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).
You have. The people have asked for parliament to take us out of the EU. They will decide in the GE2020 if the government's actions are sufficient. All I was saying given the high flown rhetoric at the CPC, and the expectations of a large chunk of her electorate vis-a-vis immigration and the ECJ, Mrs May would be lucky to get away with her electoral life if she only delivered a BINO (BrExit in Name Only)
"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."
'Brexiteers in sudden approval of devolved parliaments having a veto' shock.
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.
I think it'll be a bit harder than that, not least because right now business investment (which is key to closing the BoP gap) is incredibly subdued.
Right now, businesses have no idea about the tariff or regulatory structure for the UK. When companies have their spreadsheets open, they have no idea how to fill their cells in. That makes it very difficult to invest in the UK.
You mean the back bench MP speaking in a personal capacity ?
I mean the Foreign Secretary
There I was thinking he became Foreign Secretary after the referendum as well, I wasn't aware that he was speaking with the authority of one of the great offices of state when on the referendum campaign trail, who knew.
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).
You have. The people have asked for parliament to take us out of the EU. They will decide in the GE2020 if the government's actions are sufficient. All I was saying given the high flown rhetoric at the CPC, and the expectations of a large chunk of her electorate vis-a-vis immigration and the ECJ, Mrs May would be lucky to get away with her electoral life if she only delivered a BINO (BrExit in Name Only)
Your judgement is based on what? All the credible opponents to her (insofar as there will be any) in 2020 (or whenever) wouldn't have done any Brexit at all.
edit/ and if by some miracle UKIP hasn't died, their winning a few discontented and probably mostly wwc-leaver votes isn't going to hurt her at all.
The narrowness of the margin is, however, highly relevant in the debate about what sort of Brexit we get. Within that overall majority a majority of working people and a majority of Scotland, N Ireland and London voted remain. A politically wise leader might be expected to take that into account and come up with more conciliatory solutions instead of embracing a hard Brea which is almost certainly not supported by a majority of voters. It is difficult not to conclude that the old die-hard eurosceptics are calling the shots now.
Trump's continued whining about a "rigged election" is clearly his first strike excuse for losing the election. His path to 270 is presently closed down.
Placing all close swing states that are presently in Clinton's column to Trump only takes him to 265 - Nevada, Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida. He requires a state where 538 gives over an 85% chance of Clinton winning on their most conservative "Polls Plus" forecast. The closest is Minnesota @ 86.2%
There I was thinking he became Foreign Secretary after the referendum as well, I wasn't aware that he was speaking with the authority of one of the great offices of state when on the referendum campaign trail, who knew.
Now that he is Foreign Secretary, is it incumbent upon him to deliver campaign promises, or not?
You mean the back bench MP speaking in a personal capacity ?
I mean the Foreign Secretary
There I was thinking he became Foreign Secretary after the referendum as well, I wasn't aware that he was speaking with the authority of one of the great offices of state when on the referendum campaign trail, who knew.
So he also wasn't a 'vaguely competent politician' at that point?
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.
I think it'll be a bit harder than that, not least because right now business investment (which is key to closing the BoP gap) is incredibly subdued.
Right now, businesses have no idea about the tariff or regulatory structure for the UK. When companies have their spreadsheets open, they have no idea how to fill their cells in. That makes it very difficult to invest in the UK.
Yes, I agree with that, but then again I think we're on the same page wrt to staying in the single market, at least for a while so we can agree a longer term deal with the EU and untangle the web of our international trading position which is currently tied into the EU.
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.
The forecast was for an aggregate diminution in per household GDP by 2030 of £4,300.
Ok. Agreed. Though interesting to see what electoral force, if any, will arise to criticise May on that. I tend to think that after a while all but the ultras will be bored with Brexit and just happy that May has delivered what we asked for - whatever it is.
The Treason Felony Act be amended to include the following offences:
'To imagine, devise, promote, work, or encourage others, to support UK becoming a member of the European Union;
- To conspire with foreign powers to make the UK, or part of the UK, become a member of the EU.'
It is becoming clear that many politicians and others are unwilling to accept the democratic decision of the British people to leave the EU. Brexit must not be put at risk in the years and decades ahead. For this reason we the undersigned request that the Treason Felony Act be amended as set out in this petition.
(These provisions to become law the day the United Kingdom leaves the EU).
This got shared a lot on social media so if it only got 3000 signatures that suggests that Britain has a lower density of retards than you might have thought.
This map shows the density of retards by constituency. Almost all constituencies have some. Funnily enough, Maidenhead has none.
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.
I think it'll be a bit harder than that, not least because right now business investment (which is key to closing the BoP gap) is incredibly subdued.
Right now, businesses have no idea about the tariff or regulatory structure for the UK. When companies have their spreadsheets open, they have no idea how to fill their cells in. That makes it very difficult to invest in the UK.
Yes, I agree with that, but then again I think we're on the same page wrt to staying in the single market, at least for a while so we can agree a longer term deal with the EU and untangle the web of our international trading position which is currently tied into the EU.
Unfortunately, remaining in the single market appears to be politically impossible.
There I was thinking he became Foreign Secretary after the referendum as well, I wasn't aware that he was speaking with the authority of one of the great offices of state when on the referendum campaign trail, who knew.
Now that he is Foreign Secretary, is it incumbent upon him to deliver campaign promises, or not?
Should he keep us in the single market, with FoM?
He can certainly argue for it in cabinet, but he will have to be bound by collective responsibility like other ministers.
The real question of course is why isn't the Remainer PM arguing for all these things, I would have thought that would have been a much more important issue for you.
The Treason Felony Act be amended to include the following offences:
'To imagine, devise, promote, work, or encourage others, to support UK becoming a member of the European Union;
- To conspire with foreign powers to make the UK, or part of the UK, become a member of the EU.'
It is becoming clear that many politicians and others are unwilling to accept the democratic decision of the British people to leave the EU. Brexit must not be put at risk in the years and decades ahead. For this reason we the undersigned request that the Treason Felony Act be amended as set out in this petition.
(These provisions to become law the day the United Kingdom leaves the EU).
This got shared a lot on social media so if it only got 3000 signatures that suggests that Britain has a lower density of retards than you might have thought.
This map shows the density of retards by constituency. Almost all constituencies have some. Funnily enough, Maidenhead has none.
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.
The forecast was for an aggregate diminution in per household GDP by 2030 of £4,300.
Careless with facts, indeed.
Indeed, so the (ex) Chancellor was trying to imply the average household would be £4300 worse off per year by 2030.
The real question of course is why isn't the Remainer PM arguing for all these things, I would have thought that would have been a much more important issue for you.
She almost certainly is.
We shall find out when Hammond triumphs and at least one of the 3 Brexiteers walks
You mean the back bench MP speaking in a personal capacity ?
I mean the Foreign Secretary
There I was thinking he became Foreign Secretary after the referendum as well, I wasn't aware that he was speaking with the authority of one of the great offices of state when on the referendum campaign trail, who knew.
So he also wasn't a 'vaguely competent politician' at that point?
Thanks goodness that's no longer the case.
He didn't get to chose the campaign message, I think it's Mr Cummings you are thinking of.
Sunil - another narrow result is the 0.42% in the Colombian Peace Agreement Referendum just 16 days ago. Looking at the polls, their No vote was an even bigger shock than our Leave vote.
The real question of course is why isn't the Remainer PM arguing for all these things, I would have thought that would have been a much more important issue for you.
She almost certainly is.
We shall find out when Hammond triumphs and at least one of the 3 Brexiteers walks
So that will be why she told the CPC a couple of weeks ago that UK laws will be made in the UK not Brussels, that UK judges will rule not the ECJ, and that the UK will once more be in control of its own borders.
'The problem is with Cameron not defining what leave means. There was no attempt to have a rational evaluation of leaving, just a choice between status quo or total chaos. '
But Cameron did define exactly what Leave meant,he couldn't have been clearer.
'Cameron: 'I'll pull UK out of the single market after Brexit' - Politico www.politico.eu/.../david-cameron-bbc-andrew-marr-ill-pull-uk-out-of-the-single-ma... 13 Jun 2016 - British Prime Minister David Cameron interviewed by Andrew Marr on ... he will pull Britain out of the single market if there is a vote to leave the ...
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.
The forecast was for an aggregate diminution in per household GDP by 2030 of £4,300.
Careless with facts, indeed.
Indeed, so the (ex) Chancellor was trying to imply the average household would be £4300 worse off per year by 2030.
I think you mean of 2030 GDP per 2015 household
No. He meant, or rather the NIESR meant that in aggregate (aggregate) there would be a diminution in GDP per household of £4,300 by 2030. Not per year..in aggregate. He divided the lower GDP growth by 2030 vs the non-Brexit scenario by the number of households and got £4,300.
So that will be why she told the CPC a couple of weeks ago that UK laws will be made in the UK not Brussels, that UK judges will rule not the ECJ, and that the UK will once more be in control of its own borders.
Read the FT article posted earlier.
The Brexiteers are huffing and puffing the loudest, but the markets have the biggest clout.
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.
