The confirmation process in the US for Trumps cabinet is a gift that keeps giving. Education sec pick, (another billionaire) says the gun free school zones should be eliminated and local authorities decide i,e, in Wyoming for defence against Grizzly Bears! Also thought there should no federal disability rights for disabled children.
It also seems that Rex Tillerson is not having a smooth ride as nominee for Sec of State. Even people opposed to him expected someone worldly sage. Instead he came across as largely ignorant of security issues, Lied about Exon ever lobbying against various dictators and human rights abusers etc. (for some reason he;d been let off having to swear an Oath over his testimony).
It seems even some Republican members of the committee are wavering.
Then there is Trumps nominee for Sec of Labour (another billionaire, this time fast food). Who has had poor time in the hearings and looks like he might withdraw. It increasingly looks like his billionaire picks are used to be surrounding be Yes men and not used to having their views challenged or having to justify themselves.
The only one of Trump's picks who looks even vaguely sane is Mattis. Tillerson came across as both devious and ignorant.
I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".
It is fair to say many would probably like to punish us. However, there are risks to the EU in doing so as well. I'm not thinking about a small loss of trade here - any punishment the Euro and particularly the eurozone gilts take as a result of Brexit could easily topple the Greek and Italian economies, and there are still unresolved problems in Ireland (who will inevitably be most damaged by Brexit whatever form it takes given their size and location).
The question is whether the ardently Europhile negotiators under Barnier and backed by Verhofstadt will see that, or whether the governments will force them to see it. This could be very tricky all around and end up doing terrible damage if not handled correctly.
That's why in a way it's reassuring that May, who while not imaginative or flexible is at least also not prone to panic or impulse is in charge, rather than somebody reckless like Cameron. I would have preferred Hammond with May as Chancellor, but it's easy to imagine worse fates than we have (Boris...).
Of course, things will brighten considerably all around if that lunatic Juncker is sacked so the grownups can take direct charge. However that doesn't seem likely right now.
Juncker is a peripheral figure. The deal will be dictated by Germany and France, with the other member states using veto threats to get specific concessions. The UK will not walk away.
I think that's right. I think the likelihood of a WTO hard Brexit is considerably reduced by May's negotiating strategy - and that is why sterling has strengthened.
Had she gone for the single market as a priority and then tried to negotiate opt-outs like free movement and much reduced contributions, a WTO ending would have been much more likely.
Reading the change in Sterling as an endorsement is probably over doing it. There were also yesterdays inflation figures pointing to an interest rate rise on the cards, and nervousness over Trump saying the Dollar is too strong. There are a lot of nerves and volatility over reading tea-leaves at the moment.
According to the BBC the reason for the infinitessimal rise in sterling was because it was was wrongly believed that by allowing a vote in parliament meant that Brexit could be reversed
According to the BBC the reason for the infinitessimal rise in sterling was because it was was wrongly believed that by allowing a vote in parliament meant that Brexit could be reversed
I think that is rubbish. The BBC reason that is.
It's a shame Ofcom aren't regulating their impartiality already. The claim is virtually impossible for them to prove/source while being highly political in nature.
I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".
It is fair to say many would probably like to punish us. However, there are risks to the EU in doing so as well. I'm not thinking about a small loss of trade here - any punishment the Euro and particularly the eurozone gilts take as a result of Brexit could easily topple the Greek and Italian economies, and there are still unresolved problems in Ireland (who will inevitably be most damaged by Brexit whatever form it takes given their size and location).
The question is whether the ardently Europhile negotiators under Barnier and backed by Verhofstadt will see that, or whether the governments will force them to see it. This could be very tricky all around and end up doing terrible damage if not handled correctly.
That's why in a way it's reassuring that May, who while not imaginative or flexible is at least also not prone to panic or impulse is in charge, rather than somebody reckless like Cameron. I would have preferred Hammond with May as Chancellor, but it's easy to imagine worse fates than we have (Boris...).
Of course, things will brighten considerably all around if that lunatic Juncker is sacked so the grownups can take direct charge. However that doesn't seem likely right now.
Juncker is a peripheral figure. The deal will be dictated by Germany and France, with the other member states using veto threats to get specific concessions. The UK will not walk away.
I think that's right. I think the likelihood of a WTO hard Brexit is considerably reduced by May's negotiating strategy - and that is why sterling has strengthened.
Had she gone for the single market as a priority and then tried to negotiate opt-outs like free movement and much reduced contributions, a WTO ending would have been much more likely.
Reading the change in Sterling as an endorsement is probably over doing it. There were also yesterdays inflation figures pointing to an interest rate rise on the cards, and nervousness over Trump saying the Dollar is too strong. There are a lot of nerves and volatility over reading tea-leaves at the moment.
According to the BBC the reason for the infinitessimal rise in sterling was because it was was wrongly believed that by allowing a vote in parliament meant that Brexit could be reversed
Well then either the BBC journos are idiots or the forex traders are. Either is plausible.
After Hillary the Democratic base will certainly be looking for a more left liberal candidate to take on Trump, so if Harris runs on that agenda she has a chance otherwise it is hard to see past Warren. However the Democrats will be focusing on the 2018 midterms first to get the best possible platform for 2020
If the democrats are serious about winning in 2020 they'd be insane to offer a candidate who: 1. Is from California or New York 2. Smells of identity politics 3. Looks 'other' to middle America 4. Looks anti business, anti gun rights or anti 'confidence' that America is great - no hand wringing apologists 5. Won't campaign hard in marginal states and spend time in Flyover country.
A left liberal Californian black/Indian woman may tick all the Dem boxes - but would pretty much guarantee a Trump re-election. They face the same dilemma as Labour in the UK - ideological purity or victory?
It is a real shame that Biden almost certainly going to be too old by 2020. But never say never in politics.
And the EU27 will treat the UK (or rUK as I expect Scotland and the 6 counties to depart after a hard Brexit) as a distant relative of which they are ashamed locked away in a lunatic asylum.
May's speech tried to make a virtue out of political necessity, but she's whistling in the wilderness. The EU27 collectively are 10 times more powerful than the UK, so I wouldn't expect the relationship post-Brexit to be any better than that currently between the EU27 and Russia.
But at least there is a level of certainty now: my company, for example, can now start planning to open an office inside the single market and to get it done before the UK leaves the EU. That is very helpful.
That is the single best thing I've ever got (not gotten btw) out of reading PB.
We already do work in Ireland. We'll start planning a Dublin office today.
Well do it quickly. My next door neigbour in France is from Ireland and she says property is going up fast.
Yesterday was the beginning of a complete disaster for the UK. There is now no redemption. We have just fucked ourselves.
I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".
It is fair to say many would ozone gilts take as a result of Brexit could easily topple the Greek and Italian economies, and there are still unresolved problems in Ireland (who will inevitably be most damaged by Brexit whatever form it takes given their size and location).
The question is whether the ardently Europhile negotiators under Barnier and backed by Verhofstadt will see that, or whether the governments will force them to see it. This could be very tricky all around and end up doing terrible damage if not handled correctly.
That's why in a way it's reassuring that May, who while not imaginative or flexible is at least also not prone to panic or impulse is in charge, rather than somebody reckless like Cameron. I would have preferred Hammond with May as Chancellor, but it's easy to imagine worse fates than we have (Boris...).
Of course, things will brighten considerably all around if that lunatic Juncker is sacked so the grownups can take direct charge. However that doesn't seem likely right now.
