Mr Farron has always bent the truth. In 1997 he was sacked by the leader of Lancashire CC Lib Dems for refusing to stand during the loyal toast at a civic function. Today he is claiming patriotism. Journalists - ask him about that civic function in 1997 !
Patriotism and the loyal toast are not the same thing.
*excepting those still living in the 18th century.
And the same with banking, where it's even easier to up sticks and move. This I believe is the Trump card Sturgeon intends to play. All the way through our "negotiations" the EU will tell us not to go. They'll say stay in the market are you mad? So Sturgeon will agree her own deal - an independent Scotland in the EEA via EFTA, they'll give her transitional access, and so she'll have her referendum next autumn whether London likes it or not. And the carrot? No need to move to Frankfurt Mr Barclays, just come to Edinburgh.
That will only be possible if Scotland adopts the Euro with the agreement of the ECB. Otherwise, with no lender of last resort no bank would be able to carry on business in Scotland as nobody would offer it credit. One of the big risks of independence, ironically, is that RBS would have to move.
What might be really damaging to the SNP is that they seem intent on holding a wildcat ballot - which they still look set to lose. Losing a once-in-a-generation ballot twice in ten years under such auspicious circumstances would kill talk of independence for another 300 years. Not smart politics by Mrs May to try and block it.
How do other small countries survive, why would Scotland be the only country in the world unable to get credit. I see loads of small countries , many more prosperous than UK surviving perfectly well. Why would Scotland be the only odd man out.
Meanwhile, in important news, Bangladesh are sixty runs away from a first away test win against proper opposition (admittedly a proper opposition missing its two best batsman) with eight wickets left and Tamim Iqbal going great guns.
And in India, Mr Chetshwar Pujara is demonstrating to the Aussies what proper test batting looks like as India take the lead after lunch on the fourth day with Pujara closing in on a double century and Wriddihim Saha closing in on a ton - with Jadeja still to come.
So it's not just England who get walloped by these teams!
Edit - and just as I say that, Tamim throws it away.
Still think Bangladesh will do it. And Ireland are coming off second best to Afghanistan. Do they Morgan back?
And they lose the other set batsman too. Their two best and most experienced batsmen are however now at the crease. Can they keep their heads? Just 47 to go for a famous win.
Ireland are welcome to Morgan as long as Root is not made England one-day captain.
Wriddhiman Saha’s got his century; Pujara 4 away from his double.Bangladesh 39 away!
Aus - India match getting exciting. Bangladesh, finally, might just do it.
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
The post Brexit UK economy will be more like getting AIDS than being killed instantly in a motorway pile up.
That's great news. We know how to manage AIDS with no loss of function. And I'm very hopeful about some scientific work that a company I'm invested in is doing
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
I am convinced that when TM gets into the real deal she will not even take into account the so called hard Brexit. She will be seeking a compromise that may not suit the remainers but will not be anywhere near the so called hard Brexiteers.
However, her starting point absolutely has to be a hard Brexit as anything less would show weakness.
Have to admit I'd never thought until now of the Remainer May strategy to be one of bluff and double bluff in order to get her own way but such is the intellect of your average Leaver, who would make Worzel Gummidge look like an intellect giant, it's quite possible that she's run rings round them to ensure that the country isn't damaged unnecessarily.
if remainers are so stonkingly clever, how come they lost ?
I mean by your own admission you only had to bamboozle a bunch of thickos and you couldnt, so what does that say about you ?
I'm afraid by assuming that people would listen to reason rather than dissembling, bile, hatred and downright lies. The Remain campaign was pretty clueless too in many parts.
But anyone who voted leave can have given the matter so little thought, or rather got the importance of the relative issues such as peace, security and prosperity so completely the wrong way round then yes they're "a bunch of thickos" who can't see beyond their hatred of foreigners.
Best take away their right to vote really - clearly the country would be well run if only people like you could vote.
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
I am convinced that when TM gets into the real deal she will not even take into account the so called hard Brexit. She will be seeking a compromise that may not suit the remainers but will not be anywhere near the so called hard Brexiteers.
However, her starting point absolutely has to be a hard Brexit as anything less would show weakness.
