London manages ok for water. Unless the little Englanders are planning on damming the Thames?
As for food, the little Englanders are no doubt working on self-picking crops but until then it would probably be wiser to secure supplies elsewhere.
Hornchurch and Upminster the perfect place to live, straddling the two as it does?
I am very seriously considering moving to Gidea Park, or possibly Harold Wood (which is still technically London but on the cusp of the rural).
Partly in the hope that CrossRail is going to make them substantially more desirable places to live, but Gidea Park is quite plush for that end of London, and I like the countryside around Harold Wood.
If anyone has any advice on this area then 'twould be gratefully received.
The Exhibition Estate in Gidea Park is lovely, as are the roads that lead to the station from it. Harold Wood isn't nearly as nice, although not as bad as Harold Hill!
"Think of it like a golf club. Once you leave there is no obligation to keep paying."
(Gov source)
He's obviously been spending too much time on the course... Not the golf course but the 'How to lose friends and alienate people' course.
So we are paying them to like us?
No but comparing it to a golf club hardly demonstrates that we have any deep understanding of the importance of the EU to its other members. It just makes us look trivial and offensive.
I'm sure the EU negotiating team is watching PB closely, and that they were deeply offended by that comment.
"Think of it like a golf club. Once you leave there is no obligation to keep paying."
(Gov source)
He's obviously been spending too much time on the course... Not the golf course but the 'How to lose friends and alienate people' course.
So we are paying them to like us?
No but comparing it to a golf club hardly demonstrates that we have any deep understanding of the importance of the EU to its other members. It just makes us look trivial and offensive.
But we won't be members. It can be as important as the other members view it but we won't be a part of.it.
"Think of it like a golf club. Once you leave there is no obligation to keep paying."
(Gov source)
He's obviously been spending too much time on the course... Not the golf course but the 'How to lose friends and alienate people' course.
So we are paying them to like us?
No but comparing it to a golf club hardly demonstrates that we have any deep understanding of the importance of the EU to its other members. It just makes us look trivial and offensive.
I'm sure the EU negotiating team is watching PB closely, and that they were deeply offended by that comment.
It's on the front page of the Times attributed to a government source so I'm pretty confident they'll see it.
"Think of it like a golf club. Once you leave there is no obligation to keep paying."
(Gov source)
He's obviously been spending too much time on the course... Not the golf course but the 'How to lose friends and alienate people' course.
So we are paying them to like us?
No but comparing it to a golf club hardly demonstrates that we have any deep understanding of the importance of the EU to its other members. It just makes us look trivial and offensive.
Oh please, it's just a bloody legal view quoted in a newspaper, after they demanded an exorbitant sum. Are they so sensitive, or is it more likely this is just our government responding to an unreasonable threat? 'You say we owe 50bn, how about 0?' Then they;ll come back with something else no doubt.
You have this odd tendency to make the most trivial of events apparently earth shattering as the EU is apparently the most petty and vindictive institution on earth the way you seem to expect them to react to things.
Oh my god, the UK lawyers used an analogy which trivialized the union, let us faint with horror. It's not like any EU figures have used simplistic metaphors to describe the situation. Oh wait, of course they have.
Maybe Brexit will be a disaster, time will tell, but maybe, just maybe, not every tiny thing is automatically a disaster.
If Sinn Fein do become the largest party/we're back to direct rule, does this increase the threat of Irish terrorism on the mainland?
Or am I stereotyping Irish people the way some people do with Muslims?
The Assembly was shut down for five years I believe in the noughties due to a baffling spy case where IIRC a number of Sinn Fein operatives were arrested on terrorism charges (politically motivated according to Sinn Fein) who then turned out to be British agents all the long. None of the parties wanted it investigated, probably less due to fears of what might be turned up than not knowing what they were supposed to be investigating. Anyway no-one noticed the lack of a parliament. The whole set-up is dysfunctional in normal times l.
"Think of it like a golf club. Once you leave there is no obligation to keep paying."
(Gov source)
He's obviously been spending too much time on the course... Not the golf course but the 'How to lose friends and alienate people' course.
So we are paying them to like us?
No but comparing it to a golf club hardly demonstrates that we have any deep understanding of the importance of the EU to its other members. It just makes us look trivial and offensive.
I'm sure the EU negotiating team is watching PB closely, and that they were deeply offended by that comment.
It's on the front page of the Times attributed to a government source so I'm pretty confident they'll see it.
Oops, my apologies. I thought that MarkHopkins was quoting an acquaintance of his. Still, if they are deeply offended by that they have very thin skin.
London manages ok for water. Unless the little Englanders are planning on damming the Thames?
As for food, the little Englanders are no doubt working on self-picking crops but until then it would probably be wiser to secure supplies elsewhere.
Hornchurch and Upminster the perfect place to live, straddling the two as it does?
I am very seriously considering moving to Gidea Park, or possibly Harold Wood (which is still technically London but on the cusp of the rural).
Partly in the hope that CrossRail is going to make them substantially more desirable places to live, but Gidea Park is quite plush for that end of London, and I like the countryside around Harold Wood.
If anyone has any advice on this area then 'twould be gratefully received.
The Exhibition Estate in Gidea Park is lovely, as are the roads that lead to the station from it. Harold Wood isn't nearly as nice, although not as bad as Harold Hill!
Harold Hill is gruesome, have some friends there. Harold Wood has some nice bits.
A friend in Gidea Park, though not in the Exhibition Estate itself (nearer the horrid Gallows Corner roundabout, but in a rather posh sideroad) did recommend the Exhibition Estate but it may be beyond the reach of my wallet...
I'm not a very townie person, which is the main appeal of Harold Wood to me (wallet aside). I like to be within five minutes walk of a wood or marsh, and preferably both...
"Think of it like a golf club. Once you leave there is no obligation to keep paying."
(Gov source)
He's obviously been spending too much time on the course... Not the golf course but the 'How to lose friends and alienate people' course.
So we are paying them to like us?
No but comparing it to a golf club hardly demonstrates that we have any deep understanding of the importance of the EU to its other members. It just makes us look trivial and offensive.
I'm sure the EU negotiating team is watching PB closely, and that they were deeply offended by that comment.
It's on the front page of the Times attributed to a government source so I'm pretty confident they'll see it.
Oops, my apologies. I thought that MarkHopkins was quoting an acquaintance of his. Still, if they are deeply offended by that they have very thin skin.
Of course, governments, including ours, are I suspect not often as offended by things as they claim to be for diplomatic effect, so the question is will something like this really be something they will feel the need to pretend to be offended by. Given the use of simplistic metaphors is not unique to us in this matter, and it was our riposte to various figures making comments about our exit bill, I struggle to see them working up even made up offence.
Look, Scotland's great. I'm pleased it's there. My mother's Scottish; my grandmother was extremely Scottish. My childhood holidays were to Scotland; much of Scotland lies within the top ten percentile of beautiful places in the world, two of my favourite cities are in Scotland. I have a sentimental attachment to Scotland - indeed, my sentimental attachment to almost all of Scotland is greater than it is to most of Enland south of the Tees-Ex line. But none of this means I need England to be in a political union with it. It's not about to sail off into the Arctic Ocean or close its border. It'll be just as lovely outside the UK. If the Scots want independence, fine. If they don't, fine. It's their decision how they define their country, and England will do ok either way. We'll send a little less money north; we'll lose control of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Both of these are marginal issues.
People feel just as strongly about Ireland as I do about Scotland without feeling that Ireland needs to be part of the UK again. The desire to have a political union with somewhere purely because you like it is daft - like the person who feels the need to buy property somewhere they've really enjoyed being on holiday, despite the fact they won't realistically be able to be in it more than 2 weeks a year. In fact, it's the same understandable but daft emotional response which says that we need to be part of the EU because Venice is lovely.
There are individuals on either side - unionists and nationalists, leavers and remainers - who allow emotional responses to ''abroad' to dictate their views on whether a given political union is desirable or not. It's quite possible to find the continent of Europe wonderful - as I do - and to think that Britain is better off outside the EU. It's also quite possible to find the continent abhorrent, yet believe that there are reasons for remaining. And you can apply the same arguments to how you feel about the union of England and Wales with Scotland and with Northern Ireland.