Juncker is a peripheral figure. The deal will be dictated by Germany and France, with the other member states using veto threats to get specific concessions. The UK will not walk away.
I think that's right. I think the likelihood of a WTO hard Brexit is considerably reduced by May's negotiating strategy - and that is why sterling has strengthened.
Had she gone for the single market as a priority and then tried to negotiate opt-outs like free movement and much reduced contributions, a WTO ending would have been much more likely.
Reading the change in Sterling as an endorsement is probably over doing it. There were also yesterdays inflation figures pointing to an interest rate rise on the cards, and nervousness over Trump saying the Dollar is too strong. There are a lot of nerves and volatility over reading tea-leaves at the moment.
I agree there is a lot of volatility in Sterling at the moment. But there was a 2 cent rise in two hours starting at 11:45am yesterday as May got into her speech. It strongly suggests that her speech and Sterling's rise yesterday are connected.
The question is was it because finally we are confirmed leaving the single market or was it because traders wonder if Parliament will veto A50?
I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".
Of course, things will brighten considerably all around if that lunatic Juncker is sacked so the grownups can take direct charge. However that doesn't seem likely right now.
Juncker is a peripheral figure. The deal will be dictated by Germany and France, with the other member states using veto threats to get specific concessions. The UK will not walk away.
I think that's right. I think the likelihood of a WTO hard Brexit is considerably reduced by May's negotiating strategy - and that is why sterling has strengthened.
Had she gone for the single market as a priority and then tried to negotiate opt-outs like free movement and much reduced contributions, a WTO ending would have been much more likely.
Reading the change in
According to the BBC the reason for the infinitessimal rise in sterling was because it was it was wrongly believed that by allowing a vote in parliament meant that Brexit could be reversed
The vote in Parliament on the deal was a positive as far as I am concerned (voting it down would probably mean no deal at allrather than staying in) in that it does make the decision less autocratic. It also ties the galley slaves to their oars.
Perhaps also a sign of an early election. Having that vote with a 100 seat majority would be a better prospect than a wafer thin majority.
The current average of polls - a 10% Tory lead - would imply a 40 seat majority.
Yesterday the PM said no deal was better than a bad deal.
Today the Brexit minister said
@rowenamason: Parliament won't vote Brexit deal down, says David Davis confidently - alternative would be WTO rules
So he thinks a bad deal would be better than no deal
Erm.....no. Parliament will be offered the chance to approve a deal. If they reject then we leave with no deal. Either way is OK. It's not a Do We/Don't We vote parliament will get. It's a This Way/That Way choice. Assuming we have a handshake with the EU on a deal, I can't imagine any way parliament would vote to throw that away and revert to WTO rules.
I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".
It is fair to say many would ozone gilts take as a result of Brexit could easily topple the Greek and Italian economies, and there are still unresolved problems in Ireland (who will inevitably be most damaged by Brexit whatever form it takes given their size and location).
The question is whether the ardently Europhile negotiators under Barnier and backed by Verhofstadt will see that, or whether the governments will force them to see it. This could be very tricky all around and end up doing terrible damage if not handled correctly.
That's why in a way it's reassuring that May, who while not imaginative or flexible is at least also not prone to panic or impulse is in charge, rather than somebody reckless like Cameron. I would have preferred Hammond with May as Chancellor, but it's easy to imagine worse fates than we have (Boris...).
Of course, things will brighten considerably all around if that lunatic Juncker is sacked so the grownups can take direct charge. However that doesn't seem likely right now.
Juncker is a peripheral figure. The deal will be dictated by Germany and France, with the other member states using veto threats to get specific concessions. The UK will not walk away.
I think that's right. I think the likelihood of a WTO hard Brexit is considerably reduced by May's negotiating strategy - and that is why sterling has strengthened.
Had she gone for the single market as a priority and then tried to negotiate opt-outs like free movement and much reduced contributions, a WTO ending would have been much more likely.
Reading the change in Sterling as an endorsement is probably over doing it. There were also yesterdays inflation figures pointing to an interest rate rise on the cards, and nervousness over Trump saying the Dollar is too strong. There are a lot of nerves and volatility over reading tea-leaves at the moment.
I agree there is a lot of volatility in Sterling at the moment. But there was a 2 cent rise in two hours starting at 11:45am yesterday as May got into her speech. It strongly suggests that her speech and Sterling's rise yesterday are connected.
The question is was it because finally we are confirmed leaving the single market or was it because traders wonder if Parliament will veto A50?
Markets, eh?
Markets hate uncertainty. May removed at least a certain proportion of that yesterday.
I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".
Juncker is a peripheral figure. The deal will be dictated by Germany and France, with the other member states using veto threats to get specific concessions. The UK will not walk away.
I think that's right. I think the likelihood of a WTO hard Brexit is considerably reduced by May's negotiating strategy - and that is why sterling has strengthened.
Had she gone for the single market as a priority and then tried to negotiate opt-outs like free movement and much reduced contributions, a WTO ending would have been much more likely.
Reading the change in
According to the BBC the reason for the infinitessimal rise in sterling was because it was it was wrongly believed that by allowing a vote in parliament meant that Brexit could be reversed
The vote in Parliament on the deal was a positive as far as I am concerned (voting it down would probably mean no deal at allrather than staying in) in that it does make the decision less autocratic. It also ties the galley slaves to their oars.
Perhaps also a sign of an early election. Having that vote with a 100 seat majority would be a better prospect than a wafer thin majority.
I've convinced myself that May is going to call a snap GE after A50 invocation.
That's partly because I think the idea that we're going to put a bow on Brexit by March '19 is wildly optimistic. Who would want to go into a GE20 campaign with EU27 negotiations as background?
Secondly, May is even more vulnerable than Cameron was with such a tiny majority and a fair few disgruntled Cameroons on the backbenches.
Thirdly, the economy is as good as it's going to get for the next few years.
Finally, it's a chance to kick Labour while it's down, without giving the LDs much time to stage a revival (they're undoubtedly going to have one, as the only Bremain mainstream party).
A good reason for Labour to seek to delay the election then!
Juncker is a peripheral figure. The deal will be dictated by Germany and France, with the other member states using veto threats to get specific concessions. The UK will not walk away.
I think that's right. I think the likelihood of a WTO hard Brexit is considerably reduced by May's negotiating strategy - and that is why sterling has strengthened.
Had she gone for the single market as a priority and then tried to negotiate opt-outs like free movement and much reduced contributions, a WTO ending would have been much more likely.
Reading the change in
According to the BBC the reason for the infinitessimal rise in sterling was because it was it was wrongly believed that by allowing a vote in parliament meant that Brexit could be reversed
The vote in Parliament on the deal was a positive as far as I am concerned (voting it down would probably mean no deal at allrather than staying in) in that it does make the decision less autocratic. It also ties the galley slaves to their oars.
Perhaps also a sign of an early election. Having that vote with a 100 seat majority would be a better prospect than a wafer thin majority.
I've convinced myself that May is going to call a snap GE after A50 invocation.
That's partly because I think the idea that we're going to put a bow on Brexit by March '19 is wildly optimistic. Who would want to go into a GE20 campaign with EU27 negotiations as background?
Secondly, May is even more vulnerable than Cameron was with such a tiny majority and a fair few disgruntled Cameroons on the backbenches.
Thirdly, the economy is as good as it's going to get for the next few years.
Finally, it's a chance to kick Labour while it's down, without giving the LDs much time to stage a revival (they're undoubtedly going to have one, as the only Bremain mainstream party).