And by the way I expect an Autumn election at the earliest as it is too close to the serving of A50 for the 4th May
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
I am convinced that when TM gets into the real deal she will not even take into account the so called hard Brexit. She will be seeking a compromise that may not suit the remainers but will not be anywhere near the so called hard Brexiteers.
However, her starting point absolutely has to be a hard Brexit as anything less would show weakness.
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
I am convinced that when TM gets into the real deal she will not even take into account the so called hard Brexit. She will be seeking a compromise that may not suit the remainers but will not be anywhere near the so called hard Brexiteers.
However, her starting point absolutely has to be a hard Brexit as anything less would show weakness.
Mr Farron has always bent the truth. In 1997 he was sacked by the leader of Lancashire CC Lib Dems for refusing to stand during the loyal toast at a civic function. Today he is claiming patriotism. Journalists - ask him about that civic function in 1997 !
Patriotism and the loyal toast are not the same thing.
*excepting those still living in the 18th century.
I believe JackW is a Jacobite.
Old school 17th century tho'?
But equally unlikely to regard toasting the House of Hanover as patriotic.
The post Brexit UK economy will be more like getting AIDS than being killed instantly in a motorway pile up.
That's great news. We know how to manage AIDS with no loss of function. And I'm very hopeful about some scientific work that a company I'm invested in is doing
AIDS/HIV is now a chronic disease like Diabetes, and similar life expectancy.
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
The Meeks of this world will still be fighting the referendum in decades to come, much like some are still fighting the 1983 election against Fatcher. Sad really.
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
The Meeks of this world will still be fighting the referendum in decades to come, much like some are still fighting the 1983 election against Fatcher. Sad really.
The big difference is that our relationship with Europe will always be a current issue.
Merkel has been in power longer than Thatcher, and has split her own voting coalition by tacking to the Left in office.
So Schulz will probably win, and he will probably play hardball with the UK.
he's now more likely Bundeskanzler than Merkel
she has 33% of the vote atm, wont deal with the AfD and screwed the FDP last time round
the drop in the AfD vote and rise in SPD are probably related, she now needs the AfD to take votes back off Schulz if she is to have grand coalition 2
The pictures an coverage of the Leader of the Free world meeting Donald Trump last week will have done her a power of good. She is going to have a good election outcome.
I'm not so sure
she has managed to get herself in a position where the Left can form a government by itself, and she can only govern with SPD support. That's not a strong hand. She will need a big shift in the opinion polls to be Chancellor again and just maybe the "time for a change" theme is starting to work against her. So far Schulz big attraction has been he's a fresh face.
The PR nature of German democracy means that there will be a coalition, but it also means one that is even more pro EU than Merkel.
Negotiations are going nowhere, and never could. Rock hard Brexit is the destination and we shouldn’t waste too much time planning for anything else.
The maximum May will likely be able to offer the EU is a job offer requirement for EU migrants to the UK and some limited budget contributions continuing to the EU, If they refuse to do any sort of trade deal even with that form of offer then most British voters will likely say 'sod EU then' including I would venture most Scots
Such a job offer residence requirement would not work well for British pensioners in the EU.
As I pointed out earlier, the status of non EU non EEA nationals is a competence of national governments not the European parliament. Unless we remain in the EEA, the EU cannot enforce residency rights for British citizens in the EU. We could have 27 bilateral arrangements, I suppose.
Nothing wrong with that although we'll probably prioritise 5-10.
We know it will be hard Brexit and that's not because of Jacob Rees-Mogg and the Daily Mail. The EU are worried about the fracturing of their project and the rise of fascism. Set aside the practical reality that negotiating a deal in 18 months isn't just impossible it's insane, they can't and won't grant a deal. If they did it might encourage others to consider their own position.
So unfortunately for Blighty the deal we will be offered is va te faire foutre, and so off we go to WTO land. In a few years time things might settle back down, but thats like saying that after a big asteroid crashes into the earth things might settle back down.
The cost of WTO tariffs is broadly similar to what we pay the EU, so no £350m a week for the NHS. But it's the shock impact to industry that will do the terminal damage - a British car industry reliant on parts being shipped to and from the EU to be built here won't be viable if BMW have to pay an import tariff to the EU to ship Hams Hall engines to Germany for gearbox fitting then a tariff to the UK to install them in a Mini. Yes in the long term a supply chain can be set up. But in practice it will be the same impact as privatisation had on the train building industry - its swift closure.