Political unions are a convenience, not a marriage. We persist with them as long as they are agreeable to all parties.
"Think of it like a golf club. Once you leave there is no obligation to keep paying."
(Gov source)
He's obviously been spending too much time on the course... Not the golf course but the 'How to lose friends and alienate people' course.
So we are paying them to like us?
No but comparing it to a golf club hardly demonstrates that we have any deep understanding of the importance of the EU to its other members. It just makes us look trivial and offensive.
Given it is the Remainers who have spent the last two years using the golf club analogy as an argument against Brexit you are hard in a position to complain when others start using the same analogy.
Look, Scotland's great. I'm pleased it's there. My mother's Scottish; my grandmother was extremely Scottish. My childhood holidays were to Scotland; much of Scotland lies withing the top ten percentile of beautiful places in the world, two of my favourite cities in the world are in Scotland. I have a sentimental attachment to the place - more so than I have to much of England. But none of this means I need to be in a political union with it. It's not about to sail off into the Arctic Ocean or close its border. I'm English, not Scottish. If the Scots want independence, fine. If they don't, fine. It's their decision how they define their country, and England will do ok either way. We'll send a little less money north; we'll lose control of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Both of these are marginal issues.
People feel just as strongly about Ireland as I do about Scotland without feeling that Ireland needs to be part of the UK again. The desire to have a political union with somewhere purely because you like it is daft - like the person who feels the need to buy property somewhere they've really enjoyed being on holiday, despite the fact they won't realistically be able to be in it more than 2 weeks a year. In fact, it's the same understandable but daft emotional response which says that we need to be part of the EU because Venice is lovely.
There are individuals on either side - unionists and nationalists, leavers and remainers - allow emotional responses to ''abroad' to dictate their views on whether a given political union is desirable or not. It's quite possible to find the continent of Europe wonderful - as I do - and to think that Britain is better off outside the EU. It's also quite possible to find the continent abhorrent, yet believe that there are reasons for remaining. And you can apply the same arguments to how you feel about the union of England and Wales with Scotland and with Northern Ireland.
Political unions are a convenience, not a marriage. We persist with them as long as they are agreeable to all parties.
Look, Scotland's great. I'm pleased it's there. My mother's Scottish; my grandmother was extremely Scottish. My childhood holidays were to Scotland; much of Scotland lies withing the top ten percentile of beautiful places in the world, two of my favourite cities in the world are in Scotland. I have a sentimental attachment to the place - more so than I have to much of England. But none of this means I need to be in a political union with it. It's not about to sail off into the Arctic Ocean or close its border. I'm English, not Scottish. If the Scots want independence, fine. If they don't, fine. It's their decision how they define their country, and England will do ok either way. We'll send a little less money north; we'll lose control of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Both of these are marginal issues.
People feel just as strongly about Ireland as I do about Scotland without feeling that Ireland needs to be part of the UK again. The desire to have a political union with somewhere purely because you like it is daft - like the person who feels the need to buy property somewhere they've really enjoyed being on holiday, despite the fact they won't realistically be able to be in it more than 2 weeks a year. In fact, it's the same understandable but daft emotional response which says that we need to be part of the EU because Venice is lovely.
There are individuals on either side - unionists and nationalists, leavers and remainers - allow emotional responses to ''abroad' to dictate their views on whether a given political union is desirable or not. It's quite possible to find the continent of Europe wonderful - as I do - and to think that Britain is better off outside the EU. It's also quite possible to find the continent abhorrent, yet believe that there are reasons for remaining. And you can apply the same arguments to how you feel about the union of England and Wales with Scotland and with Northern Ireland.
Political unions are a convenience, not a marriage. We persist with them as long as they are agreeable to all parties.
London manages ok for water. Unless the little Englanders are planning on damming the Thames?
As for food, the little Englanders are no doubt working on self-picking crops but until then it would probably be wiser to secure supplies elsewhere.
Hornchurch and Upminster the perfect place to live, straddling the two as it does?
I am very seriously considering moving to Gidea Park, or possibly Harold Wood (which is still technically London but on the cusp of the rural).
Partly in the hope that CrossRail is going to make them substantially more desirable places to live, but Gidea Park is quite plush for that end of London, and I like the countryside around Harold Wood.
If anyone has any advice on this area then 'twould be gratefully received.
The Exhibition Estate in Gidea Park is lovely, as are the roads that lead to the station from it. Harold Wood isn't nearly as nice, although not as bad as Harold Hill!
Harold Hill is gruesome, have some friends there. Harold Wood has some nice bits.
A friend in Gidea Park, though not in the Exhibition Estate itself (nearer the horrid Gallows Corner roundabout, but in a rather posh sideroad) did recommend the Exhibition Estate but it may be beyond the reach of my wallet...
I'm not a very townie person, which is the main appeal of Harold Wood to me (wallet aside). I like to be within five minutes walk of a wood or marsh, and preferably both...
Most places round here are very near countryside as well as a station that is 25 mins from London.
I was born in Harold Wood hospital, so its not all bad
Look, Scotland's great. I'm pleased it's there. My mother's Scottish; my grandmother was extremely Scottish. My childhood holidays were to Scotland; much of Scotland lies within the top ten percentile of beautiful places in the world, two of my favourite cities are in Scotland. I have a sentimental attachment to Scotland - indeed, my sentimental attachment to almost all of Scotland is greater than it is to most of Enland south of the Tees-Ex line. But none of this means I need England to be in a political union with it. It's not about to sail off into the Arctic Ocean or close its border. It'll be just as lovely outside the UK. If the Scots want independence, fine. If they don't, fine. It's their decision how they define their country, and England will do ok either way. We'll send a little less money north; we'll lose control of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Both of these are marginal issues.
People feel just as strongly about Ireland as I do about Scotland without feeling that Ireland needs to be part of the UK again. The desire to have a political union with somewhere purely because you like it is daft - like the person who feels the need to buy property somewhere they've really enjoyed being on holiday, despite the fact they won't realistically be able to be in it more than 2 weeks a year. In fact, it's the same understandable but daft emotional response which says that we need to be part of the EU because Venice is lovely.
There are individuals on either side - unionists and nationalists, leavers and remainers - who allow emotional responses to ''abroad' to dictate their views on whether a given political union is desirable or not. It's quite possible to find the continent of Europe wonderful - as I do - and to think that Britain is better off outside the EU. It's also quite possible to find the continent abhorrent, yet believe that there are reasons for remaining. And you can apply the same arguments to how you feel about the union of England and Wales with Scotland and with Northern Ireland.
Political unions are a convenience, not a marriage. We persist with them as long as they are agreeable to all parties.
London manages ok for water. Unless the little Englanders are planning on damming the Thames?
As for food, the little Englanders are no doubt working on self-picking crops but until then it would probably be wiser to secure supplies elsewhere.
Hornchurch and Upminster the perfect place to live, straddling the two as it does?
I am very seriously considering moving to Gidea Park, or possibly Harold Wood (which is still technically London but on the cusp of the rural).
Partly in the hope that CrossRail is going to make them substantially more desirable places to live, but Gidea Park is quite plush for that end of London, and I like the countryside around Harold Wood.
If anyone has any advice on this area then 'twould be gratefully received.
The Exhibition Estate in Gidea Park is lovely, as are the roads that lead to the station from it. Harold Wood isn't nearly as nice, although not as bad as Harold Hill!
Harold Hill is gruesome, have some friends there. Harold Wood has some nice bits.
A friend in Gidea Park, though not in the Exhibition Estate itself (nearer the horrid Gallows Corner roundabout, but in a rather posh sideroad) did recommend the Exhibition Estate but it may be beyond the reach of my wallet...
I'm not a very townie person, which is the main appeal of Harold Wood to me (wallet aside). I like to be within five minutes walk of a wood or marsh, and preferably both...