The forecast was for an aggregate diminution in per household GDP by 2030 of £4,300.
Careless with facts, indeed.
Indeed, so the (ex) Chancellor was trying to imply the average household would be £4300 worse off per year by 2030.
I think you mean of 2030 GDP per 2015 household
No. He meant, or rather the NIESR meant that in aggregate (aggregate) there would be a diminution in GDP per household of £4,300 by 2030. Not per year..in aggregate. He divided the lower GDP growth by 2030 vs the non-Brexit scenario by the number of households and got £4,300.
Christ, that is even more limp that it sounded, so he really was talking about £300 or so per year, a pound a day give or take!
The number was still b*llocks though, because, inter alia, they used the 2015 number of households not a projected 2030 number.
The real question of course is why isn't the Remainer PM arguing for all these things, I would have thought that would have been a much more important issue for you.
She almost certainly is.
We shall find out when Hammond triumphs and at least one of the 3 Brexiteers walks
I am not 100% sure that Hammond did or will triumph.
So that will be why she told the CPC a couple of weeks ago that UK laws will be made in the UK not Brussels, that UK judges will rule not the ECJ, and that the UK will once more be in control of its own borders.
Read the FT article posted earlier.
The Brexiteers are huffing and puffing the loudest, but the markets have the biggest clout.
Ok. Agreed. Though interesting to see what electoral force, if any, will arise to criticise May on that. I tend to think that after a while all but the ultras will be bored with Brexit and just happy that May has delivered what we asked for - whatever it is.
Exactly.
The risks to May (and the Tories) from Brexit being "too hard" are immense:
Worst case their economic credibility could be destroyed for a generation. They could lose the support of business and many of their donors. They could open the door to a Corbyn government. They could resurrect the LibDems. They could lose Scotland.
The risks from Brexit being "too soft" are what exactly? Whatever is left of UKIP does better in some mainly Labour seats? A few of her more awkward backbenchers revert to type?
Provided she can manage Parliament so that the Remainers never end up voting with her own party's headbangers, all the political pressures point to a Brexit that is as soft as possible. And that still leaves the Tories (including the headbangers) the option of campaigning on 'more Brexit tomorrow'.
Does anyone know of a market where one can bet on the year in which Mark Carney is sacked/resigns/ is otherwise removed as Governor of the Bank of England? The sort of odds I have in mind are: 2016 ....... 7/1 2017 .......11/4 2018 ....... 7/4 2019+ ..... 3/1
The risks to May (and the Tories) from Brexit being "too hard" are immense:
Worst case their economic credibility could be destroyed for a generation. They could lose the support of business and many of their donors. They could open the door to a Corbyn government. They could resurrect the LibDems. They could lose Scotland.
The risks from Brexit being "too soft" are what exactly? Whatever is left of UKIP does a bit better in some Labour seats? A few of her backbenchers revert to type?
Provided she can manage Parliament so that the Remainers never end up voting with her own party's headbangers, all the political pressures point to a Brexit that is as soft as possible. And that still leaves the Tories (including the headbangers) the option of campaigning on 'more Brexit tomorrow'.
Even SeanT, of the "Remainers are Traitors" brigade, was advocating yesterday for "soft Brexit"
Given the choice of pissing off millions of voters, or Peter Bone, what is may going to do?
Provided she can manage Parliament so that the Remainers never end up voting with her own party's headbangers, all the political pressures point to a Brexit that is as soft as possible. And that still leaves the Tories (including the headbangers) the option of campaigning on 'more Brexit tomorrow'.
And provided that Bruxelles plays ball. "As soft as possible" could still be pretty damn hard.
Ok. Agreed. Though interesting to see what electoral force, if any, will arise to criticise May on that. I tend to think that after a while all but the ultras will be bored with Brexit and just happy that May has delivered what we asked for - whatever it is.
Exactly.
The risks to May (and the Tories) from Brexit being "too hard" are immense:
Worst case their economic credibility could be destroyed for a generation. They could lose the support of business and many of their donors. They could open the door to a Corbyn government. They could resurrect the LibDems. They could lose Scotland.
The risks from Brexit being "too soft" are what exactly? Whatever is left of UKIP does better in some mainly Labour seats? A few of her more awkward backbenchers revert to type?
Provided she can manage Parliament so that the Remainers never end up voting with her own party's headbangers, all the political pressures point to a Brexit that is as soft as possible. And that still leaves the Tories (including the headbangers) the option of campaigning on 'more Brexit tomorrow'.
Suspect at some point May will have to choose between the best outcome for Britain and the best outcome for the Tory party.
Obviously the rhetoric will blur the two, but I wonder which she will choose.
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.
That 2008 vote was 53% AGAINST, 47% FOR Lisbon, so NOT as close EURef, sorry!
I'm amused by hardcore leavers whinging about hardcore remainers' moaning.
After all, in the days running up to the referendum, some hardcore leavers on here were getting their excuses in early; how the result had been stolen, the other side hadn't played fair, how there should be another referendum, etc, etc.
As in Scotland, the hardcore indys immediately formed a group and started calling for another referendum; saying the result had been stolen, the other side hadn't played fair, how there should be another referendum, etc, etc.
And as Sunil says in his excellent piece, similar occurred in Quebec.
Perhaps the hardcore leavers should admit that they would be making exactly the same noises that they are complaining about the hardcore remainers making, if the result had been reversed? After all, they had been agitating for a referendum for decades, and had even been prepared to destroy their party's electoral chances because of their dreams. They wouldn't allow a little thing like an incorrect referendum result stand in their way.
The exact same thing they accused the EU of before the referendum, and hasn't happened. Yet ...
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.
I think it'll be a bit harder than that, not least because right now business investment (which is key to closing the BoP gap) is incredibly subdued.
Right now, businesses have no idea about the tariff or regulatory structure for the UK. When companies have their spreadsheets open, they have no idea how to fill their cells in. That makes it very difficult to invest in the UK.
Yes, I agree with that, but then again I think we're on the same page wrt to staying in the single market, at least for a while so we can agree a longer term deal with the EU and untangle the web of our international trading position which is currently tied into the EU.
You mean, we're in the business of dealing with the Art of the Possible? Rather than shouting betrayal and demanding the moon on a stick.
The choice is not between hard and soft Brexit. Leave campaigned on a prospectus of hard Brexit, Remain warned of the perils of hard Brexit. Anything other than hard Brexit would be disrespectful of the vote. Moreover, it seems pretty clear that there is a consensus across the rest of the EU that freedom of movement must be offered for single market participation.
The choice is between orderly hard Brexit and chaotic hard Brexit. Right now, chaotic hard Brexit is looking quite likely.
Good to see CPI up to 1%, half way toward the BoE's target, and probably a third of the way to when we should finally see interest rates come off the floor and an element of normality return.
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.
Although the Irish government could always - as the Hungarians did with refugee quotas - tell the EU to f*ck off.
And the people of Ireland could have given the same answer again.
And the people of Ireland could have thrown out their government if they tried to keep asking the same question, and replaced them with a more Eurosceptic one.
The risks to May (and the Tories) from Brexit being "too hard" are immense:
Worst case their economic credibility could be destroyed for a generation. They could lose the support of business and many of their donors. They could open the door to a Corbyn government. They could resurrect the LibDems. They could lose Scotland.
The risks from Brexit being "too soft" are what exactly? Whatever is left of UKIP does a bit better in some Labour seats? A few of her backbenchers revert to type?
Provided she can manage Parliament so that the Remainers never end up voting with her own party's headbangers, all the political pressures point to a Brexit that is as soft as possible. And that still leaves the Tories (including the headbangers) the option of campaigning on 'more Brexit tomorrow'.
Even SeanT, of the "Remainers are Traitors" brigade, was advocating yesterday for "soft Brexit"
Given the choice of pissing off millions of voters, or Peter Bone, what is may going to do?
The complication is that Peter Bone and his friends making up 15% of Conservative MPs could cost Theresa May her job, whereas millions of voters won't unless they vote for Jeremy Corbyn, which is unlikely to put it mildly.
The choice is not between hard and soft Brexit. Leave campaigned on a prospectus of hard Brexit, Remain warned of the perils of hard Brexit. Anything other than hard Brexit would be disrespectful of the vote. Moreover, it seems pretty clear that there is a consensus across the rest of the EU that freedom of movement must be offered for single market participation.
The choice is between orderly hard Brexit and chaotic hard Brexit. Right now, chaotic hard Brexit is looking quite likely.
That's my view as well, sadly. As well as immigration, I can see there being howls of outrage if *any* money gets sent to the EU (aside from some one-offs, which might be arguable). After all, that wasn't part of the deal (whatever the heck the deal was).
As I've said passim, I just hope that whatever deal is done, is done quickly.
Good to see CPI up to 1%, half way toward the BoE's target, and probably a third of the way to when we should finally see interest rates come off the floor and an element of normality return.
The most painful time will come for many when interest rates finally return to historic norms of 3-5%.
Ok. Agreed. Though interesting to see what electoral force, if any, will arise to criticise May on that. I tend to think that after a while all but the ultras will be bored with Brexit and just happy that May has delivered what we asked for - whatever it is.