On the other hand, if May holds her nerve and doesn't call a GE she can give Corbyn time to finish Labour off. If he's defeated now the moderates would have a shot at taking their party back. Time will allow more sane MPs to resign for cushy jobs and Corbyn's gang to change party rules so they're in charge of Labour forever.
I can dream...
How long before new boundaries come in? That's worth 20 or 30 seats isn't it?
Good point. They'd also trigger some interesting selection battles between sitting MPs.
Assuming we have a handshake with the EU on a deal, I can't imagine any way parliament would vote to throw that away and revert to WTO rules.
But the whole point of yesterday was we are prepared, happy even, to throw away a deal and revert to WTO rules
no the point of yesterday was to say what our base position was, same as Verhofstadt hinted at his. They now have to explore any common ground between them.
I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".
It is fair to say many would ozone gilts take as a result of Brexit could easily topple the Greek and Italian economies, and there are still unresolved problems in Ireland (who will inevitably be most damaged by Brexit whatever form it takes given their size and location).
The question is whether the ardently Europhile negotiators under Barnier and backed by Verhofstadt will see that, or whether the governments will force them to see it. This could be very tricky all around and end up doing terrible damage if not handled correctly.
That's why in a way it's reassuring that May, who while not imaginative or flexible is at least also not prone to panic or impulse is in charge, rather than somebody reckless like Cameron. I would have preferred Hammond with May as Chancellor, but it's easy to imagine worse fates than we have (Boris...).
Of course, things will brighten considerably all around if that lunatic Juncker is sacked so the grownups can take direct charge. However that doesn't seem likely right now.
Juncker is a peripheral figure. The deal will be dictated by Germany and France, with the other member states using veto threats to get specific concessions. The UK will not walk away.
I think that's right. I think the likelihood of a WTO hard Brexit is considerably reduced by May's negotiating strategy - and that is why sterling has strengthened.
Had she gone for the single market as a priority and then tried to negotiate opt-outs like free movement and much reduced contributions, a WTO ending would have been much more likely.
Reading the change in Sterling as an endorsement is probably over doing it. There were also yesterdays inflation figures pointing to an interest rate rise on the cards, and nervousness over Trump saying the Dollar is too strong. There are a lot of nerves and volatility over reading tea-leaves at the moment.
I agree there is a lot of volatility in Sterling at the moment. But there was a 2 cent rise in two hours starting at 11:45am yesterday as May got into her speech. It strongly suggests that her speech and Sterling's rise yesterday are connected.
The question is was it because finally we are confirmed leaving the single market or was it because traders wonder if Parliament will veto A50?
I can well imagine the democrats going for another woman the next time but a woman from California? Senators also rarely make it to President. Before Obama the previous was JFK and there has only been 1 other in history.
In contrast Clinton, GW Bush, Carter and Reagan all served as governors. If I was looking for a long shot I would be looking at governors of swing states, probably female, 20 years younger than Hillary or Trump.
I can't imagine they will nominate a women next time around.
Assuming we have a handshake with the EU on a deal, I can't imagine any way parliament would vote to throw that away and revert to WTO rules.
But the whole point of yesterday was we are prepared, happy even, to throw away a deal and revert to WTO rules
You are being deliberately obtuse. We are clearly prepared to walk away FROM THE EU if we aren't going to get a sensible deal but only a 'punishment' act of mutual harm. Then it's WTO. There's no way parliament will walk away FROM AN AGREED DEAL WITH THE EU after we have agreed something mutually beneficial with them.
This why May is happy to let parliament vote. She has precisely nothing to lose.
My first chance to reflect on the Prime Minister's speech yesterday and had I been editing yesterday, the thread title would have been:
"I Theresa - we may need to talk about Brexit"
That's why OGH and TSE have never let STO near editing the site (you need to be an acronym not a human being).
Moving On...
A speech six months (roughly) in the making and to be honest it could have been made any time in the last three months. I shed no tears for the single market in all honesty - my concerns about it aren't the same as many others.
A lot of the "objectives" are platitudes that would be objectives even if we weren't leaving the EU. As far as the substantive ones are concerned, on immigration the devil will be in the detail of the post-EU proposals (as others have pointed out, there are stringent requirements for entry from outside the EU and logic suggests an extension of those to the EU (except Ireland)).
I accept Theresa May is interested in securing workers' rights but the telling phrase for me was "under my leadership" and I'm concerned a post-May Conservative Prime Minister might look at restrictions on workers' rights as part of the competitive "let's make Britain Singapore" agenda. We're already seeing the traditional Union-bashing agenda growing over the current transport disputes in London and elsewhere.
The curious thing about yesterday is where all the Vote Leave so we can join the EEA voices have gone. Are they happy the with way they've been used?
Not particularly. I'm consoling myself that this is merely the opening position.
Whether it's objectively true or not, my perception is that right-of-centre folk are less prone to public rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth when events don't go our way.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
I predict there is a good chance that FoM will have been revised during the negotiations. The French will not wear it any longer either and I doubt they will be the only ones.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
The only debate is who can save us - is it GO, Farron or Nick Clegg's wife...?
How long before other EU countries realise that when we stop massive, unskilled EU immigration the flow will move to them? I'm thinking Holland, Germany, France, Belgium, nordic countries.
Although I voted to Remain I think the EU may be about to become more flexible and fluid than many think.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
The only debate is who can save us - is it GO, Farron or Nick Clegg's wife...?
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
The only debate is who can save us - is it GO, Farron or Nick Clegg's wife...?
George obviously. He's the modern day Sir Winston Churchill.
Brexiteeers = The Appeasers, the Lord Halifax de nos jours
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
I predict there is a good chance that FoM will have been revised during the negotiations. The French will not wear it any longer either and I doubt they will be the only ones.
Could we yet stay in a reformed Single Market?
Interesting comment. Let's have a thought experiment. If the EU moved significantly towards the British position regarding FoM and role of the ECJ plus were open to outside trade deals by individual states then I could see the PM going to parliament saying that the 'deal' is that the EU have changed to accept all our requests and there's no need to leave.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
I predict there is a good chance that FoM will have been revised during the negotiations. The French will not wear it any longer either and I doubt they will be the only ones.
Could we yet stay in a reformed Single Market?
I can see a chance, yes, that the EU reforms FoM and that it slowly dawns on business friendly Tories that we are better off In.
I give it maybe 10% chance, even though it is probably the most beneficial outcome for both us *and* the EU 27.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
The only debate is who can save us - is it GO, Farron or Nick Clegg's wife...?
George obviously. He's the modern day Sir Winston Churchill.
I assume you have watched "the Crown" on Netflix ...
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
The only debate is who can save us - is it GO, Farron or Nick Clegg's wife...?
George obviously. He's the modern day Sir Winston Churchill.
Brexiteeers = The Appeasers, the Lord Halifax de nos jours
Once we've left George can take the mantle from Mrs May - but only once the European question has been settled.
My first chance to reflect on the Prime Minister's speech yesterday and had I been editing yesterday, the thread title would have been:
"I Theresa - we may need to talk about Brexit"
That's why OGH and TSE have never let STO near editing the site (you need to be an acronym not a human being).
Moving On...
A speech six months (roughly) in the making and to be honest it could have been made any time in the last three months. I shed no tears for the single market in all honesty - my concerns about it aren't the same as many others.
A lot of the "objectives" are platitudes that would be objectives even if we weren't leaving the EU. As far as the substantive ones are concerned, on immigration the devil will be in the detail of the post-EU proposals (as others have pointed out, there are stringent requirements for entry from outside the EU and logic suggests an extension of those to the EU (except Ireland)).