The first time I've heard of someone wanting to be within 5 minutes of a marsh. Fair enough - you get your countryside where you can, I suppose.
Actually, while I habitually deride London with all the Mancunian chippiness I can muster, I will say this for it: for a city of 8 million people, it's pretty bucolic. It's not Kesiwck, obviously - it's not even Sheffield - but for a city of its size, it's surprising the extent to which you can escape the urban. The north's still better, obviously.
Its interesting how little you need to donate to become a political bigshot.
A few million has given Banks enormous prominence.
From memory, Banks donated about nine million quid to the Brexit campaign. That's a shedload of money. I heartily dislike him (he comes across as a bit too handy with his fists) but few people can donate nine million without wincing and that amount of money can't be described as "a little"
On the €60 billion demand from the EU, the UK is not realistically going to walk away from an agreement with the EU. It really won't. And certainly not over an amount of money that is less than 10% of one year's national budget. Sensible sequencing would go something like this:
The EU demands €60 billion severance. The UK says no. The EU says you can pay it down as part of the transition arrangement. The UK says no. The EU says then there won't be a transition. The two parties put both those to one side and get on with negotiating other terms. They then agree a transition and a transition fee close to our previous net contribution of £8 billion a year. The UK government announces it got a good deal with no severance fees and ongoing fees half what they were before (i.e.the gross amount). This frees up £10 billion or so that can be spent on UK priorities and here's our programme. The EU gets a formal obligation for a specific amount of money
On the €60 billion demand from the EU, the UK is not realistically going to walk away from an agreement with the EU. It really won't. And certainly not over an amount of money that is less than 1% of one year's national budget. Sensible sequencing would go something like this:
The EU demands €60 billion severance. The UK says no. The EU says you can pay it down as part of the transition arrangement. The UK says no. The EU says then there won't be a transition. The two parties put both those to one side and get on with negotiating other terms. They then agree a transition and a transition fee close to our previous net contribution of £8 billion a year. The UK government announces it got a good deal with no severance fees and ongoing fees half what they were before (i.e.the gross amount). This frees up £10 billion or so that can be spent on UK priorities and here's our programme. The EU gets a formal obligation for a specific amount of money
You think the EU won't budge at all on the figure? Let's hope the UK negotiators aren't that incompetent.
Its interesting how little you need to donate to become a political bigshot.
A few million has given Banks enormous prominence.
From memory, Banks donated about nine million quid to the Brexit campaign. That's a shedload of money. I heartily dislike him (he comes across as a bit too handy with his fists) but few people can donate nine million without wincing and that amount of money can't be described as "a little"
According to wiki it was £4m to Leave.EU and another million to UKIP.
On the €60 billion demand from the EU, the UK is not realistically going to walk away from an agreement with the EU. It really won't. And certainly not over an amount of money that is less than 1% of one year's national budget. Sensible sequencing would go something like this:
The EU demands €60 billion severance. The UK says no. The EU says you can pay it down as part of the transition arrangement. The UK says no. The EU says then there won't be a transition. The two parties put both those to one side and get on with negotiating other terms. They then agree a transition and a transition fee close to our previous net contribution of £8 billion a year. The UK government announces it got a good deal with no severance fees and ongoing fees half what they were before (i.e.the gross amount). This frees up £10 billion or so that can be spent on UK priorities and here's our programme. The EU gets a formal obligation for a specific amount of money
You think the EU won't budge at all on the figure? Let's hope the UK negotiators aren't that incompetent.
Has anyone said what this EUR60bn is for ?
The only suggestion I've heard is that its for future pension obligations for British Eurocrats.
Now even if Britain has an obligation for that its clearly not an upfront commitment but something which would need to be paid over the next 70 or so years.
London manages ok for water. Unless the little Englanders are planning on damming the Thames?
As for food, the little Englanders are no doubt working on self-picking crops but until then it would probably be wiser to secure supplies elsewhere.
Hornchurch and Upminster the perfect place to live, straddling the two as it does?
I am very seriously considering moving to Gidea Park, or possibly Harold Wood (which is still technically London but on the cusp of the rural).
Partly in the hope that CrossRail is going to make them substantially more desirable places to live, but Gidea Park is quite plush for that end of London, and I like the countryside around Harold Wood.
If anyone has any advice on this area then 'twould be gratefully received.
The Exhibition Estate in Gidea Park is lovely, as are the roads that lead to the station from it. Harold Wood isn't nearly as nice, although not as bad as Harold Hill!
Harold Hill is gruesome, have some friends there. Harold Wood has some nice bits.
A friend in Gidea Park, though not in the Exhibition Estate itself (nearer the horrid Gallows Corner roundabout, but in a rather posh sideroad) did recommend the Exhibition Estate but it may be beyond the reach of my wallet...
I'm not a very townie person, which is the main appeal of Harold Wood to me (wallet aside). I like to be within five minutes walk of a wood or marsh, and preferably both...
The first time I've heard of someone wanting to be within 5 minutes of a marsh. Fair enough - you get your countryside where you can, I suppose.
Actually, while I habitually deride London with all the Mancunian chippiness I can muster, I will say this for it: for a city of 8 million people, it's pretty bucolic. It's not Kesiwck, obviously - it's not even Sheffield - but for a city of its size, it's surprising the extent to which you can escape the urban. The north's still better, obviously.
I like a bit of marsh. Can be haunting. But can also be very pretty. Good for the birdsong and a wide sky.
You have this odd tendency to make the most trivial of events apparently earth shattering as the EU is apparently the most petty and vindictive institution on earth the way you seem to expect them to react to things.
And, of course, if the EU *is* so petty and vindictive, it's an organisation we should want no part of.
Independent Scotland would likely be in NATO, and we would undoubtedly cooperate on defence issues.
Stationing RAF bases on the north coast? Allowing undersea cables to come onshore? Routine military access thru airspace? Scotland's 250 miles long, and that's an extra 500 miles/45mins on an North Atlantic patrol. North Sea patrols to intercept Russian aircraft would still be OK - we could station Typhoons near Berwick - but the trick for Atlantic patrols is long loiter time, and the extra distance/time would bite.
On the €60 billion demand from the EU, the UK is not realistically going to walk away from an agreement with the EU. It really won't. And certainly not over an amount of money that is less than 1% of one year's national budget. Sensible sequencing would go something like this:
The EU demands €60 billion severance. The UK says no. The EU says you can pay it down as part of the transition arrangement. The UK says no. The EU says then there won't be a transition. The two parties put both those to one side and get on with negotiating other terms. They then agree a transition and a transition fee close to our previous net contribution of £8 billion a year. The UK government announces it got a good deal with no severance fees and ongoing fees half what they were before (i.e.the gross amount). This frees up £10 billion or so that can be spent on UK priorities and here's our programme. The EU gets a formal obligation for a specific amount of money
You think the EU won't budge at all on the figure? Let's hope the UK negotiators aren't that incompetent.
Sorry 10%. The UK government will be more concerned with the yearly fee I suspect. How you pay will be more important to them than what you pay. But yeah, money is there to be haggled over.
It looks like with STV that strategy won't work . Here there is something like a 27 to 22 majority for 1st prefs to nationalist parties rather than unionist ones. So 3 seats to 2 works out about right. Though still perhaps some tactical voting possible by unionist second pref for SDLP rather than SF?
On the €60 billion demand from the EU, the UK is not realistically going to walk away from an agreement with the EU. It really won't. And certainly not over an amount of money that is less than 1% of one year's national budget. Sensible sequencing would go something like this:
The EU demands €60 billion severance. The UK says no. The EU says you can pay it down as part of the transition arrangement. The UK says no. The EU says then there won't be a transition. The two parties put both those to one side and get on with negotiating other terms. They then agree a transition and a transition fee close to our previous net contribution of £8 billion a year. The UK government announces it got a good deal with no severance fees and ongoing fees half what they were before (i.e.the gross amount). This frees up £10 billion or so that can be spent on UK priorities and here's our programme. The EU gets a formal obligation for a specific amount of money
You think the EU won't budge at all on the figure? Let's hope the UK negotiators aren't that incompetent.