Exactly.
The risks to May (and the Tories) from Brexit being "too hard" are immense:
Worst case their economic credibility could be destroyed for a generation. They could lose the support of business and many of their donors. They could open the door to a Corbyn government. They could resurrect the LibDems. They could lose Scotland.
The risks from Brexit being "too soft" are what exactly? Whatever is left of UKIP does better in some mainly Labour seats? A few of her more awkward backbenchers revert to type?
Provided she can manage Parliament so that the Remainers never end up voting with her own party's headbangers, all the political pressures point to a Brexit that is as soft as possible. And that still leaves the Tories (including the headbangers) the option of campaigning on 'more Brexit tomorrow'.
Suspect at some point May will have to choose between the best outcome for Britain and the best outcome for the Tory party.
Obviously the rhetoric will blur the two, but I wonder which she will choose.
Actually, I think they are probably the same. The difference is between what the Tory Party wants and what is good for 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.
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.
The forecast was for an aggregate diminution in per household GDP by 2030 of £4,300.
Careless with facts, indeed.
Indeed, so the (ex) Chancellor was trying to imply the average household would be £4300 worse off per year by 2030.
I think you mean of 2030 GDP per 2015 household
No. He meant, or rather the NIESR meant that in aggregate (aggregate) there would be a diminution in GDP per household of £4,300 by 2030. Not per year..in aggregate. He divided the lower GDP growth by 2030 vs the non-Brexit scenario by the number of households and got £4,300.
Christ, that is even more limp that it sounded, so he really was talking about £300 or so per year, a pound a day give or take!
The number was still b*llocks though, because, inter alia, they used the 2015 number of households not a projected 2030 number.
Good. We have agreed that the number in the forecast is £300 per year rather than £4,300 per year as per your first post.
Now maybe it was and will b*llocks maybe it wasn't - all those economic thinktanks, you know, make forecasts. It's sort of their thing. And good point about number of households. I doubt those guys would have considered all factors influencing the number of households in order to make their per household forecast.
The choice is not between hard and soft Brexit. Leave campaigned on a prospectus of hard Brexit, Remain warned of the perils of hard Brexit. Anything other than hard Brexit would be disrespectful of the vote. Moreover, it seems pretty clear that there is a consensus across the rest of the EU that freedom of movement must be offered for single market participation.
The choice is between orderly hard Brexit and chaotic hard Brexit. Right now, chaotic hard Brexit is looking quite likely.
That's my view as well, sadly. As well as immigration, I can see there being howls of outrage if *any* money gets sent to the EU (aside from some one-offs, which might be arguable). After all, that wasn't part of the deal (whatever the heck the deal was).
As I've said passim, I just hope that whatever deal is done, is done quickly.
Whatever deal is done is not going to get done quickly. Neither side has anything like a negotiating position yet.
As someone (I forget who, his name will come back to me) pointed out a few months ago, the EU has no track record of concluding trade deals quickly. Britain's relationship with the EU may well take a decade to sort out.
I can see there being howls of outrage if *any* money gets sent to the EU (aside from some one-offs, which might be arguable). After all, that wasn't part of the deal (whatever the heck the deal was).
It really depends what we get in return. If we get a bespoke deal, then people will see the sense of continuing to pay in.
If you want to eat a la carte, you pay a la carte. People instinctively understand this.
Good to see CPI up to 1%, half way toward the BoE's target, and probably a third of the way to when we should finally see interest rates come off the floor and an element of normality return.
There is no particular reason to be targeting inflation at 2% when wage rises are struggling to get above 1.5% - 2%. With benefits capped over the next few years the uptick in inflation will further reduce their value. IFS saying 11.6m families seeing an additional drop in yearly income of £100.
The choice is not between hard and soft Brexit. Leave campaigned on a prospectus of hard Brexit, Remain warned of the perils of hard Brexit. Anything other than hard Brexit would be disrespectful of the vote. Moreover, it seems pretty clear that there is a consensus across the rest of the EU that freedom of movement must be offered for single market participation.
The choice is between orderly hard Brexit and chaotic hard Brexit. Right now, chaotic hard Brexit is looking quite likely.
That's my view as well, sadly. As well as immigration, I can see there being howls of outrage if *any* money gets sent to the EU (aside from some one-offs, which might be arguable). After all, that wasn't part of the deal (whatever the heck the deal was).
As I've said passim, I just hope that whatever deal is done, is done quickly.
Do we think anyone is talking to anyone at the moment, even unofficially? Maybe some officials?
Or is all the speculation about options that are being floated and leaked just to see what reaction they get?
The risks to May (and the Tories) from Brexit being "too hard" are immense:
Worst case their economic credibility could be destroyed for a generation. They could lose the support of business and many of their donors. They could open the door to a Corbyn government. They could resurrect the LibDems. They could lose Scotland.
The risks from Brexit being "too soft" are what exactly? Whatever is left of UKIP does a bit better in some Labour seats? A few of her backbenchers revert to type?
Provided she can manage Parliament so that the Remainers never end up voting with her own party's headbangers, all the political pressures point to a Brexit that is as soft as possible. And that still leaves the Tories (including the headbangers) the option of campaigning on 'more Brexit tomorrow'.
Even SeanT, of the "Remainers are Traitors" brigade, was advocating yesterday for "soft Brexit"
Given the choice of pissing off millions of voters, or Peter Bone, what is may going to do?
The complication is that Peter Bone and his friends making up 15% of Conservative MPs could cost Theresa May her job, whereas millions of voters won't unless they vote for Jeremy Corbyn, which is unlikely to put it mildly.
Yes Minister lives:
Hacker: The public will never stand for an MPs' pay rise when we cut back on nurses and teachers.
Mrs Hacker: Oh, that's a much more serious problem.
Hacker: No, darling, much LESS serious. They can't vote against me till the next election. Backbenchers can do it at 10 o'clock tonight.
Good to see CPI up to 1%, half way toward the BoE's target, and probably a third of the way to when we should finally see interest rates come off the floor and an element of normality return.
The most painful time will come for many when interest rates finally return to historic norms of 3-5%.
That's when people will realise they're not borrowing "£x a month" - rather £y total...
The risks to May (and the Tories) from Brexit being "too hard" are immense:
Worst case their economic credibility could be destroyed for a generation. They could lose the support of business and many of their donors. They could open the door to a Corbyn government. They could resurrect the LibDems. They could lose Scotland.
The risks from Brexit being "too soft" are what exactly? Whatever is left of UKIP does a bit better in some Labour seats? A few of her backbenchers revert to type?
Provided she can manage Parliament so that the Remainers never end up voting with her own party's headbangers, all the political pressures point to a Brexit that is as soft as possible. And that still leaves the Tories (including the headbangers) the option of campaigning on 'more Brexit tomorrow'.
Even SeanT, of the "Remainers are Traitors" brigade, was advocating yesterday for "soft Brexit"
Given the choice of pissing off millions of voters, or Peter Bone, what is may going to do?
Yes. I think the mood on this board as far as I can detect is generally pro soft Brexit. Some are advocating hard in order to get the best soft, which is not irrational.
May has to keep her own headbangers on side for a while yet, if only to reassure the wider party that Brexit does in fact mean Brexit. But if Fox should walk, who would follow him? Same with Davis. Both have form. They'd look petulant rather than principled.
Only Boris remains a possible King Over the Water. I guess May's best strategy - painful as it is to watch - is to let him kerfuffle his way into a mishap. It will happen sooner or later.
This is secondary though. The main task is to keep a steady nerve though multiple negotiating hurdles - right through to the final vote in the European Parliament. UKIP will face a choice - vote for a deal they'll claim they don't believe in - or vote against formal Brexit? He he.
We were talking about Pret a Manger badges a day or so ago. I am being served a coffee as I type by a guy with a little Union Jack flag.
So, doesn't signify language as presumably all Pret attendants can speak English...
It could signify he can speak no languages other than English (showing the typical British approach of being useless at other languages because everyone speaks English).
The choice is not between hard and soft Brexit. Leave campaigned on a prospectus of hard Brexit, Remain warned of the perils of hard Brexit. Anything other than hard Brexit would be disrespectful of the vote. Moreover, it seems pretty clear that there is a consensus across the rest of the EU that freedom of movement must be offered for single market participation.
The choice is between orderly hard Brexit and chaotic hard Brexit. Right now, chaotic hard Brexit is looking quite likely.
That's my view as well, sadly. As well as immigration, I can see there being howls of outrage if *any* money gets sent to the EU (aside from some one-offs, which might be arguable). After all, that wasn't part of the deal (whatever the heck the deal was).
As I've said passim, I just hope that whatever deal is done, is done quickly.
Do we think anyone is talking to anyone at the moment, even unofficially? Maybe some officials?
Or is all the speculation about options that are being floated and leaked just to see what reaction they get?
There was a lot of noise from Bruxelles about not negotiating until after A50, which presumably means lots of deniable discussions and sounding out at happening at the level of officials, at various dinners, and in un-minuted face-to-face meetings.