I accept Theresa May is interested in securing workers' rights but the telling phrase for me was "under my leadership" and I'm concerned a post-May Conservative Prime Minister might look at restrictions on workers' rights as part of the competitive "let's make Britain Singapore" agenda. We're already seeing the traditional Union-bashing agenda growing over the current transport disputes in London and elsewhere.
As John Major said during the campaign anyone who thinks that John Redwood, Fox, Gove and Farage would spend more on the NHS if we leave is mad (I paraphrase). I think same applies to workers rights, health and safety at work, environmental protection etc etc.
After Hillary the Democratic base will certainly be looking for a more left liberal candidate to take on Trump, so if Harris runs on that agenda she has a chance otherwise it is hard to see past Warren. However the Democrats will be focusing on the 2018 midterms first to get the best possible platform for 2020
If the democrats are serious about winning in 2020 they'd be insane to offer a candidate who: 1. Is from California or New York 2. Smells of identity politics 3. Looks 'other' to middle America 4. Looks anti business, anti gun rights or anti 'confidence' that America is great - no hand wringing apologists 5. Won't campaign hard in marginal states and spend time in Flyover country.
A left liberal Californian black/Indian woman may tick all the Dem boxes - but would pretty much guarantee a Trump re-election. They face the same dilemma as Labour in the UK - ideological purity or victory?
Obama was from Democratic Illinois (Trump is from New York), smelt of identity politics, looked 'other' to middle America, was a civil rights lawyer and professor and pro gun control and won twice. If Pelosi takes the House in 2018 the Democrats will pick a left liberal candidate in 2020
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
I predict there is a good chance that FoM will have been revised during the negotiations. The French will not wear it any longer either and I doubt they will be the only ones.
Could we yet stay in a reformed Single Market?
Interesting comment. Let's have a thought experiment. If the EU moved significantly towards the British position regarding FoM and role of the ECJ plus were open to outside trade deals by individual states then I could see the PM going to parliament saying that the 'deal' is that the EU have changed to accept all our requests and there's no need to leave.
I think, in such an eventuality, Johnson and perhaps Davis would be critical.
Johnson is a joke, and his stock is down right now, but the above scenario is not far off what he suggested should be the UK's strategy.
He could indeed become a statesman yet if he pulled off something like the above, and a shoo-in for next leader/PM.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
I predict there is a good chance that FoM will have been revised during the negotiations. The French will not wear it any longer either and I doubt they will be the only ones.
Could we yet stay in a reformed Single Market?
I can see a chance, yes, that the EU reforms FoM and that it slowly dawns on business friendly Tories that we are better off In.
I give it maybe 10% chance, even though it is probably the most beneficial outcome for both us *and* the EU 27.
Sounds about right. 10%. Still I think this is a remarkably fluid situation and we have FR and German elections to throw into the mix.
I accept May has shot a fox on the Single Market but whose ? She's undoubtedly denied the EU hounds a kill which simplifies and speeds things. But our fox is still dead. The most basic negotiating tactic is ask initially for more than what you'll settle for. If Single Market membership is so delusional as to not be worth an opening bid to be discarded later then why does the line of compromise not just fall further back. The value judgement remains the same. Did we benefit from SM membership ? If not fine. If we did then yesterday was a bad day. There is a bit too much of a Brown/Osborne Budget Day about some of this analysis. The psychological impact of the speech and the press coverage will be forgotten next week. It's the substance we need to analyse. It looks like May has had to sacrifice a piece to open up the board before the other player has made their first move. And yes I know you can't really do that in Chess. Which makes it a worrying analogy.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
I predict there is a good chance that FoM will have been revised during the negotiations. The French will not wear it any longer either and I doubt they will be the only ones.
Could we yet stay in a reformed Single Market?
I can see a chance, yes, that the EU reforms FoM and that it slowly dawns on business friendly Tories that we are better off In.
I give it maybe 10% chance, even though it is probably the most beneficial outcome for both us *and* the EU 27.
So long as we can keep control over agriculture, fisheries, commercial policy and our external tariff...
The curious thing about yesterday is where all the Vote Leave so we can join the EEA voices have gone. Are they happy the with way they've been used?
Speaking on their behalf, I can say that for them, any kind of out is better than any kind of in. Hence although they would have preferred EEA, etc, they would prefer to be out under any circumstances, eg what we have now, than to have stayed in.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
The only debate is who can save us - is it GO, Farron or Nick Clegg's wife...?
George obviously. He's the modern day Sir Winston Churchill.
I assume you have watched "the Crown" on Netflix ...
The curious thing about yesterday is where all the Vote Leave so we can join the EEA voices have gone. Are they happy the with way they've been used?
Speaking on their behalf, I can say that for them, any kind of out is better than any kind of in. Hence although they would have preferred EEA, etc, they would prefer to be out under any circumstances, eg what we have now, than to have stayed in.
Assuming we have a handshake with the EU on a deal, I can't imagine any way parliament would vote to throw that away and revert to WTO rules.
But the whole point of yesterday was we are prepared, happy even, to throw away a deal and revert to WTO rules
You are being deliberately obtuse. We are clearly prepared to walk away FROM THE EU if we aren't going to get a sensible deal but only a 'punishment' act of mutual harm. Then it's WTO. There's no way parliament will walk away FROM AN AGREED DEAL WITH THE EU after we have agreed something mutually beneficial with them.
This why May is happy to let parliament vote. She has precisely nothing to lose.
Punishing ourselves in order to punish the EU is bizarre. I wonder how many people will accept huge public spending cuts and the removal of protections for working people just to stick one on the French.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
The only debate is who can save us - is it GO, Farron or Nick Clegg's wife...?
George obviously. He's the modern day Sir Winston Churchill.
I assume you have watched "the Crown" on Netflix ...
Getting there.
Ep 4 I think - a dark toxic choking fog is enveloping the Uk.....
I don't know if anyone remembers but I did suggest Harris would win her blue-on-blue Senate race. I would have tipped it but there was no market. Not sure about going on though, the position within the Dems at the moment is complex.
The curious thing about yesterday is where all the Vote Leave so we can join the EEA voices have gone. Are they happy the with way they've been used?
Speaking on their behalf, I can say that for them, any kind of out is better than any kind of in. Hence although they would have preferred EEA, etc, they would prefer to be out under any circumstances, eg what we have now, than to have stayed in.
Spot on.
And entirely bonkers.
Out, sans Scotland, sans single market, sans FTAs with anyone apart from NZ --- is the politics and economics of the madhouse.
The market move needs to be seen in the context of a few days' trading, not just yesterday after the speech. In reality yesterday's rise was an overshoot on recovering the losses during the days running up to the speech, simply back to the levels of mid-December. With today's one cent fall already we are pretty much back where we started last week.
I did say before Christmas that despite all the talk of $1.10 it is quite likely the £ recovers from its current remarkably low levels. The trouble with this as a bet is that any black swan from Brexit could easily wipe out any profit, at least in the short term.
Assuming we have a handshake with the EU on a deal, I can't imagine any way parliament would vote to throw that away and revert to WTO rules.
But the whole point of yesterday was we are prepared, happy even, to throw away a deal and revert to WTO rules
You are being deliberately obtuse. We are clearly prepared to walk away FROM THE EU if we aren't going to get a sensible deal but only a 'punishment' act of mutual harm. Then it's WTO. There's no way parliament will walk away FROM AN AGREED DEAL WITH THE EU after we have agreed something mutually beneficial with them.
