of Democrats forgiving Clinton's poor choices. The difference is that women, independents and swing voters see Clinton as the least worst option and that will propel her to the White House :
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/for-many-gop-women-party-loyalty-trumps-personal-affront/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/17/if-wallonians-are-even-afraid-of-deal-with-canada-then-what-abou/
"After more than seven years of haggling, it was meant to open up business between the two economies, dismantle non-tariff barriers and boost the exchange of services as well as goods. It should have been passed into law this month, and, on the original schedule, would have been ratified today.
That figured without Wallonia. Its socialist parliament – think the Welsh Assembly but, er, not quite so interesting – decided to veto the deal. And if Wallonia can’t OK it, then Belgium can’t. And if Belgium can’t, then the EU can’t. Some arm-twisting is now going on to get the Wallonians to change their minds, but after hundreds of man hours of haggling, and legal fees running into millions, the whole thing could be scrapped."
I'm convinced that Brexit was a calamitous decision which when enacted will turn us from the fifth largest economy in the world to a basket case with a third world currency disintegrating public services and social squalour the like of which we haven't seen for decades.
France is a country which is visibly buzzing again and nothing was as telling as their bemusement and certainty that the UK had committed hara-kiri. As the currency collapsed it became even clearer who the new poor men of Europe were going to be. While the French shrugged British shoulders dropped.
I believe the decision should now be reversed by parliament. This was a decision taken by some very ignorant people (in the literal sense of the word) against the unanimous judgement of experts and against the overwhelming will of parliament.
Parliament owes the people a duty of care. There are several examples where under exceptional circumstances professional bodies can override the rights of the individual. If saving a country from impoverishment doesn't come into that category then nothing does
In terms of falling currency, I think peak inflation is estimated at about 3.5% with a 15% drop in Sterling. Again, we're not talking about a runaway figure. Some think it will show over a longer period of time than just one year as domestic companies hold down prices at the expense of wages and margins in order to gain market share vs foreign companies.
https://twitter.com/michaelpdeacon/status/747000584226607104
So, doesn't signify language as presumably all Pret attendants can speak English...
And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome - Conservative Manifesto 2015 p.73
If we can fix our BoP in the next two years on the back of weak Sterling and couple that with 2-3% annual inflation we will be in a very good position economically. Nominal growth of between 4-6% would do wonders for our debt levels.
Just to put it into perspective of what we're actually seeing, factory gate prices rose by 7.2% YoY, which tells future inflation of about 2%.
I love France, but it appears to be a society stuck in the 1980s with an approach to labour rules from the 1960s.
Oh - and you're wrong, quel surprise, about Brexit. Worse, you clearly don't care a fig for democracy.