Has anyone said what this EUR60bn is for ?
The only suggestion I've heard is that its for future pension obligations for British Eurocrats.
Now even if Britain has an obligation for that its clearly not an upfront commitment but something which would need to be paid over the next 70 or so years.
The Economist did a piece on it. Pensions make up less than €10bn of the €60bn.
The vast bulk of the sum is basically the EU demanding that since we agreed to a seven year budget already that we continue to pay for our share of that which has been budgeted even if we are no longer members since we'd agreed to the budget pre-Brexit.
Surely NI elections are a bigger political story than this ?
Yes. But I've been at the hospital most of the day and haven't been following it
Best wishes to you from D and me Mike. The NHS is a gem and needs support. That's not to say, though, that a member of the royal family wouldn't have had near instant treatment.
London manages ok for water. Unless the little Englanders are planning on damming the Thames?
As for food, the little Englanders are no doubt working on self-picking crops but until then it would probably be wiser to secure supplies elsewhere.
Hornchurch and Upminster the perfect place to live, straddling the two as it does?
I am very seriously considering moving to Gidea Park, or possibly Harold Wood (which is still technically London but on the cusp of the rural).
Partly in the hope that CrossRail is going to make them substantially more desirable places to live, but Gidea Park is quite plush for that end of London, and I like the countryside around Harold Wood.
If anyone has any advice on this area then 'twould be gratefully received.
The Exhibition Estate in Gidea Park is lovely, as are the roads that lead to the station from it. Harold Wood isn't nearly as nice, although not as bad as Harold Hill!
Harold Hill is gruesome, have some friends there. Harold Wood has some nice bits.
A friend in Gidea Park, though not in the Exhibition Estate itself (nearer the horrid Gallows Corner roundabout, but in a rather posh sideroad) did recommend the Exhibition Estate but it may be beyond the reach of my wallet...
I'm not a very townie person, which is the main appeal of Harold Wood to me (wallet aside). I like to be within five minutes walk of a wood or marsh, and preferably both...
The first time I've heard of someone wanting to be within 5 minutes of a marsh. Fair enough - you get your countryside where you can, I suppose.
Actually, while I habitually deride London with all the Mancunian chippiness I can muster, I will say this for it: for a city of 8 million people, it's pretty bucolic. It's not Kesiwck, obviously - it's not even Sheffield - but for a city of its size, it's surprising the extent to which you can escape the urban. The north's still better, obviously.
I like a bit of marsh. Can be haunting. But can also be very pretty. Good for the birdsong and a wide sky.
You could try Pitsea. One of the more attractive bits of Basildon. Got a country park (called the Wat Tyler) and the marina with National Motor Boat Museum, too.
Actually, while I habitually deride London with all the Mancunian chippiness I can muster, I will say this for it: for a city of 8 million people, it's pretty bucolic. It's not Kesiwck, obviously - it's not even Sheffield - but for a city of its size, it's surprising the extent to which you can escape the urban. The north's still better, obviously.
I like other parts of the country too - am also considering moving back to East Yorkshire or East Anglia - but that will probably be retirement project. London just has a very strong economic pull atm.
On the €60 billion demand from the EU, the UK is not realistically going to walk away from an agreement with the EU. It really won't. And certainly not over an amount of money that is less than 1% of one year's national budget. Sensible sequencing would go something like this:
The EU demands €60 billion severance. The UK says no. The EU says you can pay it down as part of the transition arrangement. The UK says no. The EU says then there won't be a transition. The two parties put both those to one side and get on with negotiating other terms. They then agree a transition and a transition fee close to our previous net contribution of £8 billion a year. The UK government announces it got a good deal with no severance fees and ongoing fees half what they were before (i.e.the gross amount). This frees up £10 billion or so that can be spent on UK priorities and here's our programme. The EU gets a formal obligation for a specific amount of money
You think the EU won't budge at all on the figure? Let's hope the UK negotiators aren't that incompetent.
Has anyone said what this EUR60bn is for ?
The only suggestion I've heard is that its for future pension obligations for British Eurocrats.
Now even if Britain has an obligation for that its clearly not an upfront commitment but something which would need to be paid over the next 70 or so years.
The Economist did a piece on it. Pensions make up less than €10bn of the €60bn.
The vast bulk of the sum is basically the EU demanding that since we agreed to a seven year budget already that we continue to pay for our share of that which has been budgeted even if we are no longer members since we'd agreed to the budget pre-Brexit.
Look, Scotland's great. I'm pleased it's there. My mother's Scottish; my grandmother was extremely Scottish. My childhood holidays were to Scotland; much of Scotland lies within the top ten percentile of beautiful places in the world, two of my favourite cities are in Scotland. I have a sentimental attachment to Scotland - indeed, my sentimental attachment to almost all of Scotland is greater than it is to most of Enland south of the Tees-Ex line. But none of this means I need England to be in a political union with it. It's not about to sail off into the Arctic Ocean or close its border. It'll be just as lovely outside the UK. If the Scots want independence, fine. If they don't, fine. It's their decision how they define their country, and England will do ok either way. We'll send a little less money north; we'll lose control of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Both of these are marginal issues.
People feel just as strongly about Ireland as I do about Scotland without feeling that Ireland needs to be part of the UK again. The desire to have a political union with somewhere purely because you like it is daft - like the person who feels the need to buy property somewhere they've really enjoyed being on holiday, despite the fact they won't realistically be able to be in it more than 2 weeks a year. In fact, it's the same understandable but daft emotional response which says that we need to be part of the EU because Venice is lovely.
There are individuals on either side - unionists and nationalists, leavers and remainers - who allow emotional responses to ''abroad' to dictate their views on whether a given political union is desirable or not. It's quite possible to find the continent of Europe wonderful - as I do - and to think that Britain is better off outside the EU. It's also quite possible to find the continent abhorrent, yet believe that there are reasons for remaining. And you can apply the same arguments to how you feel about the union of England and Wales with Scotland and with Northern Ireland.
Political unions are a convenience, not a marriage. We persist with them as long as they are agreeable to all parties.
I think political unions can be more than convenient and that both the UK and the EU have more to them than just convenience. But mileages vary and yours was a well argued post.
Actually, while I habitually deride London with all the Mancunian chippiness I can muster, I will say this for it: for a city of 8 million people, it's pretty bucolic. It's not Kesiwck, obviously - it's not even Sheffield - but for a city of its size, it's surprising the extent to which you can escape the urban. The north's still better, obviously.
I like other parts of the country too - am also considering moving back to East Yorkshire or East Anglia - but that will probably be retirement project. London just has a very strong economic pull atm.
Well, I can understand that. I do genuinely like London. It's an amazing city. I'd rather live somewhere within strikin distance of hills, but that's by the by. My main problem with it is that I could never afford the lifestyle I have here if I lived there. I have three children; there's no way I could afford an equivalently nice house in an equivalently nice suburb - or anything close - if I lived there. So while you have an economic pull, I have an economic push.
On the €60 billion demand from the EU, the UK is not realistically going to walk away from an agreement with the EU. It really won't. And certainly not over an amount of money that is less than 1% of one year's national budget. Sensible sequencing would go something like this:
The EU demands €60 billion severance. The UK says no. The EU says you can pay it down as part of the transition arrangement. The UK says no. The EU says then there won't be a transition. The two parties put both those to one side and get on with negotiating other terms. They then agree a transition and a transition fee close to our previous net contribution of £8 billion a year. The UK government announces it got a good deal with no severance fees and ongoing fees half what they were before (i.e.the gross amount). This frees up £10 billion or so that can be spent on UK priorities and here's our programme. The EU gets a formal obligation for a specific amount of money
You think the EU won't budge at all on the figure? Let's hope the UK negotiators aren't that incompetent.
Has anyone said what this EUR60bn is for ?
The only suggestion I've heard is that its for future pension obligations for British Eurocrats.