This why May is happy to let parliament vote. She has precisely nothing to lose.
Punishing ourselves in order to punish the EU is bizarre. I wonder how many people will accept huge public spending cuts and the removal of protections for working people just to stick one on the French.
I'd be happy. Sticking it to the French would make it popular with the plebs.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
The only debate is who can save us - is it GO, Farron or Nick Clegg's wife...?
George obviously. He's the modern day Sir Winston Churchill.
Brexiteeers = The Appeasers, the Lord Halifax de nos jours
So George is going to defect to the Lib Dems over the principle of free trade (single market)?
How long before other EU countries realise that when we stop massive, unskilled EU immigration the flow will move to them? I'm thinking Holland, Germany, France, Belgium, nordic countries.
Although I voted to Remain I think the EU may be about to become more flexible and fluid than many think.
you reckon ?
I suspect the opposite because
1. mainland EU labour law is pretty inflexible, so companies just dont take people on the way UK cos do 2. soicial security systems mean there is no easy way to live subsidised in a country while job hunting
More likely the EU countries will get more "black" labour which will piss off the unions or unemployed easterners will have to stay at home.
After Hillary the Democratic base will certainly be looking for a more left liberal candidate to take on Trump, so if Harris runs on that agenda she has a chance otherwise it is hard to see past Warren. However the Democrats will be focusing on the 2018 midterms first to get the best possible platform for 2020
If the democrats are serious about winning in 2020 they'd be insane to offer a candidate who: 1. Is from California or New York 2. Smells of identity politics 3. Looks 'other' to middle America 4. Looks anti business, anti gun rights or anti 'confidence' that America is great - no hand wringing apologists 5. Won't campaign hard in marginal states and spend time in Flyover country.
A left liberal Californian black/Indian woman may tick all the Dem boxes - but would pretty much guarantee a Trump re-election. They face the same dilemma as Labour in the UK - ideological purity or victory?
Obama was from Democratic Illinois (Trump is from New York), smelt of identity politics, looked 'other' to middle America, was a civil rights lawyer and professor and pro gun control and won twice. If Pelosi takes the House in 2018 the Democrats will pick a left liberal candidate in 2020
Yup - and the 8 years of his disasatrous presidency have utterly ruined the market for all those things. He was a shoe-in in 2008 vs McCain. In 2020 the political market is fundamentally different.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
I predict there is a good chance that FoM will have been revised during the negotiations. The French will not wear it any longer either and I doubt they will be the only ones.
Could we yet stay in a reformed Single Market?
If the EU was still just the original founding members I am pretty certain something could be at the very least fudged. The big problem is now it is 27 with wildly different stances, economies, etc.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
The only debate is who can save us - is it GO, Farron or Nick Clegg's wife...?
George obviously. He's the modern day Sir Winston Churchill.
Brexiteeers = The Appeasers, the Lord Halifax de nos jours
So George is going to defect to the Lib Dems over the principle of free trade (single market)?
No. He's not a dirty defecting rat. Better to stay in the tent pissing in.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
The only debate is who can save us - is it GO, Farron or Nick Clegg's wife...?
George obviously. He's the modern day Sir Winston Churchill.
Brexiteeers = The Appeasers, the Lord Halifax de nos jours
So George is going to defect to the Lib Dems over the principle of free trade (single market)?
Total madness to defect to the libdems to defend a protectionist (inherently so) customs union and regressive agricultural subsidies.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
I predict there is a good chance that FoM will have been revised during the negotiations. The French will not wear it any longer either and I doubt they will be the only ones.
Could we yet stay in a reformed Single Market?
I can see a chance, yes, that the EU reforms FoM and that it slowly dawns on business friendly Tories that we are better off In.
I give it maybe 10% chance, even though it is probably the most beneficial outcome for both us *and* the EU 27.
I think the problem with that - as I have said before - is that it encapsulates a strong degree of arrogance by the British that they think the EU should change to suit them. Why should we be telling the other 27 countries what their objectives and aspirations should be and how they should run their club? Better to accept that we do not share their aims and just move on.
I accept May has shot a fox on the Single Market but whose ? She's undoubtedly denied the EU hounds a kill which simplifies and speeds things. But our fox is still dead. The most basic negotiating tactic is ask initially for more than what you'll settle for. If Single Market membership is so delusional as to not be worth an opening bid to be discarded later then why does the line of compromise not just fall further back. The value judgement remains the same. Did we benefit from SM membership ? If not fine. If we did then yesterday was a bad day. There is a bit too much of a Brown/Osborne Budget Day about some of this analysis. The psychological impact of the speech and the press coverage will be forgotten next week. It's the substance we need to analyse. It looks like May has had to sacrifice a piece to open up the board before the other player has made their first move. And yes I know you can't really do that in Chess. Which makes it a worrying analogy.
There's a difference between SM membership and SM access.
The latter is still on the table.
The EU has made clear that a modified membership was never available, so better to kill it off and move on.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
I predict there is a good chance that FoM will have been revised during the negotiations. The French will not wear it any longer either and I doubt they will be the only ones.
Could we yet stay in a reformed Single Market?
I can see a chance, yes, that the EU reforms FoM and that it slowly dawns on business friendly Tories that we are better off In.
I give it maybe 10% chance, even though it is probably the most beneficial outcome for both us *and* the EU 27.
I think the problem with that - as I have said before - is that it encapsulates a strong degree of arrogance by the British that they think the EU should change to suit them. Why should we be telling the other 27 countries what their objectives and aspirations should be and how they should run their club? Better to accept that we do not share their aims and just move on.
Except that improvement on FoM in particular is actually in the EU 27's interests, else Le Pen, Grillo, etc.
Another way in which members of certain 'communities' find loopholes in UK immigration law, whereas those of us who do things properly get caught up in the bureaucracy.
Anyone who is remotely engaged in immigration matters has know about this for a while. Its based on the Surinder Singh case
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
The only debate is who can save us - is it GO, Farron or Nick Clegg's wife...?
George obviously. He's the modern day Sir Winston Churchill.
Brexiteeers = The Appeasers, the Lord Halifax de nos jours
So George is going to defect to the Lib Dems over the principle of free trade (single market)?
No. He's not a dirty defecting rat. Better to stay in the tent pissing in.
And the EU27 will treat the UK (or rUK as I expect Scotland and the 6 counties to depart after a hard Brexit) as a distant relative of which they are ashamed locked away in a lunatic asylum.
May's speech tried to make a virtue out of political necessity, but she's whistling in the wilderness. The EU27 collectively are 10 times more powerful than the UK, so I wouldn't expect the relationship post-Brexit to be any better than that currently between the EU27 and Russia.
But at least there is a level of certainty now: my company, for example, can now start planning to open an office inside the single market and to get it done before the UK leaves the EU. That is very helpful.
That is the single best thing I've ever got (not gotten btw) out of reading PB.
We already do work in Ireland. We'll start planning a Dublin office today.
Well do it quickly. My next door neigbour in France is from Ireland and she says property is going up fast.
Yesterday was the beginning of a complete disaster for the UK. There is now no redemption. We have just fucked ourselves.
dont be silly Roger, you chappies fucked yourselves 15 years ago when you decided to fill your boots and ignore what was happening elsewhere in the UK
maybe a little time reflecting on why you are here would help. Farage didnt gain support because of his charming personality, he gained support because the Mandelson Campbell mantra of "ignore them they have nowhere else to go" was ultimately shown to be false,
How long before other EU countries realise that when we stop massive, unskilled EU immigration the flow will move to them? I'm thinking Holland, Germany, France, Belgium, nordic countries.