And the same with banking, where it's even easier to up sticks and move. This I believe is the Trump card Sturgeon intends to play. All the way through our "negotiations" the EU will tell us not to go. They'll say stay in the market are you mad? So Sturgeon will agree her own deal - an independent Scotland in the EEA via EFTA, they'll give her transitional access, and so she'll have her referendum next autumn whether London likes it or not. And the carrot? No need to move to Frankfurt Mr Barclays, just come to Edinburgh.
I can see a Sturgeon platform of 'vote Yes for unlimited migration from Eastern Europe and a few City bankers moving to Edinburgh' sweeping all before it, yes!
The post Brexit UK economy will be more like getting AIDS than being killed instantly in a motorway pile up.
That's great news. We know how to manage AIDS with no loss of function. And I'm very hopeful about some scientific work that a company I'm invested in is doing
AIDS/HIV is now a chronic disease like Diabetes, and similar life expectancy.
I would still rather not have it though!
I know! I was just amusing myself by taking @Dura_Ace literally
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
The Meeks of this world will still be fighting the referendum in decades to come, much like some are still fighting the 1983 election against Fatcher. Sad really.
The big difference is that our relationship with Europe will always be a current issue.
True, though up until 2016 there was just one direction of that relationship - towards ever-closer union etc. Now things have changed. People are discussing the various options available to a European country and several such countries will settle for a non-EU future, including perhaps an independent Scotland (ie taking a Norway-style EEA approach). Once the EU becomes a federal country then joining it will be almost impossible, politically and practically. We will probably end up with with a Europe consisting of (in terms of sovereign entities) a federal EU, Russia (incl. Belarus and some other territory), Turkey, Switzerland, England & Wales, Scotland, Norway and the microstates. It will settle down at some point.
at 0723 I posted "There are 28 Parliaments in the EU that have the right to discuss and reject any Brexit deal mid negotiations. Those are the ones of the EU27 and of the EU itself. The only one that does not have that right is Westminster. Tis a strange sort of control that we have taken back."
This is correct. While the final Brexit is done by QMV, though perhaps needing unanimity on trade issues, Any EU27 parliament can debate the negotiations and direct their negotiating team as they see fit. Except Westminster.
Sturgeon has played a blinder, whatever the status of #indyref2, May cannot ignore the Scottish interest.
Sturgeon has undermined her credibility - the trick was to continually to say that you might demand one but not actually to do so. Now she's got a bit for "grievance" but nothing of practical value.
And May won't ignore the Scottish interest. She is PM of the UK and will weigh the interest alongside the interests of, say, Herefordshire, and determine the right way forward for the UK a a whole. (I can understand why ScotNats might not think this works - I wasn't happy with the Mercosur negotiations, for instance, which were in the EU's interest but were negative for the UK - but they had a referendum on leaving and were denied)
Garbage, Scotland has been ignored for years, it is being ignored now and will be ignored in the future. That si guaranteed under Tories. We will see a referendum for sure and May's Mugabe announcement will only strengthen public opinion further.
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
The Meeks of this world will still be fighting the referendum in decades to come, much like some are still fighting the 1983 election against Fatcher. Sad really.
Rather like some people went on fighting the 1975 Referendum.
Merkel has been in power longer than Thatcher, and has split her own voting coalition by tacking to the Left in office.
So Schulz will probably win, and he will probably play hardball with the UK.
Total exaggeration. Even on that poll the CDU on 33% is ahead of the SPD on 32% and the SPD would only form a government by 1% with Die Linke which they have historically ruled out as much as the CDU has with the AfD. As I have also consistently said it is complete fantasy to suggest Merkel will play soft with the UK while Schulz will play hard, everything Merkel has said is consistent with the EU line that the UK will only get a trade deal if it makes some concessions on EU immigration and maintains some continued payments to the EU. The only party which would really support Brexit UK is the AfD. In any case all 27 EU nations must agree to a deal and Germany is just one of them
Agree with all of that. Schulz hasn't ruled out a Left/Green deal (so far as I know) but the SPD doesn't really want it at national level: it's a negotiating ploy to counter the "there is no alternative to letting the CDU lead" line.