Now even if Britain has an obligation for that its clearly not an upfront commitment but something which would need to be paid over the next 70 or so years.
The Economist did a piece on it. Pensions make up less than €10bn of the €60bn.
The vast bulk of the sum is basically the EU demanding that since we agreed to a seven year budget already that we continue to pay for our share of that which has been budgeted even if we are no longer members since we'd agreed to the budget pre-Brexit.
I rather suspect that the EU is a bit worried about having to pay Britain's its share of the assets.
I doubt it. Much of it will come back here to committed programmes and projects anyway. For Instance we have forward commitments under CAP - 5 and 10 year management agreements under the Rural Development Programme. These are legal commitments to farmers and land managers. We either pay through CAP or the Treasury funds it.
The dimmer leavers would be wrong to see this as just another opportunity to thumb our nose and moon at the nasty Eurocrats,
On the €60 billion demand from the EU, the UK is not realistically going to walk away from an agreement with the EU. It really won't. And certainly not over an amount of money that is less than 1% of one year's national budget. Sensible sequencing would go something like this:
The EU demands €60 billion severance. The UK says no. The EU says you can pay it down as part of the transition arrangement. The UK says no. The EU says then there won't be a transition. The two parties put both those to one side and get on with negotiating other terms. They then agree a transition and a transition fee close to our previous net contribution of £8 billion a year. The UK government announces it got a good deal with no severance fees and ongoing fees half what they were before (i.e.the gross amount). This frees up £10 billion or so that can be spent on UK priorities and here's our programme. The EU gets a formal obligation for a specific amount of money
You think the EU won't budge at all on the figure? Let's hope the UK negotiators aren't that incompetent.
Has anyone said what this EUR60bn is for ?
The only suggestion I've heard is that its for future pension obligations for British Eurocrats.
Now even if Britain has an obligation for that its clearly not an upfront commitment but something which would need to be paid over the next 70 or so years.
The Economist did a piece on it. Pensions make up less than €10bn of the €60bn.
The vast bulk of the sum is basically the EU demanding that since we agreed to a seven year budget already that we continue to pay for our share of that which has been budgeted even if we are no longer members since we'd agreed to the budget pre-Brexit.
I rather suspect that the EU is a bit worried about having to pay Britain's its share of the assets.
It's a small amount of EU GDP, but no individual nation wants to pay.
We made 26% of the net contribution. The Germans are mainly on the hook if the EU pay up in our absence, the Polish are the major losers if no one produces in our absence.
I know quite a few Caribbean lads called Nurse. Good cricketers, too. John Nurse played lower division football, Stevenage Borough I think. Used to play cricket with him. Confident and high quality player.
I like a bit of marsh. Can be haunting. But can also be very pretty. Good for the birdsong and a wide sky.
You could try Pitsea. One of the more attractive bits of Basildon. Got a country park (called the Wat Tyler) and the marina with National Motor Boat Museum, too.
I am in a rather plusher bit of South Essex at the moment though I do like the Thames banks in general! (But the Great Ouse, Crouch, Humber and several from the West Country are also favourites of mine so I guess I'm not picky!)
Would like to cut down travel time to London while maintaining the manifold advantages of Essex. Upminster and Hornchurch, as extolled by isam, also have those virtues but I dislike the District Line!
Can't see any projections for final seat totals in NI on the BBC or anywhere else? Does anyone have one?
I understand it's a different voting system but if this was a General Election then by the point we've got over 80% of seats declared there is a reasonable projection of what the totals will be.
Can't see any projections for final seat totals in NI on the BBC or anywhere else? Does anyone have one?
I understand it's a different voting system but if this was a General Election then by the point we've got over 80% of seats declared there is a reasonable projection of what the totals will be.
Can't see any projections for final seat totals in NI on the BBC or anywhere else? Does anyone have one?
I understand it's a different voting system but if this was a General Election then by the point we've got over 80% of seats declared there is a reasonable projection of what the totals will be.
Actually, while I habitually deride London with all the Mancunian chippiness I can muster, I will say this for it: for a city of 8 million people, it's pretty bucolic. It's not Kesiwck, obviously - it's not even Sheffield - but for a city of its size, it's surprising the extent to which you can escape the urban. The north's still better, obviously.
I like other parts of the country too - am also considering moving back to East Yorkshire or East Anglia - but that will probably be retirement project. London just has a very strong economic pull atm.
Well, I can understand that. I do genuinely like London. It's an amazing city. I'd rather live somewhere within strikin distance of hills, but that's by the by. My main problem with it is that I could never afford the lifestyle I have here if I lived there. I have three children; there's no way I could afford an equivalently nice house in an equivalently nice suburb - or anything close - if I lived there. So while you have an economic pull, I have an economic push.
I've always liked the flat - easier walking!
But economic push point is also well-taken. I could actually afford in a year or two to move to East Yorkshire, buy a nice house, and retire. Around the South East, no such chance. But goodness knows what I'd do with myself if I did retire...
It looks increasingly as if Leavers, like three year olds with cuddly toys, might have loved the UK to death.
The trend to devolution has been happening since 1997.
You can see the Leave vote as part of that trend in it being a vote against EverCloserUnion.
And there will be no shortage of English Conservatives not displeased by EverLooserUnion with Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Some will even be hoping that Scouseland can go the same way.
You underestimate what a deep psychological blow it will be to their dreams of Making England Great Again. If the rest of the UK says 'you're on your own', it won't take five minutes for feelings of humiliation and rejection to set in.
Nah.
If the result of Brexit is the departure of Ulster, Scotland, Wales and the revival of England, one of the very oldest and greatest nations on earth, then this is hardly something for regret.
But I seriously doubt it will happen. The UK will muddle through.
It looks increasingly as if Leavers, like three year olds with cuddly toys, might have loved the UK to death.
The trend to devolution has been happening since 1997.
You can see the Leave vote as part of that trend in it being a vote against EverCloserUnion.
And there will be no shortage of English Conservatives not displeased by EverLooserUnion with Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Some will even be hoping that Scouseland can go the same way.
The sticky conversation would be about London. Little English Conservatives (and the phrase is fair for those who are interested only in like-minded brethren) don't like London or its values. But boy, they like its money.
And London likes Little England's food, water and energy supplies. Even if doesn't like the 'carrot crunchers' or their values.
In reality London's prosperity depends upon financial services and being the location of the British state.
An independent London would certainly lose the latter and most likely the former.
It's remarkable how quickly the little Englanders resort to attempted blackmail (and how poorly informed they are - the public sector share of London's economy is the smallest in Britain). But they can't expect to keep sponging off Londoners and openly hating them indefinitely.
Its remarkable how quickly Little Londoners resort to attempted blackmail (and how poorly informed they are - London gets half of England's transport infrastructure investment). But they can't expect to keep sponging off England and openly hating them indefinitely.
I thought London was meant to be the heart of capitalism yet some Londoners so panicky about the law of supply and demand.
The inconvenient fact is that England can survive without London but London can't survive without England.
Still in 2018 we have the London local elections, can we expect the LNP to stand ?
It looks increasingly as if Leavers, like three year olds with cuddly toys, might have loved the UK to death.
The trend to devolution has been happening since 1997.
You can see the Leave vote as part of that trend in it being a vote against EverCloserUnion.
And there will be no shortage of English Conservatives not displeased by EverLooserUnion with Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Some will even be hoping that Scouseland can go the same way.
The sticky conversation would be about London. Little English Conservatives (and the phrase is fair for those who are interested only in like-minded brethren) don't like London or its values. But boy, they like its money.
And London likes Little England's food, water and energy supplies. Even if doesn't like the 'carrot crunchers' or their values.
In reality London's prosperity depends upon financial services and being the location of the British state.
An independent London would certainly lose the latter and most likely the former.
It's remarkable how quickly the little Englanders resort to attempted blackmail (and how poorly informed they are - the public sector share of London's economy is the smallest in Britain). But they can't expect to keep sponging off Londoners and openly hating them indefinitely.