Although I voted to Remain I think the EU may be about to become more flexible and fluid than many think.
Year to June 2016 had 285,000 EU immigrants (gross not net). Unskilled will be a subset of that, and some will still arrive post-Brexit, so the drop will be a subset of that subset. Exclude the poor countries and the rEU population is like 285 million, so we're talking about a 1/1000 increase, even if they were all unskilled and they all stopped coming.
So no, even if the rest of the EU doesn't want these people, stopping them coming isn't going to be a serious consideration in the negotiations.
The curious thing about yesterday is where all the Vote Leave so we can join the EEA voices have gone. Are they happy the with way they've been used?
Speaking on their behalf, I can say that for them, any kind of out is better than any kind of in. Hence although they would have preferred EEA, etc, they would prefer to be out under any circumstances, eg what we have now, than to have stayed in.
Spot on.
And entirely bonkers.
Out, sans Scotland, sans single market, sans FTAs with anyone apart from NZ --- is the politics and economics of the madhouse.
Not at all because I simply do not accept that your view is accurate. They are just the latest in a very long line of Europhile predictions stretching back decades which have proved to be entirely wrong.
Assuming we have a handshake with the EU on a deal, I can't imagine any way parliament would vote to throw that away and revert to WTO rules.
But the whole point of yesterday was we are prepared, happy even, to throw away a deal and revert to WTO rules
You are being deliberately obtuse. We are clearly prepared to walk away FROM THE EU if we aren't going to get a sensible deal but only a 'punishment' act of mutual harm. Then it's WTO. There's no way parliament will walk away FROM AN AGREED DEAL WITH THE EU after we have agreed something mutually beneficial with them.
This why May is happy to let parliament vote. She has precisely nothing to lose.
Punishing ourselves in order to punish the EU is bizarre. I wonder how many people will accept huge public spending cuts and the removal of protections for working people just to stick one on the French.
If you see: 1. Having a UK court as the highest body not a Brussels one 2. Freedom to trade with whom we please 3. Protecting the right of British electors to kick out those who govern them 4. Freedom to manage our own economy, set tax rates etc 5. Basically being an independent nation as 'just sticking one on the French' then you are indeed correct. I'm not sure you really get the concept of self determination.
The curious thing about yesterday is where all the Vote Leave so we can join the EEA voices have gone. Are they happy the with way they've been used?
I asked this on a thread last night.
I got one answer which said that EEA had proven itself to be not possible and was only a transitional point anyway.
@Charles of this parish who I think was an EEAer is now justifying Brexit because "we're just different."
In all seriousness, if we wind up with a (not the) customs union, a workable equivalence regime and some kind of free trade agreement, that's at least as good as if not better than the EEA.
In many ways, the "EEA option" was a useful shorthand to describe a kind of relationship and, importantly, how it might be practically achieved. We now have more clarity on how Mrs May's government intends to approach this, so it's no longer such a useful shorthand; events have moved on.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
The only debate is who can save us - is it GO, Farron or Nick Clegg's wife...?
George obviously. He's the modern day Sir Winston Churchill.
Brexiteeers = The Appeasers, the Lord Halifax de nos jours
So George is going to defect to the Lib Dems over the principle of free trade (single market)?
No. He's not a dirty defecting rat. Better to stay in the tent pissing in.
not so much pissing as non-stop wind.
He'll have some powerful allies outside parliament. City for example.
How long before other EU countries realise that when we stop massive, unskilled EU immigration the flow will move to them? I'm thinking Holland, Germany, France, Belgium, nordic countries.
Although I voted to Remain I think the EU may be about to become more flexible and fluid than many think.
None of those countries speak English, have created millions of surplus jobs in a deregulated labour market, have non contributory welfare systems or had Gordon Brown and his insane state subsidies of low wages via Tax Credits. Or London or our Soft Power appeal. They'll be some displacement but we were a magnet for very specific reasons. We've also no idea yet how much May intends to reduce EU immigration by. The government has already floated excluding Agricultural Workers from the net migration targets.
If you see any adverts for La La Land, take note – it’s a Hollywood musical, not a documentary about our future outside the EU.
But La La Land is what we entered yesterday when Theresa May stood in the gilt-lined long gallery of Lancaster House and disassembled Britain’s membership of the EU, one of the most successful political and economic institutions of modern times.
Appeasing the Brexiteers in May’s party and the small majority who voted to leave the EU has now become the priority over what is in Britain’s best interests.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
The only debate is who can save us - is it GO, Farron or Nick Clegg's wife...?
George obviously. He's the modern day Sir Winston Churchill.
Brexiteeers = The Appeasers, the Lord Halifax de nos jours
So George is going to defect to the Lib Dems over the principle of free trade (single market)?
No. He's not a dirty defecting rat. Better to stay in the tent pissing in.
"anyone who thinks that John Redwood, Fox, Gove and Farage would spend more on the NHS if we leave is mad (I paraphrase). I think same applies to workers rights, health and safety at work, environmental protection etc etc. "
You may be correct, and it's not an unusual view for some pro-EU voters. We need to stay in the EU because those pesky British voters can't be relied upon to vote the way I'd like them to. This results in the wrong government for the UK.
Democracy? How do you spell that?
A Tory hegemony usually results from Labour shooting itself in the foot (Jezza) and the LDs making themselves irrelevant (Cleggy). I'm not sure that the cure is to join a foreign country.
I accept May has shot a fox on the Single Market but whose ? She's undoubtedly denied the EU hounds a kill which simplifies and speeds things. But our fox is still dead. The most basic negotiating tactic is ask initially for more than what you'll settle for. If Single Market membership is so delusional as to not be worth an opening bid to be discarded later then why does the line of compromise not just fall further back. The value judgement remains the same. Did we benefit from SM membership ? If not fine. If we did then yesterday was a bad day. There is a bit too much of a Brown/Osborne Budget Day about some of this analysis. The psychological impact of the speech and the press coverage will be forgotten next week. It's the substance we need to analyse. It looks like May has had to sacrifice a piece to open up the board before the other player has made their first move. And yes I know you can't really do that in Chess. Which makes it a worrying analogy.
There's a difference between SM membership and SM access.
The latter is still on the table.
The EU has made clear that a modified membership was never available, so better to kill it off and move on.
But isn't that what negotiations are supposed to be for?
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
I predict there is a good chance that FoM will have been revised during the negotiations. The French will not wear it any longer either and I doubt they will be the only ones.
Could we yet stay in a reformed Single Market?
I can see a chance, yes, that the EU reforms FoM and that it slowly dawns on business friendly Tories that we are better off In.
I give it maybe 10% chance, even though it is probably the most beneficial outcome for both us *and* the EU 27.
I think the problem with that - as I have said before - is that it encapsulates a strong degree of arrogance by the British that they think the EU should change to suit them. Why should we be telling the other 27 countries what their objectives and aspirations should be and how they should run their club? Better to accept that we do not share their aims and just move on.
Except that improvement on FoM in particular is actually in the EU 27's interests, else Le Pen, Grillo, etc.
You seem to be confusing freedom of movement with migration from outside the EU. Are you sure you are not a kipper in disguise?
My first chance to reflect on the Prime Minister's speech yesterday and had I been editing yesterday, the thread title would have been:
"I Theresa - we may need to talk about Brexit"
That's why OGH and TSE have never let STO near editing the site (you need to be an acronym not a human being).