Personally I expect Merkel to be able to stay, in a result that will have some siimilarities to Netherlands - serious losses for the centre-right, but no convincing alternative. If the SPD makes further progress or the FDP drop under thew 5% threshold, Schulz might make it.
Here's the latest poll and comparisons, so readers can judge for themselves (other polls are similar):
On topic, it's usually best to avoid the glorious subshine and horrible apocalypse scenarios beloved of journalists (newspaper motto: "simply, then exaggerate"). There will be a deal, and it'll be hard to characterise as soft or hard as it will have both elements, a result of the messy multi-headed negotiations that are coming. We will probably uneasily embrace it and life will become uncomfortable for some years.
Agreed on both points, Merkel will still likely be Chancellor and the deal will be a fudge
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
I am convinced that when TM gets into the real deal she will not even take into account the so called hard Brexit. She will be seeking a compromise that may not suit the remainers but will not be anywhere near the so called hard Brexiteers.
However, her starting point absolutely has to be a hard Brexit as anything less would show weakness.
The deal with the EU is being enormously exaggerated in its importance. In reality, post Brexit, we will struggle to tell the difference on a day to day basis. I am confident that we will have tariff free trade, that we will get equivalence to regulation in financial services, that there will be some sort of fast track for EU citizens who want to come here making it easier for them than it is for other parts of the world, that those already here will have unqualified rights to remain, that there will be things in the deal that upset some Brexiteers and some remainers but the majority of us will accept it and move on.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
An excruciating performance by Meeks. I felt like Dustin Hoffman in the dentist's chair after a couple of sentences.
Yesterday Tim Farron was awarded the "Remoaner of the Year" award. Is this article Mr Meeks's attempt to get that decision overturned ?
It's amazing the number of people that comment on Alastair Meeks pieces without (1) reading them; or (2) understanding them.
Actually I have read, and re-read every word. I even think I understand what he is trying to say. I doubt also there are many interviews with Mr Farron which I have not listened to. However, the article, like Mr Farron's ad hominen attack on Theresa May scheduled for this morning is founded upon a premis which I do not recognise. The fact is the British people did know what they were doing when they entered the polling booths last June. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that any LEAVE voters did not know what they were voting for. It is only ever REMAIN voters that say they did not understand.
Mr Farron has always bent the truth. In 1997 he was sacked by the leader of Lancashire CC Lib Dems for refusing to stand during the loyal toast at a civic function. Today he is claiming patriotism. Journalists - ask him about that civic function in 1997 !
It is perfectly acceptable for people to change their minds on an issue, as indeed Mrs May did over Brexit. A year ago she was a Remainer. Presumably Farron does not feel the same over the monarchy that he once did.
As Alastair Meeks points out she has no legislative restraint on changing her mind again.
Precisely, though most of the usual suspects have failed to grasp the point.
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
I am convinced that when TM gets into the real deal she will not even take into account the so called hard Brexit. She will be seeking a compromise that may not suit the remainers but will not be anywhere near the so called hard Brexiteers.
However, her starting point absolutely has to be a hard Brexit as anything less would show weakness.
The deal with the EU is being enormously exaggerated in its importance. In reality, post Brexit, we will struggle to tell the difference on a day to day basis. I am confident that we will have tariff free trade, that we will get equivalence to regulation in financial services, that there will be some sort of fast track for EU citizens who want to come here making it easier for them than it is for other parts of the world, that those already here will have unqualified rights to remain, that there will be things in the deal that upset some Brexiteers and some remainers but the majority of us will accept it and move on.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
I hope you are right, but I regret to say I’m less optimistic.
Mr Farron has always bent the truth. In 1997 he was sacked by the leader of Lancashire CC Lib Dems for refusing to stand during the loyal toast at a civic function. Today he is claiming patriotism. Journalists - ask him about that civic function in 1997 !
Patriotism and the loyal toast are not the same thing.
*excepting those still living in the 18th century.
I believe JackW is a Jacobite.
Old school 17th century tho'?
But equally unlikely to regard toasting the House of Hanover as patriotic.