Its remarkable how quickly Little Londoners resort to attempted blackmail (and how poorly informed they are - London gets half of England's transport infrastructure investment). But they can't expect to keep sponging off England and openly hating them indefinitely.
I thought London was meant to be the heart of capitalism yet some Londoners so panicky about the law of supply and demand.
The inconvenient fact is that England can survive without London but London can't survive without England.
Still in 2018 we have the London local elections, can we expect the LNP to stand ?
Actually, while I habitually deride London with all the Mancunian chippiness I can muster, I will say this for it: for a city of 8 million people, it's pretty bucolic. It's not Kesiwck, obviously - it's not even Sheffield - but for a city of its size, it's surprising the extent to which you can escape the urban. The north's still better, obviously.
I like other parts of the country too - am also considering moving back to East Yorkshire or East Anglia - but that will probably be retirement project. London just has a very strong economic pull atm.
Well, I can understand that. I do genuinely like London. It's an amazing city. I'd rather live somewhere within strikin distance of hills, but that's by the by. My main problem with it is that I could never afford the lifestyle I have here if I lived there. I have three children; there's no way I could afford an equivalently nice house in an equivalently nice suburb - or anything close - if I lived there. So while you have an economic pull, I have an economic push.
I've always liked the flat - easier walking!
But economic push point is also well-taken. I could actually afford in a year or two to move to East Yorkshire, buy a nice house, and retire. Around the South East, no such chance. But goodness knows what I'd do with myself if I did retire...
Guys 'n' gals, you really, really need to pay attention to this story tonight, if you're betting on the French elections. This is not just any old common-or-garden defection from the Fillon cause, this is his right-hand man and campaign director, Patrick Stefanini. He's also the guy who was supposed to be organising Fillon's mass demonstration in Paris on Sunday.
Can't see any projections for final seat totals in NI on the BBC or anywhere else? Does anyone have one?
I understand it's a different voting system but if this was a General Election then by the point we've got over 80% of seats declared there is a reasonable projection of what the totals will be.
I doubt it. Much of it will come back here to committed programmes and projects anyway. For Instance we have forward commitments under CAP - 5 and 10 year management agreements under the Rural Development Programme. These are legal commitments to farmers and land managers. We either pay through CAP or the Treasury funds it.
The dimmer leavers would be wrong to see this as just another opportunity to thumb our nose and moon at the nasty Eurocrats,
The dimmer Europhiles seem to forget we were running a £9 billion a year net contribution to the EU. Even if we commit to covering every penny that came back from the EU from the Treasury we are still making a saving of £9 billion a year.
Actually, while I habitually deride London with all the Mancunian chippiness I can muster, I will say this for it: for a city of 8 million people, it's pretty bucolic. It's not Kesiwck, obviously - it's not even Sheffield - but for a city of its size, it's surprising the extent to which you can escape the urban. The north's still better, obviously.
I like other parts of the country too - am also considering moving back to East Yorkshire or East Anglia - but that will probably be retirement project. London just has a very strong economic pull atm.
Well, I can understand that. I do genuinely like London. It's an amazing city. I'd rather live somewhere within strikin distance of hills, but that's by the by. My main problem with it is that I could never afford the lifestyle I have here if I lived there. I have three children; there's no way I could afford an equivalently nice house in an equivalently nice suburb - or anything close - if I lived there. So while you have an economic pull, I have an economic push.
I've always liked the flat - easier walking!
But economic push point is also well-taken. I could actually afford in a year or two to move to East Yorkshire, buy a nice house, and retire. Around the South East, no such chance. But goodness knows what I'd do with myself if I did retire...
Work for fun rather than work for a living.
I'd quite like to do something actually useful for a living, so long as it isn't too gruelling. Pay back my social dues.
Guys 'n' gals, you really, really need to pay attention to this story tonight, if you're betting on the French elections. This is not just any old common-or-garden defection from the Fillon cause, this is his right-hand man and campaign director, Patrick Stefanini. He's also the guy who was supposed to be organising Fillon's mass demonstration in Paris on Sunday.
In other news the PS are losing control of their representatives who are offering support to Macron.
Guys 'n' gals, you really, really need to pay attention to this story tonight, if you're betting on the French elections. This is not just any old common-or-garden defection from the Fillon cause, this is his right-hand man and campaign director, Patrick Stefanini. He's also the guy who was supposed to be organising Fillon's mass demonstration in Paris on Sunday.
Can't see any projections for final seat totals in NI on the BBC or anywhere else? Does anyone have one?
I understand it's a different voting system but if this was a General Election then by the point we've got over 80% of seats declared there is a reasonable projection of what the totals will be.
The only suggestion I've heard is that its for future pension obligations for British Eurocrats.
Now even if Britain has an obligation for that its clearly not an upfront commitment but something which would need to be paid over the next 70 or so years.
The Economist did a piece on it. Pensions make up less than €10bn of the €60bn.
The vast bulk of the sum is basically the EU demanding that since we agreed to a seven year budget already that we continue to pay for our share of that which has been budgeted even if we are no longer members since we'd agreed to the budget pre-Brexit.
I rather suspect that the EU is a bit worried about having to pay Britain's its share of the assets.
I doubt it. Much of it will come back here to committed programmes and projects anyway. For Instance we have forward commitments under CAP - 5 and 10 year management agreements under the Rural Development Programme. These are legal commitments to farmers and land managers. We either pay through CAP or the Treasury funds it.
The dimmer leavers would be wrong to see this as just another opportunity to thumb our nose and moon at the nasty Eurocrats,
Certainly the Treasury will be handing out to British farmers for a few years.
But the whole tone of the discussion starts with the premise that the UK will have to had over EUR50bn to Brussels in 2019.
I doubt it. Much of it will come back here to committed programmes and projects anyway. For Instance we have forward commitments under CAP - 5 and 10 year management agreements under the Rural Development Programme. These are legal commitments to farmers and land managers. We either pay through CAP or the Treasury funds it.
The dimmer leavers would be wrong to see this as just another opportunity to thumb our nose and moon at the nasty Eurocrats,
The dimmer Europhiles seem to forget we were running a £9 billion a year net contribution to the EU. Even if we commit to covering every penny that came back from the EU from the Treasury we are still making a saving of £9 billion a year.
Oh, the fabled £350m a week has shrunk by half I see.
I wonder who Vincent Chiqurui is. I guess he won't be Fillon's campaign manager for long
He was running the financial and administrative side of Fillon's campaign, but is now running the whole thing. It's like the final days of the Third Republic.
I doubt it. Much of it will come back here to committed programmes and projects anyway. For Instance we have forward commitments under CAP - 5 and 10 year management agreements under the Rural Development Programme. These are legal commitments to farmers and land managers. We either pay through CAP or the Treasury funds it.
The dimmer leavers would be wrong to see this as just another opportunity to thumb our nose and moon at the nasty Eurocrats,
The dimmer Europhiles seem to forget we were running a £9 billion a year net contribution to the EU. Even if we commit to covering every penny that came back from the EU from the Treasury we are still making a saving of £9 billion a year.
Oh, the fabled £350m a week has shrunk by half I see.
And it's still a big fucking number. That's why Remain made a fatal mistake to keep pointing this out.
It looks increasingly as if Leavers, like three year olds with cuddly toys, might have loved the UK to death.
The trend to devolution has been happening since 1997.
You can see the Leave vote as part of that trend in it being a vote against EverCloserUnion.
And there will be no shortage of English Conservatives not displeased by EverLooserUnion with Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Some will even be hoping that Scouseland can go the same way.
The sticky conversation would be about London. Little English Conservatives (and the phrase is fair for those who are interested only in like-minded brethren) don't like London or its values. But boy, they like its money.
And London likes Little England's food, water and energy supplies. Even if doesn't like the 'carrot crunchers' or their values.
In reality London's prosperity depends upon financial services and being the location of the British state.
An independent London would certainly lose the latter and most likely the former.
It's remarkable how quickly the little Englanders resort to attempted blackmail (and how poorly informed they are - the public sector share of London's economy is the smallest in Britain). But they can't expect to keep sponging off Londoners and openly hating them indefinitely.