I had trouble sleeping this morning, and went for a walk. I decided to consider the percentage chances of various options:
*) Hard Brexit: 60% *) Semi-soft Brexit (FoM restrictions + single market access with large payments): 20% *) Soft Brexit (Restricted single market access for some minor FoM changes): 15% *) Remaining in the EU (either via second referendum of parliamentary vote): 5%
The choice is not between hard and soft Brexit. Leave campaigned on a prospectus of hard Brexit, Remain warned of the perils of hard Brexit. Anything other than hard Brexit would be disrespectful of the vote. Moreover, it seems pretty clear that there is a consensus across the rest of the EU that freedom of movement must be offered for single market participation.
The choice is between orderly hard Brexit and chaotic hard Brexit. Right now, chaotic hard Brexit is looking quite likely.
That's my view as well, sadly. As well as immigration, I can see there being howls of outrage if *any* money gets sent to the EU (aside from some one-offs, which might be arguable). After all, that wasn't part of the deal (whatever the heck the deal was).
As I've said passim, I just hope that whatever deal is done, is done quickly.
Whatever deal is done is not going to get done quickly. Neither side has anything like a negotiating position yet.
As someone (I forget who, his name will come back to me) pointed out a few months ago, the EU has no track record of concluding trade deals quickly. Britain's relationship with the EU may well take a decade to sort out.
I think Tusk was saying he didn't expect Brexit to be done in two years. We've been playing down the idea of an extension here because it would require unanimity so any member state could play silly buggers, but generally governments don't like to be blamed for chaos and the EU is good at can kicking.
Then once you've done one extension it gets easier to do the next one, and there's less pressure to get it done by a deadline...
Good to see CPI up to 1%, half way toward the BoE's target, and probably a third of the way to when we should finally see interest rates come off the floor and an element of normality return.
The most painful time will come for many when interest rates finally return to historic norms of 3-5%.
Though when will that happen? I find it very unlikely it will happen even this decade.
The reality is that inflation is only halfway to the target because of the collapse in sterling which was in no small part caused by the Bank of England pledging to slash interest rates and let inflation rise.
If the Bank starts increasing interest rates again even just back to the "on the floor rate" they were at in January, Sterling will start to appreciate and inflation will come down.
We were talking about Pret a Manger badges a day or so ago. I am being served a coffee as I type by a guy with a little Union Jack flag.
So, doesn't signify language as presumably all Pret attendants can speak English...
It could signify he can speak no languages other than English (showing the typical British approach of being useless at other languages because everyone speaks English).
Wouldn't that require an English flag? Perhaps the union flag shows that he could additionally speak Welsh, Gaelic and Ulster Scots?
You mean, we're in the business of dealing with the Art of the Possible? Rather than shouting betrayal and demanding the moon on a stick.
Well, yes. I also think that the biggest threat to leaving is the economy turning to shit before we serve A50 and the longer we dither about the single market the higher the chance for that.
Once we're out of the EU, we're out and there's no going back in. Part of the reason the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit is to try and force a u turn or second vote, IMO.
If the PM said we're going to seek single market membership for a period of 5 years, during which we will use the German method of restricting access to state welfare for newly arrived migrants and pay ~£5bn per year for market access and other favourable programmes, investment taps would immediately turn back on.
We'd have gained sovereignty over 80% of our laws, we'd be diverging from the EU and we'd be free to seek our fortunes outside of a protectionist bloc. Eventually a longer term deal with a bilateral ISDS service would be possible IMO.
The risks to May (and the Tories) from Brexit being "too hard" are immense:
Worst case their economic credibility could be destroyed for a generation. They could lose the support of business and many of their donors. They could open the door to a Corbyn government. They could resurrect the LibDems. They could lose Scotland.
The risks from Brexit being "too soft" are what exactly? Whatever is left of UKIP does a bit better in some Labour seats? A few of her backbenchers revert to type?
Provided she can manage Parliament so that the Remainers never end up voting with her own party's headbangers, all the political pressures point to a Brexit that is as soft as possible. And that still leaves the Tories (including the headbangers) the option of campaigning on 'more Brexit tomorrow'.
Even SeanT, of the "Remainers are Traitors" brigade, was advocating yesterday for "soft Brexit"
Given the choice of pissing off millions of voters, or Peter Bone, what is may going to do?
Yes. I think the mood on this board as far as I can detect is generally pro soft Brexit. Some are advocating hard in order to get the best soft, which is not irrational.
May has to keep her own headbangers on side for a while yet, if only to reassure the wider party that Brexit does in fact mean Brexit. But if Fox should walk, who would follow him? Same with Davis. Both have form. They'd look petulant rather than principled.
Only Boris remains a possible King Over the Water. I guess May's best strategy - painful as it is to watch - is to let him kerfuffle his way into a mishap. It will happen sooner or later.
This is secondary though. The main task is to keep a steady nerve though multiple negotiating hurdles - right through to the final vote in the European Parliament. UKIP will face a choice - vote for a deal they'll claim they don't believe in - or vote against formal Brexit? He he.
Which is why of course May is the perfect person for the job right now. Setting the world alight might not be her thing but as much of the world, both near and far, has the potential to burst into flames any minute, that's probably as good a recommendation for the job as it's possible to get.
You mean, we're in the business of dealing with the Art of the Possible? Rather than shouting betrayal and demanding the moon on a stick.
Two financial people agree on the single market shocker
There are varying degrees of Brexit. My main belief is that we should have an interim - five to seven years - deal, during which we can work out the best long-term arrangement, which would probably not end up with us being in the single market.
Why? Because it is highly likely that, on current trends, we'll crash out into a situation in two years and six months where we have no trade arrangements with anyone. That would be a horrible shock to the UK economy.
A transitional period works for the EU (we'd give them money, they'd sell us cars). It works for us, because we could use it to forge deals with other countries, and it would give businesses time to adjust. And we would have time to work on a comprehensive settlement.
But crashing out into Hard Brexit, with no deals with anyone would be a serious issue. Tell me, Indigo, if you were considering building a factory in the UK or Spain, and in the former case you don't just not know what the tariffs with the EU will be, but with the rest of the world, why would you choose the UK?
Floudering around and heading towards hard Brexit will inevitably end up with business investment slowing sharply. As investment (GCF) is 17% of GDP, that would likely lead to a nasty recession. (As well as making it much harder for us to close our current account in the coming years.)
You mean, we're in the business of dealing with the Art of the Possible? Rather than shouting betrayal and demanding the moon on a stick.
Well, yes. I also think that the biggest threat to leaving is the economy turning to shit before we serve A50 and the longer we dither about the single market the higher the chance for that.
Once we're out of the EU, we're out and there's no going back in. Part of the reason the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit is to try and force a u turn or second vote, IMO.
If the PM said we're going to seek single market membership for a period of 5 years, during which we will use the German method of restricting access to state welfare for newly arrived migrants and pay ~£5bn per year for market access and other favourable programmes, investment taps would immediately turn back on.
We'd have gained sovereignty over 80% of our laws, we'd be diverging from the EU and we'd be free to seek our fortunes outside of a protectionist bloc. Eventually a longer term deal with a bilateral ISDS service would be possible IMO.
I can see there being howls of outrage if *any* money gets sent to the EU (aside from some one-offs, which might be arguable). After all, that wasn't part of the deal (whatever the heck the deal was).
It really depends what we get in return. If we get a bespoke deal, then people will see the sense of continuing to pay in.
If you want to eat a la carte, you pay a la carte. People instinctively understand this.
I really doubt that; or at least, the most important people, the noisy people, will not.
After all, why should *they* (those horrid furriners) get money that should be spent on the NHS / military / HMY Britannia 2 - or whatever they've got hot under the collar about today.
Giving any substantial sums to the EU is unsustainable in the long run as their will always be howls of protest over it - think foreign aid on steroids. It isn't a solid basis on which to form a working relationship with our European partners.
Good to see CPI up to 1%, half way toward the BoE's target, and probably a third of the way to when we should finally see interest rates come off the floor and an element of normality return.
The most painful time will come for many when interest rates finally return to historic norms of 3-5%.
Though when will that happen? I find it very unlikely it will happen even this decade.
The reality is that inflation is only halfway to the target because of the collapse in sterling which was in no small part caused by the Bank of England pledging to slash interest rates and let inflation rise.
If the Bank starts increasing interest rates again even just back to the "on the floor rate" they were at in January, Sterling will start to appreciate and inflation will come down.
Given we're less than three months from 2017, there's not much left of this decade!
Good to see CPI up to 1%, half way toward the BoE's target, and probably a third of the way to when we should finally see interest rates come off the floor and an element of normality return.
The most painful time will come for many when interest rates finally return to historic norms of 3-5%.
Though when will that happen? I find it very unlikely it will happen even this decade.
The reality is that inflation is only halfway to the target because of the collapse in sterling which was in no small part caused by the Bank of England pledging to slash interest rates and let inflation rise.
If the Bank starts increasing interest rates again even just back to the "on the floor rate" they were at in January, Sterling will start to appreciate and inflation will come down.
Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think it is happening any time soon. I am just saying, who ever is holding the reigns of power when that happens, good luck, you are going to need it...The faux outrage over 1% inflation is going to be nothing compared to all those people who have their loaned money structured around unrealistic interest rates.
I can see there being howls of outrage if *any* money gets sent to the EU (aside from some one-offs, which might be arguable). After all, that wasn't part of the deal (whatever the heck the deal was).
It really depends what we get in return. If we get a bespoke deal, then people will see the sense of continuing to pay in.
If you want to eat a la carte, you pay a la carte. People instinctively understand this.
I really doubt that; or at least, the most important people, the noisy people, will not.
After all, why should *they* (those horrid furriners) get money that should be spent on the NHS / military / HMY Britannia 2 - or whatever they've got hot under the collar about today.
Giving any substantial sums to the EU is unsustainable in the long run as their will always be howls of protest over it - think foreign aid on steroids. It isn't a solid basis on which to form a working relationship with our European partners.
Actually, I think the money thing is very easily fudge-able.
Do what the Swiss do, and allow the EU to collect their import duty on goods transhipped through the EU. That'd raise a couple of billion for the EU, and - hey look, no money goes to Brussels!
You mean, we're in the business of dealing with the Art of the Possible? Rather than shouting betrayal and demanding the moon on a stick.
Well, yes. I also think that the biggest threat to leaving is the economy turning to shit before we serve A50 and the longer we dither about the single market the higher the chance for that.
Once we're out of the EU, we're out and there's no going back in. Part of the reason the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit is to try and force a u turn or second vote, IMO.
If the PM said we're going to seek single market membership for a period of 5 years, during which we will use the German method of restricting access to state welfare for newly arrived migrants and pay ~£5bn per year for market access and other favourable programmes, investment taps would immediately turn back on.
We'd have gained sovereignty over 80% of our laws, we'd be diverging from the EU and we'd be free to seek our fortunes outside of a protectionist bloc. Eventually a longer term deal with a bilateral ISDS service would be possible IMO.
I really don't think, or have missed it being reported that "the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit..to try and force a u-turn".
Most have come to the conclusion that to satisfy the British public, a hard Brexit is the only real option on the table. The question then becomes what wiggle room will we find in negotiations with the EU27. I am also interested to see many PB Leavers deciding amongst themselves that we will inevitably end up paying a slug of money to the EU for some concessions. Just like their (your!) EEA preference, this ignores, as @JosiasJessop pointed out, how that would play to Out voters. ie badly!
Most recently this week we had Clegg, Milliband and Herbert arguing for parliamentary involvement in what would, inevitably, be an overwhelming endorsement for triggering A50.
There is a separate question of then do we want a vote on the final shape of Brexit, but that is not the same as not wanting Brexit.
Once we're out of the EU, we're out and there's no going back in.
I don't think that's true. Many of the current leave voters will be dead in 20 years and the eurozone will probably get its shit together sooner or later. And once the EU has an army the British will end up fighting in alliance with it against brown people, which will change the perspective of nationalistically-inclined people.
You mean, we're in the business of dealing with the Art of the Possible? Rather than shouting betrayal and demanding the moon on a stick.
Well, yes. I also think that the biggest threat to leaving is the economy turning to shit before we serve A50 and the longer we dither about the single market the higher the chance for that.
Once we're out of the EU, we're out and there's no going back in. Part of the reason the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit is to try and force a u turn or second vote, IMO.
If the PM said we're going to seek single market membership for a period of 5 years, during which we will use the German method of restricting access to state welfare for newly arrived migrants and pay ~£5bn per year for market access and other favourable programmes, investment taps would immediately turn back on.
We'd have gained sovereignty over 80% of our laws, we'd be diverging from the EU and we'd be free to seek our fortunes outside of a protectionist bloc. Eventually a longer term deal with a bilateral ISDS service would be possible IMO.
I really don't think, or have missed it being reported that "the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit..to try and force a u-turn".
Most have come to the conclusion that to satisfy the British public, a hard Brexit is the only real option on the table. The question then becomes what wiggle room will we find in negotiations with the EU27.
Most recently this week we had Clegg, Milliband and Herbert arguing for parliamentary involvement in what would, inevitably, be an overwhelming endorsement for triggering A50.
There is a separate question of then do we want a vote on the final shape of Brexit, but that is not the same as not wanting Brexit.
Do you really think a one paragraph, Article 50 Enabling Bill would be blocked by parliament?
The choice is not between hard and soft Brexit. Leave campaigned on a prospectus of hard Brexit, Remain warned of the perils of hard Brexit. Anything other than hard Brexit would be disrespectful of the vote. Moreover, it seems pretty clear that there is a consensus across the rest of the EU that freedom of movement must be offered for single market participation.
The choice is between orderly hard Brexit and chaotic hard Brexit. Right now, chaotic hard Brexit is looking quite likely.
That's my view as well, sadly. As well as immigration, I can see there being howls of outrage if *any* money gets sent to the EU (aside from some one-offs, which might be arguable). After all, that wasn't part of the deal (whatever the heck the deal was).
As I've said passim, I just hope that whatever deal is done, is done quickly.
Do we think anyone is talking to anyone at the moment, even unofficially? Maybe some officials?
Or is all the speculation about options that are being floated and leaked just to see what reaction they get?
Yes, they'll be talking. It's what politicians and diplomats do. The questions are whether the talks are meaningful or just dances, if the signals being passed up, and whether they are being listened to / believed.
Once we're out of the EU, we're out and there's no going back in.
I don't think that's true. Many of the current leave voters will be dead in 20 years and the eurozone will probably get its shit together sooner or later. And once the EU has an army the British will end up fighting in alliance with it against brown people, which will change the perspective of nationalistically-inclined people.
Before the referendum I proposed decennial EU referendum, irrespective of the result. Quite a few were in favour then. I doubt the same people would be supportive now
You mean, we're in the business of dealing with the Art of the Possible? Rather than shouting betrayal and demanding the moon on a stick.
Well, yes. I also think that the biggest threat to leaving is the economy turning to shit before we serve A50 and the longer we dither about the single market the higher the chance for that.
Once we're out of the EU, we're out and there's no going back in. Part of the reason the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit is to try and force a u turn or second vote, IMO.
If the PM said we're going to seek single market membership for a period of 5 years, during which we will use the German method of restricting access to state welfare for newly arrived migrants and pay ~£5bn per year for market access and other favourable programmes, investment taps would immediately turn back on.
We'd have gained sovereignty over 80% of our laws, we'd be diverging from the EU and we'd be free to seek our fortunes outside of a protectionist bloc. Eventually a longer term deal with a bilateral ISDS service would be possible IMO.
I really don't think, or have missed it being reported that "the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit..to try and force a u-turn".
Most have come to the conclusion that to satisfy the British public, a hard Brexit is the only real option on the table. The question then becomes what wiggle room will we find in negotiations with the EU27.
Most recently this week we had Clegg, Milliband and Herbert arguing for parliamentary involvement in what would, inevitably, be an overwhelming endorsement for triggering A50.
There is a separate question of then do we want a vote on the final shape of Brexit, but that is not the same as not wanting Brexit.
Do you really think a one paragraph, Article 50 Enabling Bill would be blocked by parliament?
Bonkers.
Eh? I just said that a bill endorsing Article 50 would get overwhelming support.
The choice is not between hard and soft Brexit. Leave campaigned on a prospectus of hard Brexit, Remain warned of the perils of hard Brexit. Anything other than hard Brexit would be disrespectful of the vote. Moreover, it seems pretty clear that there is a consensus across the rest of the EU that freedom of movement must be offered for single market participation.
The choice is between orderly hard Brexit and chaotic hard Brexit. Right now, chaotic hard Brexit is looking quite likely.
That's my view as well, sadly. As well as immigration, I can see there being howls of outrage if *any* money gets sent to the EU (aside from some one-offs, which might be arguable). After all, that wasn't part of the deal (whatever the heck the deal was).
As I've said passim, I just hope that whatever deal is done, is done quickly.
Do we think anyone is talking to anyone at the moment, even unofficially? Maybe some officials?
Or is all the speculation about options that are being floated and leaked just to see what reaction they get?
There was a lot of noise from Bruxelles about not negotiating until after A50, which presumably means lots of deniable discussions and sounding out at happening at the level of officials, at various dinners, and in un-minuted face-to-face meetings.
There are lots of bilateral meetings going on right now: both between the UK and other member states, and between the member states themselves.
You mean, we're in the business of dealing with the Art of the Possible? Rather than shouting betrayal and demanding the moon on a stick.
Well, yes. I also think that the biggest threat to leaving is the economy turning to shit before we serve A50 and the longer we dither about the single market the higher the chance for that.
Once we're out of the EU, we're out and there's no going back in. Part of the reason the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit is to try and force a u turn or second vote, IMO.
If the PM said we're going to seek single market membership for a period of 5 years, during which we will use the German method of restricting access to state welfare for newly arrived migrants and pay ~£5bn per year for market access and other favourable programmes, investment taps would immediately turn back on.