Moving On...
A speech six months (roughly) in the making and to be honest it could have been made any time in the last three months. I shed no tears for the single market in all honesty - my concerns about it aren't the same as many others.
A lot of the "objectives" are platitudes that would be objectives even if we weren't leaving the EU. As far as the substantive ones are concerned, on immigration the devil will be in the detail of the post-EU proposals (as others have pointed out, there are stringent requirements for entry from outside the EU and logic suggests an extension of those to the EU (except Ireland)).
I accept Theresa May is interested in securing workers' rights but the telling phrase for me was "under my leadership" and I'm concerned a post-May Conservative Prime Minister might look at restrictions on workers' rights as part of the competitive "let's make Britain Singapore" agenda. We're already seeing the traditional Union-bashing agenda growing over the current transport disputes in London and elsewhere.
As John Major said during the campaign anyone who thinks that John Redwood, Fox, Gove and Farage would spend more on the NHS if we leave is mad (I paraphrase). I think same applies to workers rights, health and safety at work, environmental protection etc etc.
If the people don't like what the post-May government does on workers rights, they are free to elect another one, possibly even a Labour one.
The curious thing about yesterday is where all the Vote Leave so we can join the EEA voices have gone. Are they happy the with way they've been used?
Speaking on their behalf, I can say that for them, any kind of out is better than any kind of in. Hence although they would have preferred EEA, etc, they would prefer to be out under any circumstances, eg what we have now, than to have stayed in.
Spot on.
And entirely bonkers.
Out, sans Scotland, sans single market, sans FTAs with anyone apart from NZ --- is the politics and economics of the madhouse.
Not at all because I simply do not accept that your view is accurate. They are just the latest in a very long line of Europhile predictions stretching back decades which have proved to be entirely wrong.
You agreed upthread that any Out is better than any In. You've already given up the single market, and you must concede that the referendum results increase division between Scotland and rUK. And the lack of FTAs is simply calling the reality of the global trading environment right now. @rcs1000 is much more eloquent than me on this.
After Hillary the Democratic base will certainly be looking for a more left liberal candidate to take on Trump, so if Harris runs on that agenda she has a chance otherwise it is hard to see past Warren. However the Democrats will be focusing on the 2018 midterms first to get the best possible platform for 2020
If the democrats are serious about winning in 2020 they'd be insane to offer a candidate who: 1. Is from California or New York 2. Smells of identity politics 3. Looks 'other' to middle America 4. Looks anti business, anti gun rights or anti 'confidence' that America is great - no hand wringing apologists 5. Won't campaign hard in marginal states and spend time in Flyover country.
A left liberal Californian black/Indian woman may tick all the Dem boxes - but would pretty much guarantee a Trump re-election. They face the same dilemma as Labour in the UK - ideological purity or victory?
Obama was from Democratic Illinois (Trump is from New York), smelt of identity politics, looked 'other' to middle America, was a civil rights lawyer and professor and pro gun control and won twice. If Pelosi takes the House in 2018 the Democrats will pick a left liberal candidate in 2020
Dunno, for whatever reason Obama seemed to go down pretty will in the mid-West. Part of Clinton's fail and Trump's advance was probably just Obama's personal appeal there pinging back.
One of the things that helped Obama a lot in the primaries was that when he won Iowa, Democratic voters were able to see that he could actually appeal to white people. Assuming the primary calendar doesn't change, the Dem nominee will need to pull off something similar.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
The only debate is who can save us - is it GO, Farron or Nick Clegg's wife...?
George obviously. He's the modern day Sir Winston Churchill.
Brexiteeers = The Appeasers, the Lord Halifax de nos jours
So George is going to defect to the Lib Dems over the principle of free trade (single market)?
No. He's not a dirty defecting rat. Better to stay in the tent pissing in.
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
I predict there is a good chance that FoM will have been revised during the negotiations. The French will not wear it any longer either and I doubt they will be the only ones.
Could we yet stay in a reformed Single Market?
I can see a chance, yes, that the EU reforms FoM and that it slowly dawns on business friendly Tories that we are better off In.
I give it maybe 10% chance, even though it is probably the most beneficial outcome for both us *and* the EU 27.
I think the problem with that - as I have said before - is that it encapsulates a strong degree of arrogance by the British that they think the EU should change to suit them. Why should we be telling the other 27 countries what their objectives and aspirations should be and how they should run their club? Better to accept that we do not share their aims and just move on.
Except that improvement on FoM in particular is actually in the EU 27's interests, else Le Pen, Grillo, etc.
You seem to be confusing freedom of movement with migration from outside the EU. Are you sure you are not a kipper in disguise?
The two things are interrelated, as those who cite Merkel's asylum policy as the reason we Brexited, intuit.
When I was a student at Edinburgh I thought the Scots seemed a fine and sensible bunch, if a bit lefty. Today we see their national paper thinks: 'the EU, one of the most successful political and economic institutions of modern times Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?
I'm amazed that less that 24 hours after the first speech on Brexit by the PM, we have a 'settled' view on how bad the final deal will be. My goodness I hope none of the doomsayers are planning on conducting any negotiations in the future.
I predict there is a good chance that FoM will have been revised during the negotiations. The French will not wear it any longer either and I doubt they will be the only ones.
Could we yet stay in a reformed Single Market?
I can see a chance, yes, that the EU reforms FoM and that it slowly dawns on business friendly Tories that we are better off In.
I give it maybe 10% chance, even though it is probably the most beneficial outcome for both us *and* the EU 27.
I think the problem with that - as I have said before - is that it encapsulates a strong degree of arrogance by the British that they think the EU should change to suit them. Why should we be telling the other 27 countries what their objectives and aspirations should be and how they should run their club? Better to accept that we do not share their aims and just move on.
Except that improvement on FoM in particular is actually in the EU 27's interests, else Le Pen, Grillo, etc.
Reform of FoM has its own logic in my opinion, powerful political forces happening in parallel to what we are up to. As you say Le Pen etc. The Brussels types will die in the ditch to defend their four freedoms but elected politicians may have other ideas.
In addition, our two year negotiation will happen while the Euro comes under new strains with Greece, Italy, German inflation returning/overheating economy and god knows what issues with Trump's reflation (if it happens) and China's response.
I accept May has shot a fox on the Single Market but whose ? She's undoubtedly denied the EU hounds a kill which simplifies and speeds things. But our fox is still dead. The most basic negotiating tactic is ask initially for more than what you'll settle for. If Single Market membership is so delusional as to not be worth an opening bid to be discarded later then why does the line of compromise not just fall further back. The value judgement remains the same. Did we benefit from SM membership ? If not fine. If we did then yesterday was a bad day. There is a bit too much of a Brown/Osborne Budget Day about some of this analysis. The psychological impact of the speech and the press coverage will be forgotten next week. It's the substance we need to analyse. It looks like May has had to sacrifice a piece to open up the board before the other player has made their first move. And yes I know you can't really do that in Chess. Which makes it a worrying analogy.
There's a difference between SM membership and SM access.
The latter is still on the table.
The EU has made clear that a modified membership was never available, so better to kill it off and move on.
I accept May has shot a fox on the Single Market but whose ? She's undoubtedly denied the EU hounds a kill which simplifies and speeds things. But our fox is still dead. The most basic negotiating tactic is ask initially for more than what you'll settle for. If Single Market membership is so delusional as to not be worth an opening bid to be discarded later then why does the line of compromise not just fall further back. The value judgement remains the same. Did we benefit from SM membership ? If not fine. If we did then yesterday was a bad day. There is a bit too much of a Brown/Osborne Budget Day about some of this analysis. The psychological impact of the speech and the press coverage will be forgotten next week. It's the substance we need to analyse. It looks like May has had to sacrifice a piece to open up the board before the other player has made their first move. And yes I know you can't really do that in Chess. Which makes it a worrying analogy.