Its remarkable how quickly Little Londoners resort to attempted blackmail (and how poorly informed they are - London gets half of England's transport infrastructure investment). But they can't expect to keep sponging off England and openly hating them indefinitely.
I thought London was meant to be the heart of capitalism yet some Londoners so panicky about the law of supply and demand.
The inconvenient fact is that England can survive without London but London can't survive without England.
Still in 2018 we have the London local elections, can we expect the LNP to stand ?
It looks increasingly as if Leavers, like three year olds with cuddly toys, might have loved the UK to death.
The trend to devolution has been happening since 1997.
You can see the Leave vote as part of that trend in it being a vote against EverCloserUnion.
And there will be no shortage of English Conservatives not displeased by EverLooserUnion with Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Some will even be hoping that Scouseland can go the same way.
The sticky conversation would be about London. Little English Conservatives (and the phrase is fair for those who are interested only in like-minded brethren) don't like London or its values. But boy, they like its money.
London quite likes our food, water, and our houses too.
London manages ok for water. Unless the little Englanders are planning on damming the Thames?
As for food, the little Englanders are no doubt working on self-picking crops but until then it would probably be wiser to secure supplies elsewhere.
I suppose London could do but is bringing back the East End docks really a good idea ? But then again all the banks will have moved so Canary Wharf can be knocked down.
And I see you've neglected the issue of energy supplies - Bankside will be available again when Tate Modern is relocated to England. Still I doubt that will be enough so London will have to pay the new rate of only 10x currently. Law of supply and demand
If the little Englanders are really determined not to sell energy to London at normal market prices, other options would need to be explored. Playing energy blackmail has not enhanced Russia's position in the European energy market.
But since Putin is the new pin-up of the little Englanders, perhaps it is to be expected that they would emulate his mistakes.
Reality sucks sometimes doesn't it
But before you start looking for alternate energy sources you'll need to get the LNP up and running.
You could always ask Farage for a few tips - he's been quite successful at this sort of thing.
But the whole tone of the discussion starts with the premise that the UK will have to had over EUR50bn to Brussels in 2019.
And that's not going to happen.
Quite right, it's not going to happen, and no even vaguely sane person could possibly take it seriously, given the fact that as Richard T points out, our total bill as a full member is only £9bn or so a year.
That being the case, one has to ask what on earth our EU friends are doing bandying around such a bonkers figure. Assuming that they are not so insane as to take it seriously themselves, there are only two possibilities. Either they are deliberately wanting to sabotage the possibility of a sensible deal, or they are playing a dangerous game of souk carpet-bargaining, where they expect to settle for a tenth of their opening offer.
But the whole tone of the discussion starts with the premise that the UK will have to had over EUR50bn to Brussels in 2019.
And that's not going to happen.
Quite right, it's not going to happen, and no even vaguely sane person could possibly take it seriously, given the fact that as Richard T points out, our total bill as a full member is only £9bn or so a year.
That being the case, one has to ask what on earth our EU friends are doing bandying around such a bonkers figure. Assuming that they are not so insane as to take it seriously themselves, there are only two possibilities. Either they are deliberately wanting to sabotage the possibility of a sensible deal, or they are playing a dangerous game of souk carpet-bargaining, where they expect to settle for a tenth of their opening offer.
The EU budget is only up to 2020 and we are leaving in 2019. So there must be a really huge increase in spending in the final year of the budget!
I'm watching. As I've said already, I think Fillon will withdraw - or fight on, in some mad dooomed, Corbynista, Japanese-in-the-Solomons way. It's just that it's very hard to see who benefits.
Clearly, Juppe will get a boost. But on examination he is 71, and has a criminal record, and has zero charisma and no chance of reviving France.
I think (and I am almost certainly wrong) that this will come down to Macron v Le Pen.
If Le Pen had a more credible, sensible economic policy, she could actually win.
It's hard to see how any candidate of the centre-right can emerge unscathed from this, even if they do manage to cobble together some deal in which Fillon is given an offer he can't refuse to stand down, Quite possibly they'll end up with a mess in which Fillon hangs on but a lot of support goes to Juppé.
Which means, I think, that you are right, and Macron will be the big gainer from the mess - and therefore, probably the next president.
I think (and I am almost certainly wrong) that this will come down to Macron v Le Pen.
If Le Pen had a more credible, sensible economic policy, she could actually win.
And then it's sink or swim for Macron. Either he'll go down as Hollande II and be an embarrassing failure, or he'll be the great historic figure who turned around France and rescued the European project. He must feel the hand of history on his shoulders...
The warp and weft of the United Kingdom is unravelling at a gathering pace. Ten years hence from 2015 GE we could have a united Ireland, an independent Scotland inside the EU leaving just Wales and the Isle of Wight as the English dominions. It's amazing what pride has wrought.
It looks increasingly as if Leavers, like three year olds with cuddly toys, might have loved the UK to death.
The trend to devolution has been happening since 1997.
You can see the Leave vote as part of that trend in it being a vote against EverCloserUnion.
And there will be no shortage of English Conservatives not displeased by EverLooserUnion with Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Some will even be hoping that Scouseland can go the same way.
The sticky conversation would be about London. Little English Conservatives (and the phrase is fair for those who are interested only in like-minded brethren) don't like London or its values. But boy, they like its money.
And London likes Little England's food, water and energy supplies. Even if doesn't like the 'carrot crunchers' or their values.
In reality London's prosperity depends upon financial services and being the location of the British state.
An independent London would certainly lose the latter and most likely the former.
It's remarkable how quickly the little Englanders resort to attempted blackmail (and how poorly informed they are - the public sector share of London's economy is the smallest in Britain). But they can't expect to keep sponging off Londoners and openly hating them indefinitely.
Its remarkable how quickly Little Londoners resort to attempted blackmail (and how poorly informed they are - London gets half of England's transport infrastructure investment). But they can't expect to keep sponging off England and openly hating them indefinitely.
I thought London was meant to be the heart of capitalism yet some Londoners so panicky about the law of supply and demand.
The inconvenient fact is that England can survive without London but London can't survive without England.
Still in 2018 we have the London local elections, can we expect the LNP to stand ?
Mr Meeks doesn't speak for London or Londoners
So no LNP vote from you Charles ?
Nope . London is nothing without its hinterland.
A problem which is likely to increase will be the friction between a leftist London and a conservative England.
Of course London is financially dependent upon its most conservative dominated sector - the financial services - which might make things worse.
I wonder who Vincent Chiqurui is. I guess he won't be Fillon's campaign manager for long
He was running the financial and administrative side of Fillon's campaign, but is now running the whole thing. It's like the final days of the Third Republic.
I've greened out.
I'm not convinced I have any edge at all on the market.
I'm left with a small bet on Juppe to win the first round - at insane odds - which I'm happy enough to let ride.
Can't see any projections for final seat totals in NI on the BBC or anywhere else? Does anyone have one?
I understand it's a different voting system but if this was a General Election then by the point we've got over 80% of seats declared there is a reasonable projection of what the totals will be.
Can't see any projections for final seat totals in NI on the BBC or anywhere else? Does anyone have one?
I understand it's a different voting system but if this was a General Election then by the point we've got over 80% of seats declared there is a reasonable projection of what the totals will be.
Comments
You have this odd tendency to make the most trivial of events apparently earth shattering as the EU is apparently the most petty and vindictive institution on earth the way you seem to expect them to react to things.
Oh my god, the UK lawyers used an analogy which trivialized the union, let us faint with horror. It's not like any EU figures have used simplistic metaphors to describe the situation. Oh wait, of course they have.
Maybe Brexit will be a disaster, time will tell, but maybe, just maybe, not every tiny thing is automatically a disaster.
A few million has given Banks enormous prominence.
I wonder if there are people with bigger bank balances and equally big egos (if possible) as Banks might be thinking of emulating him.
I can see in a few years time political parties might be under the influence of ex-Premiership footballers.