I am a "Liegance Jacobite" as espoused by Sir Ian Moncreiffe of that Ilk :
From Wiki :
In his book The Highland Clans, Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk claimed that Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom "is the lawful Jacobite sovereign of this realm". Moncreiffe made the following argument:
"... by the fourteenth century it had become common law (in both England and Scotland) that a person who was not born in the liegeance of the Sovereign, nor naturalised, could not have the capacity to succeed as an heir .... In Scotland, this law was modified in favour of the French from the sixteenth century, but was otherwise rigorously applied until the Whig Revolution of 1688, after which it was gradually done away with by the mid-nineteenth century. It was precisely because of this law that Queen Anne found it necessary to pass a special Act of Parliament naturalising all alien-born potential royal heirs under her Act of Settlement of the throne. But, of course, from the Jacobite point of view, no new statute could be passed after 1688 .... The nearest lawful heir of the Cardinal York in 1807 was, in fact, curiously enough, King George III himself, who had been born in England (and therefore in the technical liegance of James VIII)."
1685-1702 James II & VII 1702-1766 James III & VIII 1766-1788 Charles III 1788-1807 Henry IX & I 1807-1820 George I 1820-1830 George II 1830-1837 William IV & II 1837-1901 Victoria 1901-1910 Edward VII & I 1910-1936 George III 1936-1936 Edward VIII & II 1936-1952 George IV 1952- Elizabeth II
From the present monarch the higher regnal number from either English or Scottish monarchs takes precedence.
Merkel has been in power longer than Thatcher, and has split her own voting coalition by tacking to the Left in office.
So Schulz will probably win, and he e grand coalition 2
The pictures an coverage of the Leader of the Free world meeting Donald Trump last week will have done her a power of good. She is going to have a good election outcome.
I'm not so sure
she has managed to get herself in a position where the Left can form a government by itself, and she can only govern with SPD support. That's not a strong hand. She will need a big shift in the opinion polls to be Chancellor again and just maybe the "time for a change" theme is starting to work against her. So far Schulz big attraction has been he's a fresh face.
The PR nature of German democracy means that there will be a coalition, but it also means one that is even more pro EU than Merkel.
Negotiations are going nowhere, and never could. Rock hard Brexit is the destination and we shouldn’t waste too much time planning for anything else.
The maximum May will likely be able to offer the EU is a job offer requirement for EU migrants to the UK and some limited budget contributions continuing to Scots
Such a job offer residence requirement would not work well for British pensioners in the EU.
As I pointed out earlier, the status of non EU non EEA nationals is a competence of national governments not the European parliament. Unless we remain in the EEA, the EU cannot enforce residency rights for British citizens in the EU. We could have 27 bilateral arrangements, I suppose.
It would be coupled with a UK guarantee of existing EU citizens right in the UK which would be reciprocated for UK citizens in the EU plus Spain is hardly going to want to lose the wealth UK expat bring in but a job offer requirement is the absolute maximum May can offer whilst respecting the Leave vote
As a devotee of fine language, I admire this phrase: Those Leavers who are regarded on their own side as intellectuals have often stressed...
On the topic, I am not convinced committed Leavers will think the actual Brexit a betrayal. You don't take into account the human capacity to rationalise outcomes previously dismissed. In the several months since the referendum we have seen people move without missing a heart beat from
"Of course the EU will keep giving us all the things we want. They would be acting against their own interests if they didn't"
at 0723 I posted "There are 28 Parliaments in the EU that have the right to discuss and reject any Brexit deal mid negotiations. Those are the ones of the EU27 and of the EU itself. The only one that does not have that right is Westminster. Tis a strange sort of control that we have taken back."
This is correct. While the final Brexit is done by QMV, though perhaps needing unanimity on trade issues, Any EU27 parliament can debate the negotiations and direct their negotiating team as they see fit. Except Westminster.
Sturgeon has played a blinder, whatever the status of #indyref2, May cannot ignore the Scottish interest.
Sturgeon has undermined her credibility - the trick was to continually to say that you might demand one but not actually to do so. Now she's got a bit for "grievance" but nothing of practical value.
And May won't ignore the Scottish interest. She is PM of the UK and will weigh the interest alongside the interests of, say, Herefordshire, and determine the right way forward for the UK a a whole. (I can understand why ScotNats might not think this works - I wasn't happy with the Mercosur negotiations, for instance, which were in the EU's interest but were negative for the UK - but they had a referendum on leaving and were denied)
Garbage, Scotland has been ignored for years, it is being ignored now and will be ignored in the future. That si guaranteed under Tories. We will see a referendum for sure and May's Mugabe announcement will only strengthen public opinion further.