We'd have gained sovereignty over 80% of our laws, we'd be diverging from the EU and we'd be free to seek our fortunes outside of a protectionist bloc. Eventually a longer term deal with a bilateral ISDS service would be possible IMO.
I really don't think, or have missed it being reported that "the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit..to try and force a u-turn".
Most have come to the conclusion that to satisfy the British public, a hard Brexit is the only real option on the table. The question then becomes what wiggle room will we find in negotiations with the EU27.
Most recently this week we had Clegg, Milliband and Herbert arguing for parliamentary involvement in what would, inevitably, be an overwhelming endorsement for triggering A50.
There is a separate question of then do we want a vote on the final shape of Brexit, but that is not the same as not wanting Brexit.
Do you really think a one paragraph, Article 50 Enabling Bill would be blocked by parliament?
Bonkers.
On the CON benches Soubry might vote against, three or four others might be on a train, it'd pass easily though with a big majority.
You mean, we're in the business of dealing with the Art of the Possible? Rather than shouting betrayal and demanding the moon on a stick.
Well, yes. I also think that the biggest threat to leaving is the economy turning to shit before we serve A50 and the longer we dither about the single market the higher the chance for that.
Once we're out of the EU, we're out and there's no going back in. Part of the reason the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit is to try and force a u turn or second vote, IMO.
If the PM said we're going to seek single market membership for a period of 5 years, during which we will use the German method of restricting access to state welfare for newly arrived migrants and pay ~£5bn per year for market access and other favourable programmes, investment taps would immediately turn back on.
We'd have gained sovereignty over 80% of our laws, we'd be diverging from the EU and we'd be free to seek our fortunes outside of a protectionist bloc. Eventually a longer term deal with a bilateral ISDS service would be possible IMO.
I really don't think, or have missed it being reported that "the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit..to try and force a u-turn".
Most have come to the conclusion that to satisfy the British public, a hard Brexit is the only real option on the table. The question then becomes what wiggle room will we find in negotiations with the EU27.
Most recently this week we had Clegg, Milliband and Herbert arguing for parliamentary involvement in what would, inevitably, be an overwhelming endorsement for triggering A50.
There is a separate question of then do we want a vote on the final shape of Brexit, but that is not the same as not wanting Brexit.
Do you really think a one paragraph, Article 50 Enabling Bill would be blocked by parliament?
Bonkers.
On the CON benches Soubry might vote against, three or four others might be on a train, it'd pass easily though with a big majority.
Yes, which is why I think Mrs May has been completely stupid not to table the bill, get it passed, and then have complete cover for negotiations.
I had trouble sleeping this morning, and went for a walk. I decided to consider the percentage chances of various options:
*) Hard Brexit: 60% *) Semi-soft Brexit (FoM restrictions + single market access with large payments): 20% *) Soft Brexit (Restricted single market access for some minor FoM changes): 15% *) Remaining in the EU (either via second referendum of parliamentary vote): 5%
All unscientific.
Given the other terminology, can I relabel "Remaining in the EU" as "Impotent Brexit"?
I can see there being howls of outrage if *any* money gets sent to the EU (aside from some one-offs, which might be arguable). After all, that wasn't part of the deal (whatever the heck the deal was).
It really depends what we get in return. If we get a bespoke deal, then people will see the sense of continuing to pay in.
If you want to eat a la carte, you pay a la carte. People instinctively understand this.
I really doubt that; or at least, the most important people, the noisy people, will not.
After all, why should *they* (those horrid furriners) get money that should be spent on the NHS / military / HMY Britannia 2 - or whatever they've got hot under the collar about today.
Giving any substantial sums to the EU is unsustainable in the long run as their will always be howls of protest over it - think foreign aid on steroids. It isn't a solid basis on which to form a working relationship with our European partners.
Actually, I think the money thing is very easily fudge-able.
Do what the Swiss do, and allow the EU to collect their import duty on goods transhipped through the EU. That'd raise a couple of billion for the EU, and - hey look, no money goes to Brussels!
Possibly, but the hardcore leavers are not thick. They'll see it as money going to the EU, and call for us to have similar import or other duties: we're being robbed!
I'm also unsure the EU would want it. As I think you (I hope!) said the other day, it is important that the EU is seen to have a 'victory' in response to our 'rebellion' in order to prevent other countries from doing the same as us. Hidden payments wouldn't give them that.
You mean, we're in the business of dealing with the Art of the Possible? Rather than shouting betrayal and demanding the moon on a stick.
Well, yes. I also think that the biggest threat to leaving is the economy turning to shit before we serve A50 and the longer we dither about the single market the higher the chance for that.
Once we're out of the EU, we're out and there's no going back in. Part of the reason the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit is to try and force a u turn or second vote, IMO.
If the PM said we're going to seek single market membership for a period of 5 years, during which we will use the German method of restricting access to state welfare for newly arrived migrants and pay ~£5bn per year for market access and other favourable programmes, investment taps would immediately turn back on.
We'd have gained sovereignty over 80% of our laws, we'd be diverging from the EU and we'd be free to seek our fortunes outside of a protectionist bloc. Eventually a longer term deal with a bilateral ISDS service would be possible IMO.
I really don't think, or have missed it being reported that "the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit..to try and force a u-turn".
Most have come to the conclusion that to satisfy the British public, a hard Brexit is the only real option on the table. The question then becomes what wiggle room will we find in negotiations with the EU27.
Most recently this week we had Clegg, Milliband and Herbert arguing for parliamentary involvement in what would, inevitably, be an overwhelming endorsement for triggering A50.
There is a separate question of then do we want a vote on the final shape of Brexit, but that is not the same as not wanting Brexit.
Do you really think a one paragraph, Article 50 Enabling Bill would be blocked by parliament?
Bonkers.
Eh? I just said that a bill endorsing Article 50 would get overwhelming support.
If Britain leaves the EU, it is unlikely to rejoin for a generation at least, unless it does so as a supplicant.
As so often, the unspoken assumption is made that any decision to rejoin the EU would be Britain's choice. The other EU member states would be most unlikely to wish to clasp a viper to its bosom for a second time, having been bitten once.
I had trouble sleeping this morning, and went for a walk. I decided to consider the percentage chances of various options:
*) Hard Brexit: 60% *) Semi-soft Brexit (FoM restrictions + single market access with large payments): 20% *) Soft Brexit (Restricted single market access for some minor FoM changes): 15% *) Remaining in the EU (either via second referendum of parliamentary vote): 5%
All unscientific.
Given the other terminology, can I relabel "Remaining in the EU" as "Impotent Brexit"?
Floudering around and heading towards hard Brexit will inevitably end up with business investment slowing sharply. As investment (GCF) is 17% of GDP, that would likely lead to a nasty recession. (As well as making it much harder for us to close our current account in the coming years.)
I don't disagree with much of that. My main concern is that any interim arrangement doesn't tie our hands of making progress to leave the said arrangement. If for example the requirements to stay in the single market either de facto, or de jure prevented us from negotiating our own trade agreements, it would be very hard to accept. Similarly being forced to be in the customs union. Similarly being asked to keep the jurisdiction of the ECJ over anything other than trade related matters.
I had trouble sleeping this morning, and went for a walk. I decided to consider the percentage chances of various options:
*) Hard Brexit: 60% *) Semi-soft Brexit (FoM restrictions + single market access with large payments): 20% *) Soft Brexit (Restricted single market access for some minor FoM changes): 15% *) Remaining in the EU (either via second referendum of parliamentary vote): 5%
All unscientific.
Given the other terminology, can I relabel "Remaining in the EU" as "Impotent Brexit"?
Great!
Better than 'Flaccid Brexit'............. I'll get my coat
I had trouble sleeping this morning, and went for a walk. I decided to consider the percentage chances of various options:
*) Hard Brexit: 60% *) Semi-soft Brexit (FoM restrictions + single market access with large payments): 20% *) Soft Brexit (Restricted single market access for some minor FoM changes): 15% *) Remaining in the EU (either via second referendum of parliamentary vote): 5%
All unscientific.
Probably about right. Will any of them please anywhere near 52% or even 48%?
Floudering around and heading towards hard Brexit will inevitably end up with business investment slowing sharply. As investment (GCF) is 17% of GDP, that would likely lead to a nasty recession. (As well as making it much harder for us to close our current account in the coming years.)
I don't disagree with much of that. My main concern is that any interim arrangement doesn't tie our hands of making progress to leave the said arrangement. If for example the requirements to stay in the single market either de facto, or de jure prevented us from negotiating our own trade agreements, it would be very hard to accept. Similarly being forced to be in the customs union. Similarly being asked to keep the jurisdiction of the ECJ over anything other than trade related matters.
The Single Market - i.e. the EEA - allows you to make trade deals with who you like. So, Norway has a deal with Canada for example.
If Britain leaves the EU, it is unlikely to rejoin for a generation at least, unless it does so as a supplicant.
As so often, the unspoken assumption is made that any decision to rejoin the EU would be Britain's choice. The other EU member states would be most unlikely to wish to clasp a viper to its bosom for a second time, having been bitten once.
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.