A friend in Gidea Park, though not in the Exhibition Estate itself (nearer the horrid Gallows Corner roundabout, but in a rather posh sideroad) did recommend the Exhibition Estate but it may be beyond the reach of my wallet...
I'm not a very townie person, which is the main appeal of Harold Wood to me (wallet aside). I like to be within five minutes walk of a wood or marsh, and preferably both...
Rare crocodile shark found in British waters for the first time
http://news.sky.com/story/rare-crocodile-shark-found-in-british-waters-for-the-first-time-10787689
Brexit is just like a fecked up version of Sharknado.
People feel just as strongly about Ireland as I do about Scotland without feeling that Ireland needs to be part of the UK again. The desire to have a political union with somewhere purely because you like it is daft - like the person who feels the need to buy property somewhere they've really enjoyed being on holiday, despite the fact they won't realistically be able to be in it more than 2 weeks a year. In fact, it's the same understandable but daft emotional response which says that we need to be part of the EU because Venice is lovely.
There are individuals on either side - unionists and nationalists, leavers and remainers - who allow emotional responses to ''abroad' to dictate their views on whether a given political union is desirable or not. It's quite possible to find the continent of Europe wonderful - as I do - and to think that Britain is better off outside the EU. It's also quite possible to find the continent abhorrent, yet believe that there are reasons for remaining. And you can apply the same arguments to how you feel about the union of England and Wales with Scotland and with Northern Ireland.
Political unions are a convenience, not a marriage. We persist with them as long as they are agreeable to all parties.
I would watch the shit out of that.
I was born in Harold Wood hospital, so its not all bad
Actually, while I habitually deride London with all the Mancunian chippiness I can muster, I will say this for it: for a city of 8 million people, it's pretty bucolic. It's not Kesiwck, obviously - it's not even Sheffield - but for a city of its size, it's surprising the extent to which you can escape the urban.
The north's still better, obviously.
The EU demands €60 billion severance. The UK says no.
The EU says you can pay it down as part of the transition arrangement. The UK says no. The EU says then there won't be a transition.
The two parties put both those to one side and get on with negotiating other terms.
They then agree a transition and a transition fee close to our previous net contribution of £8 billion a year.
The UK government announces it got a good deal with no severance fees and ongoing fees half what they were before (i.e.the gross amount). This frees up £10 billion or so that can be spent on UK priorities and here's our programme. The EU gets a formal obligation for a specific amount of money
That said, can't believe the Windies have someone on the team called Nurse. Reminds me of a certain comedy sketch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ujmkLTGNM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arron_Banks#Relationship_with_Eurosceptic_organisations
Its certainly significant but he seems to think he owns UKIP in return.
And there are doubtless many people who could match Banks's donation.
How about Wayne Rooney's UKIP at the next election
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/837779975449247744
The only suggestion I've heard is that its for future pension obligations for British Eurocrats.
Now even if Britain has an obligation for that its clearly not an upfront commitment but something which would need to be paid over the next 70 or so years.
Fermanagh & South Tyrone:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/northern-ireland-constituencies/N06000007
Stage 1:
DUP1 8479
DUP2 7102
UUP 6060
SF1 7987
SF2 7767
SF3 6254
SDLP 5134
Quota 8711
Redistributed:
Alliance 1437
Conservative 70
Traditional Unionist 780
Green 550
Labour 643
(3480)
Stage2:
DUP1 +266 8745 - duly elected (34 votes redistributed)
DUP2 +230 7332
UUP +803 6863
SF1 +241 8228
SF2 +256 8023
SF3 +84 6338
SDLP +1142 (6276) (eliminated)
So apparently TUV voters can't bring themselves to vote for DUP in large numbers.
Stage 3:
DUP2 +73 7405
UUP +1471 8334
SF1 +1157 9385 - duly elected (674 votes redistributed)
SF2 +905 8928 - duly elected (217 votes redistributed)
SF3 +836 7174
SDLP voters are happy going 2nd pref for UUP (although still prefer SF 2 to 1), but not DUP
Stage 4
UUP +108 8442 - duly elected
SF3 +543 7717 - duly elected
DUP2 +6 7411
I guess these 108 votes to UUP are not necessarily from SF supporters but also the previous redistributed SDLP votes?
Interesting that SF can stand and elect 3 candidates here. At Westminster they lost to the UUP when the DUP stood aside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermanagh_and_South_Tyrone_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
It looks like with STV that strategy won't work . Here there is something like a 27 to 22 majority for 1st prefs to nationalist parties rather than unionist ones. So 3 seats to 2 works out about right. Though still perhaps some tactical voting possible by unionist second pref for SDLP rather than SF?
The vast bulk of the sum is basically the EU demanding that since we agreed to a seven year budget already that we continue to pay for our share of that which has been budgeted even if we are no longer members since we'd agreed to the budget pre-Brexit.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21716629-bitter-argument-over-money-looms-multi-billion-euro-exit-charge-could-sink-brexit
The NHS is a gem and needs support.
That's not to say, though, that a member of the royal family wouldn't have had near instant treatment.
I rather suspect that the EU is a bit worried about having to pay Britain's its share of the assets.
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/837688911648473088
But people have been predicting that it was just a matter of time before a United Ireland for nearly a century.
And I'm sure there were predictions that border controls would make Irish people pine for the freedom that they enjoyed as British Empire citizens.
I do genuinely like London. It's an amazing city. I'd rather live somewhere within strikin distance of hills, but that's by the by. My main problem with it is that I could never afford the lifestyle I have here if I lived there. I have three children; there's no way I could afford an equivalently nice house in an equivalently nice suburb - or anything close - if I lived there. So while you have an economic pull, I have an economic push.
The dimmer leavers would be wrong to see this as just another opportunity to thumb our nose and moon at the nasty Eurocrats,
We made 26% of the net contribution. The Germans are mainly on the hook if the EU pay up in our absence, the Polish are the major losers if no one produces in our absence.
Would like to cut down travel time to London while maintaining the manifold advantages of Essex. Upminster and Hornchurch, as extolled by isam, also have those virtues but I dislike the District Line!
I understand it's a different voting system but if this was a General Election then by the point we've got over 80% of seats declared there is a reasonable projection of what the totals will be.
Has a running count.
I'll have a go at projection using some basic commons sense (SF & DUP won't transfer to each other in general). Two minutes.
Hope everyone had their dinner - the following may elicit either peels of laughter or may heinously "offend" you:
I unintentionally "went commando" today - I forgot to pack enough underwear for the whole of this week in the Midlands when I left London on Monday.
But economic push point is also well-taken. I could actually afford in a year or two to move to East Yorkshire, buy a nice house, and retire. Around the South East, no such chance. But goodness knows what I'd do with myself if I did retire...
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-scan/2017/03/03/25001-20170303ARTFIG00375-le-directeur-de-campagne-de-francois-fillon-demissionne.php
http://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/presidentielles/2017/03/03/35003-20170303ARTFIG00304-dans-une-lettre-cambadelis-menace-d-exclusion-les-elus-qui-parrainent-macron.php
But the whole tone of the discussion starts with the premise that the UK will have to had over EUR50bn to Brussels in 2019.
And that's not going to happen.
Best wishes, hope all is well.
But before you start looking for alternate energy sources you'll need to get the LNP up and running.
You could always ask Farage for a few tips - he's been quite successful at this sort of thing.
That being the case, one has to ask what on earth our EU friends are doing bandying around such a bonkers figure. Assuming that they are not so insane as to take it seriously themselves, there are only two possibilities. Either they are deliberately wanting to sabotage the possibility of a sensible deal, or they are playing a dangerous game of souk carpet-bargaining, where they expect to settle for a tenth of their opening offer.
Which means, I think, that you are right, and Macron will be the big gainer from the mess - and therefore, probably the next president.
Of course London is financially dependent upon its most conservative dominated sector - the financial services - which might make things worse.
I'm not convinced I have any edge at all on the market.
I'm left with a small bet on Juppe to win the first round - at insane odds - which I'm happy enough to let ride.
Good luck to the punters.