There's a difference between SM membership and SM access.
The latter is still on the table.
The EU has made clear that a modified membership was never available, so better to kill it off and move on.
But isn't that what negotiations are supposed to be for?
No, because it was giving a stick for (certain) EU politicians to beat us with.
Now we have taken the stick off them, and said: "look, be the EU, doesn't bother us; trade deal would be in all our interests, but if not, your loss."
This puts the UK back in the driving seat for the negotiations.
When I was a student at Edinburgh I thought the Scots seemed a fine and sensible bunch, if a bit lefty. Today we see their national paper thinks: 'the EU, one of the most successful political and economic institutions of modern times Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?
Nats and a sizeable % of Scots see the EU as the only realistic source of socialism in the near future...
Comments
Today the Brexit minister said
@rowenamason: Parliament won't vote Brexit deal down, says David Davis confidently - alternative would be WTO rules
So he thinks a bad deal would be better than no deal
Markets, eh?
really do you understand negotiation ?
We are clearly prepared to walk away FROM THE EU if we aren't going to get a sensible deal but only a 'punishment' act of mutual harm. Then it's WTO.
There's no way parliament will walk away FROM AN AGREED DEAL WITH THE EU after we have agreed something mutually beneficial with them.
This why May is happy to let parliament vote. She has precisely nothing to lose.
“No deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain”Got it...
My first chance to reflect on the Prime Minister's speech yesterday and had I been editing yesterday, the thread title would have been:
"I Theresa - we may need to talk about Brexit"
That's why OGH and TSE have never let STO near editing the site (you need to be an acronym not a human being).
Moving On...
A speech six months (roughly) in the making and to be honest it could have been made any time in the last three months. I shed no tears for the single market in all honesty - my concerns about it aren't the same as many others.
A lot of the "objectives" are platitudes that would be objectives even if we weren't leaving the EU. As far as the substantive ones are concerned, on immigration the devil will be in the detail of the post-EU proposals (as others have pointed out, there are stringent requirements for entry from outside the EU and logic suggests an extension of those to the EU (except Ireland)).
I accept Theresa May is interested in securing workers' rights but the telling phrase for me was "under my leadership" and I'm concerned a post-May Conservative Prime Minister might look at restrictions on workers' rights as part of the competitive "let's make Britain Singapore" agenda. We're already seeing the traditional Union-bashing agenda growing over the current transport disputes in London and elsewhere.
Whether it's objectively true or not, my perception is that right-of-centre folk are less prone to public rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth when events don't go our way.
I got one answer which said that EEA had proven itself to be not possible and was only a transitional point anyway.
@Charles of this parish who I think was an EEAer is now justifying Brexit because "we're just different."
Could we yet stay in a reformed Single Market?
I would have made a very poor Doctor
1) I go all ponceyboots gaylord over the sight of blood
2) Like Donald Trump I'm a germophobe
3) I'm useless with my hands, my talents are with my mouth.
Although I voted to Remain I think the EU may be about to become more flexible and fluid than many think.
Brexiteeers = The Appeasers, the Lord Halifax de nos jours
I give it maybe 10% chance, even though it is probably the most beneficial outcome for both us *and* the EU 27.
Johnson is a joke, and his stock is down right now, but the above scenario is not far off what he suggested should be the UK's strategy.
He could indeed become a statesman yet if he pulled off something like the above, and a shoo-in for next leader/PM.
Out, sans Scotland, sans single market, sans FTAs with anyone apart from NZ --- is the politics and economics of the madhouse.
I did say before Christmas that despite all the talk of $1.10 it is quite likely the £ recovers from its current remarkably low levels. The trouble with this as a bet is that any black swan from Brexit could easily wipe out any profit, at least in the short term.
I suspect the opposite because
1. mainland EU labour law is pretty inflexible, so companies just dont take people on the way UK cos do
2. soicial security systems mean there is no easy way to live subsidised in a country while job hunting
More likely the EU countries will get more "black" labour which will piss off the unions or unemployed easterners will have to stay at home.
There's a difference between SM membership and SM access.
The latter is still on the table.
The EU has made clear that a modified membership was never available, so better to kill it off and move on.
R (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh (1992)
There have been step by step guides on how to do this for several years, its not quite as straightforward as it looks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjPBp6DOwgU
So no, even if the rest of the EU doesn't want these people, stopping them coming isn't going to be a serious consideration in the negotiations.
1. Having a UK court as the highest body not a Brussels one
2. Freedom to trade with whom we please
3. Protecting the right of British electors to kick out those who govern them
4. Freedom to manage our own economy, set tax rates etc
5. Basically being an independent nation
as 'just sticking one on the French' then you are indeed correct. I'm not sure you really get the concept of self determination.
In many ways, the "EEA option" was a useful shorthand to describe a kind of relationship and, importantly, how it might be practically achieved. We now have more clarity on how Mrs May's government intends to approach this, so it's no longer such a useful shorthand; events have moved on.
But La La Land is what we entered yesterday when Theresa May stood in the gilt-lined long gallery of Lancaster House and disassembled Britain’s membership of the EU, one of the most successful political and economic institutions of modern times.
Appeasing the Brexiteers in May’s party and the small majority who voted to leave the EU has now become the priority over what is in Britain’s best interests.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/thanks-theresa-its-goodbye-european-9642694#ICID=ios_DailyRecordNewsApp_AppShare_Click_Twitter
Does that mean he is wetting himself?
"anyone who thinks that John Redwood, Fox, Gove and Farage would spend more on the NHS if we leave is mad (I paraphrase). I think same applies to workers rights, health and safety at work, environmental protection etc etc. "
You may be correct, and it's not an unusual view for some pro-EU voters. We need to stay in the EU because those pesky British voters can't be relied upon to vote the way I'd like them to. This results in the wrong government for the UK.
Democracy? How do you spell that?
A Tory hegemony usually results from Labour shooting itself in the foot (Jezza) and the LDs making themselves irrelevant (Cleggy). I'm not sure that the cure is to join a foreign country.
One of the things that helped Obama a lot in the primaries was that when he won Iowa, Democratic voters were able to see that he could actually appeal to white people. Assuming the primary calendar doesn't change, the Dem nominee will need to pull off something similar.
Today we see their national paper thinks: 'the EU, one of the most successful political and economic institutions of modern times
Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?
It's come to this - have a look at your life then delete it.
In addition, our two year negotiation will happen while the Euro comes under new strains with Greece, Italy, German inflation returning/overheating economy and god knows what issues with Trump's reflation (if it happens) and China's response.
It's all a rollercoaster.
No, because it was giving a stick for (certain) EU politicians to beat us with.
Now we have taken the stick off them, and said: "look, be the EU, doesn't bother us; trade deal would be in all our interests, but if not, your loss."
This puts the UK back in the driving seat for the negotiations.
Employment rate (for people 16-64yrs) 74.5% for Sep-Nov 2016, up from 74.0% a yr earlier http://ow.ly/92Ax3086UYQ
ONS @ONS 12m12 minutes ago
For Sep-Nov 2016 wages up 2.8% on a year including bonuses and 2.7% on a year excluding bonuses http://ow.ly/92Ax3086UYQ