If you think unfiltered democracy (unlike parliamentary democracy ) is a reasonable way to determine our future I suggest you read Plato and her twitter chums. There are some real and serious nutters out there and its infectious. Their judgement isn't safe. We need some checks and balances and in this referendum that didn't happen.
You mean, we're in the business of dealing with the Art of the Possible? Rather than shouting betrayal and demanding the moon on a stick.
Well, yes. I also think that the biggest threat to leaving is the economy turning to shit before we serve A50 and the longer we dither about the single market the higher the chance for that.
Once we're out of the EU, we're out and there's no going back in. Part of the reason the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit is to try and force a u turn or second vote, IMO.
If the PM said we're going to seek single market membership for a period of 5 years, during which we will use the German method of restricting access to state welfare for newly arrived migrants and pay ~£5bn per year for market access and other favourable programmes, investment taps would immediately turn back on.
We'd have gained sovereignty over 80% of our laws, we'd be diverging from the EU and we'd be free to seek our fortunes outside of a protectionist bloc. Eventually a longer term deal with a bilateral ISDS service would be possible IMO.
I really don't think, or have missed it being reported that "the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit..to try and force a u-turn".
Most have come to the conclusion that to satisfy the British public, a hard Brexit is the only real option on the table. The question then becomes what wiggle room will we find in negotiations with the EU27.
Most recently this week we had Clegg, Milliband and Herbert arguing for parliamentary involvement in what would, inevitably, be an overwhelming endorsement for triggering A50.
There is a separate question of then do we want a vote on the final shape of Brexit, but that is not the same as not wanting Brexit.
Do you really think a one paragraph, Article 50 Enabling Bill would be blocked by parliament?
Bonkers.
On the CON benches Soubry might vote against, three or four others might be on a train, it'd pass easily though with a big majority.
Yes, which is why I think Mrs May has been completely stupid not to table the bill, get it passed, and then have complete cover for negotiations.
Quite, especially since the bill could be worded to authorised May to activate A50 at the moment which was most appropriate, rather than forcing her hand immediately.
I can see there being howls of outrage if *any* money gets sent to the EU (aside from some one-offs, which might be arguable). After all, that wasn't part of the deal (whatever the heck the deal was).
It really depends what we get in return. If we get a bespoke deal, then people will see the sense of continuing to pay in.
If you want to eat a la carte, you pay a la carte. People instinctively understand this.
Indeed. The best hope for compromise I feel, is we pay X in and you give us X control back. We get control they get to say it's a worse deal.
Both sides are limbering up at present like two Sumo wrestlers throwing the chalk about and looking big. No weakness to be shown etc (e.g. see Tusk last week). However, there are elections in France and Germany yet before any serious grappling is done.
My fear is that actually the vast majority of Brits are prepared to be flexible and compromise within reasonable parameters (I am, and I voted Leave), with some kind of quid pro quo, but that the EU seems to be talking itself into a position that its structures have all the solidity of a game of Keplunk and that removing one straw even a little bit (e.g. on FOM) will cause all the balls to drop.
They don't seem deep down to have much faith in what they have built. There again as I have argued quite a few times, if you build these institutions over years without express consent of the people (no German vote on abandoning the DM, no vote on the Lisbon treaty for the UK despite the French and Dutch having said no to its first incarnation etc etc) it will eventually come back and bite you.
On topic I was one of the 49.7% in Wales voting no. I accepted it, even though I thought it unwise and still do (it's given UKIP a UK platform as consequence- bet T Blair didn't think of that!). However, it's not worked out that bad in reality so far, and ironically Wales looks like a last bastion of moderate Labour managerial politicians getting on with stuff as best they can (remember them?). How ironic that Wales was only parachuted in to devolution in the slipstream because Scotland was getting it, and yet it's probably worked out here pretty much exactly as Blair saw it working in Scotland - where of course from a Labour perspective it's got totally pear shaped.
You mean, we're in the business of dealing with the Art of the Possible? Rather than shouting betrayal and demanding the moon on a stick.
Well, yes. I also think that the biggest threat to leaving is the economy turning to shit before we serve A50 and the longer we dither about the single market the higher the chance for that.
Once we're out of the EU, we're out and there's no going back in. Part of the reason the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit is to try and force a u turn or second vote, IMO.
If the PM said we're going to seek single market membership for a period of 5 years, during which we will use the German method of restricting access to state welfare for newly arrived migrants and pay ~£5bn per year for market access and other favourable programmes, investment taps would immediately turn back on.
We'd have gained sovereignty over 80% of our laws, we'd be diverging from the EU and we'd be free to seek our fortunes outside of a protectionist bloc. Eventually a longer term deal with a bilateral ISDS service would be possible IMO.
I really don't think, or have missed it being reported that "the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit..to try and force a u-turn".
Most have come to the conclusion that to satisfy the British public, a hard Brexit is the only real option on the table. The question then becomes what wiggle room will we find in negotiations with the EU27.
Most recently this week we had Clegg, Milliband and Herbert arguing for parliamentary involvement in what would, inevitably, be an overwhelming endorsement for triggering A50.
There is a separate question of then do we want a vote on the final shape of Brexit, but that is not the same as not wanting Brexit.
Do you really think a one paragraph, Article 50 Enabling Bill would be blocked by parliament?
Bonkers.
On the CON benches Soubry might vote against, three or four others might be on a train, it'd pass easily though with a big majority.
Yes, which is why I think Mrs May has been completely stupid not to table the bill, get it passed, and then have complete cover for negotiations.
Quite, especially since the bill could be worded to authorised May to activate A50 at the moment which was most appropriate, rather than forcing her hand immediately.
Would that involve the government conceding that it didn't have the prerogative right to activate A50?
I had trouble sleeping this morning, and went for a walk. I decided to consider the percentage chances of various options:
*) Hard Brexit: 60% *) Semi-soft Brexit (FoM restrictions + single market access with large payments): 20% *) Soft Brexit (Restricted single market access for some minor FoM changes): 15% *) Remaining in the EU (either via second referendum of parliamentary vote): 5%
All unscientific.
Probably about right. Will any of them please anywhere near 52% or even 48%?
No. Which is one of the reasons we're in such a mess.
Floudering around and heading towards hard Brexit will inevitably end up with business investment slowing sharply. As investment (GCF) is 17% of GDP, that would likely lead to a nasty recession. (As well as making it much harder for us to close our current account in the coming years.)
I don't disagree with much of that. My main concern is that any interim arrangement doesn't tie our hands of making progress to leave the said arrangement. If for example the requirements to stay in the single market either de facto, or de jure prevented us from negotiating our own trade agreements, it would be very hard to accept. Similarly being forced to be in the customs union. Similarly being asked to keep the jurisdiction of the ECJ over anything other than trade related matters.
The Single Market - i.e. the EEA - allows you to make trade deals with who you like. So, Norway has a deal with Canada for example.
Comments
Right now, businesses have no idea about the tariff or regulatory structure for the UK. When companies have their spreadsheets open, they have no idea how to fill their cells in. That makes it very difficult to invest in the UK.
edit/ and if by some miracle UKIP hasn't died, their winning a few discontented and probably mostly wwc-leaver votes isn't going to hurt her at all.
The narrowness of the margin is, however, highly relevant in the debate about what sort of Brexit we get. Within that overall majority a majority of working people and a majority of Scotland, N Ireland and London voted remain. A politically wise leader might be expected to take that into account and come up with more conciliatory solutions instead of embracing a hard Brea which is almost certainly not supported by a majority of voters. It is difficult not to conclude that the old die-hard eurosceptics are calling the shots now.
Placing all close swing states that are presently in Clinton's column to Trump only takes him to 265 - Nevada, Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida. He requires a state where 538 gives over an 85% chance of Clinton winning on their most conservative "Polls Plus" forecast. The closest is Minnesota @ 86.2%
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gP1RE
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus
Should he keep us in the single market, with FoM?
Thanks goodness that's no longer the case.
Careless with facts, indeed.
Ok. Agreed. Though interesting to see what electoral force, if any, will arise to criticise May on that. I tend to think that after a while all but the ultras will be bored with Brexit and just happy that May has delivered what we asked for - whatever it is.
http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=168882
The media are whipping up faux hysteria again, like when inflation went negative.
Beware cheap imitations
The real question of course is why isn't the Remainer PM arguing for all these things, I would have thought that would have been a much more important issue for you.
I think you mean of 2030 GDP per 2015 household
We shall find out when Hammond triumphs and at least one of the 3 Brexiteers walks
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/rick-wilson-trump-oppo-coming-that-could-end-the-race-make-even-ardent-trumpers-go-whoa/
'The problem is with Cameron not defining what leave means. There was no attempt to have a rational evaluation of leaving, just a choice between status quo or total chaos. '
But Cameron did define exactly what Leave meant,he couldn't have been clearer.
'Cameron: 'I'll pull UK out of the single market after Brexit' - Politico
www.politico.eu/.../david-cameron-bbc-andrew-marr-ill-pull-uk-out-of-the-single-ma...
13 Jun 2016 - British Prime Minister David Cameron interviewed by Andrew Marr on ... he will pull Britain out of the single market if there is a vote to leave the ...
@Yokel was on here last night saying the next revelations would show Trump as a fully owned subsidiary of Russia/Putin. Very juicy if true.
The Brexiteers are huffing and puffing the loudest, but the markets have the biggest clout.
The number was still b*llocks though, because, inter alia, they used the 2015 number of households not a projected 2030 number.
The risks to May (and the Tories) from Brexit being "too hard" are immense:
Worst case their economic credibility could be destroyed for a generation. They could lose the support of business and many of their donors. They could open the door to a Corbyn government. They could resurrect the LibDems. They could lose Scotland.
The risks from Brexit being "too soft" are what exactly? Whatever is left of UKIP does better in some mainly Labour seats? A few of her more awkward backbenchers revert to type?
Provided she can manage Parliament so that the Remainers never end up voting with her own party's headbangers, all the political pressures point to a Brexit that is as soft as possible. And that still leaves the Tories (including the headbangers) the option of campaigning on 'more Brexit tomorrow'.
The sort of odds I have in mind are:
2016 ....... 7/1
2017 .......11/4
2018 ....... 7/4
2019+ ..... 3/1
Given the choice of pissing off millions of voters, or Peter Bone, what is may going to do?
Obviously the rhetoric will blur the two, but I wonder which she will choose.
After all, in the days running up to the referendum, some hardcore leavers on here were getting their excuses in early; how the result had been stolen, the other side hadn't played fair, how there should be another referendum, etc, etc.
As in Scotland, the hardcore indys immediately formed a group and started calling for another referendum; saying the result had been stolen, the other side hadn't played fair, how there should be another referendum, etc, etc.
And as Sunil says in his excellent piece, similar occurred in Quebec.
Perhaps the hardcore leavers should admit that they would be making exactly the same noises that they are complaining about the hardcore remainers making, if the result had been reversed? After all, they had been agitating for a referendum for decades, and had even been prepared to destroy their party's electoral chances because of their dreams. They wouldn't allow a little thing like an incorrect referendum result stand in their way.
The exact same thing they accused the EU of before the referendum, and hasn't happened. Yet ...
The choice is between orderly hard Brexit and chaotic hard Brexit. Right now, chaotic hard Brexit is looking quite likely.
And the people of Ireland could have given the same answer again.
And the people of Ireland could have thrown out their government if they tried to keep asking the same question, and replaced them with a more Eurosceptic one.
As I've said passim, I just hope that whatever deal is done, is done quickly.
Now maybe it was and will b*llocks maybe it wasn't - all those economic thinktanks, you know, make forecasts. It's sort of their thing. And good point about number of households. I doubt those guys would have considered all factors influencing the number of households in order to make their per household forecast.
As someone (I forget who, his name will come back to me) pointed out a few months ago, the EU has no track record of concluding trade deals quickly. Britain's relationship with the EU may well take a decade to sort out.
It really depends what we get in return. If we get a bespoke deal, then people will see the sense of continuing to pay in.
If you want to eat a la carte, you pay a la carte. People instinctively understand this.
Or is all the speculation about options that are being floated and leaked just to see what reaction they get?
Hacker: The public will never stand for an MPs' pay rise when we cut back on nurses and teachers.
Mrs Hacker: Oh, that's a much more serious problem.
Hacker: No, darling, much LESS serious. They can't vote against me till the next election. Backbenchers can do it at 10 o'clock tonight.
May has to keep her own headbangers on side for a while yet, if only to reassure the wider party that Brexit does in fact mean Brexit. But if Fox should walk, who would follow him? Same with Davis. Both have form. They'd look petulant rather than principled.
Only Boris remains a possible King Over the Water. I guess May's best strategy - painful as it is to watch - is to let him kerfuffle his way into a mishap. It will happen sooner or later.
This is secondary though. The main task is to keep a steady nerve though multiple negotiating hurdles - right through to the final vote in the European Parliament. UKIP will face a choice - vote for a deal they'll claim they don't believe in - or vote against formal Brexit? He he.
*) Hard Brexit: 60%
*) Semi-soft Brexit (FoM restrictions + single market access with large payments): 20%
*) Soft Brexit (Restricted single market access for some minor FoM changes): 15%
*) Remaining in the EU (either via second referendum of parliamentary vote): 5%
All unscientific.
Buy to let landlords will be pretty f8cked.
Then once you've done one extension it gets easier to do the next one, and there's less pressure to get it done by a deadline...
The reality is that inflation is only halfway to the target because of the collapse in sterling which was in no small part caused by the Bank of England pledging to slash interest rates and let inflation rise.
If the Bank starts increasing interest rates again even just back to the "on the floor rate" they were at in January, Sterling will start to appreciate and inflation will come down.
Perhaps not.
Once we're out of the EU, we're out and there's no going back in. Part of the reason the former remain side are pushing for the hardest possible Brexit is to try and force a u turn or second vote, IMO.
If the PM said we're going to seek single market membership for a period of 5 years, during which we will use the German method of restricting access to state welfare for newly arrived migrants and pay ~£5bn per year for market access and other favourable programmes, investment taps would immediately turn back on.
We'd have gained sovereignty over 80% of our laws, we'd be diverging from the EU and we'd be free to seek our fortunes outside of a protectionist bloc. Eventually a longer term deal with a bilateral ISDS service would be possible IMO.
Why? Because it is highly likely that, on current trends, we'll crash out into a situation in two years and six months where we have no trade arrangements with anyone. That would be a horrible shock to the UK economy.
A transitional period works for the EU (we'd give them money, they'd sell us cars). It works for us, because we could use it to forge deals with other countries, and it would give businesses time to adjust. And we would have time to work on a comprehensive settlement.
But crashing out into Hard Brexit, with no deals with anyone would be a serious issue. Tell me, Indigo, if you were considering building a factory in the UK or Spain, and in the former case you don't just not know what the tariffs with the EU will be, but with the rest of the world, why would you choose the UK?
Floudering around and heading towards hard Brexit will inevitably end up with business investment slowing sharply. As investment (GCF) is 17% of GDP, that would likely lead to a nasty recession. (As well as making it much harder for us to close our current account in the coming years.)
After all, why should *they* (those horrid furriners) get money that should be spent on the NHS / military / HMY Britannia 2 - or whatever they've got hot under the collar about today.
Giving any substantial sums to the EU is unsustainable in the long run as their will always be howls of protest over it - think foreign aid on steroids. It isn't a solid basis on which to form a working relationship with our European partners.
Do what the Swiss do, and allow the EU to collect their import duty on goods transhipped through the EU. That'd raise a couple of billion for the EU, and - hey look, no money goes to Brussels!
Most have come to the conclusion that to satisfy the British public, a hard Brexit is the only real option on the table. The question then becomes what wiggle room will we find in negotiations with the EU27. I am also interested to see many PB Leavers deciding amongst themselves that we will inevitably end up paying a slug of money to the EU for some concessions. Just like their (your!) EEA preference, this ignores, as @JosiasJessop pointed out, how that would play to Out voters. ie badly!
Most recently this week we had Clegg, Milliband and Herbert arguing for parliamentary involvement in what would, inevitably, be an overwhelming endorsement for triggering A50.
There is a separate question of then do we want a vote on the final shape of Brexit, but that is not the same as not wanting Brexit.
Bonkers.
Are you having a polishing diamonds moment?
I'm also unsure the EU would want it. As I think you (I hope!) said the other day, it is important that the EU is seen to have a 'victory' in response to our 'rebellion' in order to prevent other countries from doing the same as us. Hidden payments wouldn't give them that.
As so often, the unspoken assumption is made that any decision to rejoin the EU would be Britain's choice. The other EU member states would be most unlikely to wish to clasp a viper to its bosom for a second time, having been bitten once.
Both sides are limbering up at present like two Sumo wrestlers throwing the chalk about and looking big. No weakness to be shown etc (e.g. see Tusk last week). However, there are elections in France and Germany yet before any serious grappling is done.
My fear is that actually the vast majority of Brits are prepared to be flexible and compromise within reasonable parameters (I am, and I voted Leave), with some kind of quid pro quo, but that the EU seems to be talking itself into a position that its structures have all the solidity of a game of Keplunk and that removing one straw even a little bit (e.g. on FOM) will cause all the balls to drop.
They don't seem deep down to have much faith in what they have built. There again as I have argued quite a few times, if you build these institutions over years without express consent of the people (no German vote on abandoning the DM, no vote on the Lisbon treaty for the UK despite the French and Dutch having said no to its first incarnation etc etc) it will eventually come back and bite you.
On topic I was one of the 49.7% in Wales voting no. I accepted it, even though I thought it unwise and still do (it's given UKIP a UK platform as consequence- bet T Blair didn't think of that!). However, it's not worked out that bad in reality so far, and ironically Wales looks like a last bastion of moderate Labour managerial politicians getting on with stuff as best they can (remember them?). How ironic that Wales was only parachuted in to devolution in the slipstream because Scotland was getting it, and yet it's probably worked out here pretty much exactly as Blair saw it working in Scotland - where of course from a Labour perspective it's got totally pear shaped.