Morning Malc - I know we differ on Scotland but Nicola on Sky today does seem far from convincing. To be fair she is not hectoring but at times she is far from clear and even looks a bit uncertain.
Mr Farron has always bent the truth. In 1997 he was sacked by the leader of Lancashire CC Lib Dems for refusing to stand during the loyal toast at a civic function. Today he is claiming patriotism. Journalists - ask him about that civic function in 1997 !
Patriotism and the loyal toast are not the same thing.
*excepting those still living in the 18th century.
I believe JackW is a Jacobite.
Old school 17th century tho'?
But equally unlikely to regard toasting the House of Hanover as patriotic.
I am a "Liegance Jacobite" as espoused by Sir Ian Moncreiffe of that Ilk :
From Wiki :
In his book The Highland Clans, Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk claimed that Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom "is the lawful Jacobite sovereign of this realm". Moncreiffe made the following argument:
"... by the fourteenth century it had become common law (in both England and Scotland) that a person who was not born in the liegeance of the Sovereign, nor naturalised, could not have the capacity to succeed as an heir .... In Scotland, this law was modified in favour of the French from the sixteenth century, but was otherwise rigorously applied until the Whig Revolution of 1688, after which it was gradually done away with by the mid-nineteenth century. It was precisely because of this law that Queen Anne found it necessary to pass a special Act of Parliament naturalising all alien-born potential royal heirs under her Act of Settlement of the throne. But, of course, from the Jacobite point of view, no new statute could be passed after 1688 .... The nearest lawful heir of the Cardinal York in 1807 was, in fact, curiously enough, King George III himself, who had been born in England (and therefore in the technical liegance of James VIII)."
1685-1702 James II & VII 1702-1766 James III & VIII 1766-1788 Charles III 1788-1807 Henry IX & I 1807-1820 George I 1820-1830 George II 1830-1837 William IV & II 1837-1901 Victoria 1901-1910 Edward VII & I 1910-1936 George III 1936-1936 Edward VIII & II 1936-1952 George IV 1952- Elizabeth II
From the present monarch the higher regnal number from either English or Scottish monarchs takes precedence.
An excruciating performance by Meeks. I felt like Dustin Hoffman in the dentist's chair after a couple of sentences.
Yesterday Tim Farron was awarded the "Remoaner of the Year" award. Is this article Mr Meeks's attempt to get that decision overturned ?
It's amazing the number of people that comment on Alastair Meeks pieces without (1) reading them; or (2) understanding them.
Actually I have read, and re-read every word. I even think I understand what he is trying to say. I doubt also there are many interviews with Mr Farron which I have not listened to. However, the article, like Mr Farron's ad hominen attack on Theresa May scheduled for this morning is founded upon a premis which I do not recognise. The fact is the British people did know what they were doing when they entered the polling booths last June. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that any LEAVE voters did not know what they were voting for. It is only ever REMAIN voters that say they did not understand.
Mr Farron has always bent the truth. In 1997 he was sacked by the leader of Lancashire CC Lib Dems for refusing to stand during the loyal toast at a civic function. Today he is claiming patriotism. Journalists - ask him about that civic function in 1997 !
It is perfectly acceptable for people to change their minds on an issue, as indeed Mrs May did over Brexit. A year ago she was a Remainer. Presumably Farron does not feel the same over the monarchy that he once did.
As Alastair Meeks points out she has no legislative restraint on changing her mind again.
Precisely, though most of the usual suspects have failed to grasp the point.
Nonsense - parliament can change or take away May's control tomorrow - just needs a simple majority although sadly the usual suspects choose to ignore this.
The post Brexit UK economy will be more like getting AIDS than being killed instantly in a motorway pile up.
That's great news. We know how to manage AIDS with no loss of function. And I'm very hopeful about some scientific work that a company I'm invested in is doing
On the other hand we could CHOOSE not to get AIDS in the first place. Giving your company lots of lovely dividends from the bankruptcy-inducing medication I would need isn't my top motivation!
An election in May 2017 would see the Tories winning a majority of Thatcheresque proportions. No risk at all. And election in May 2020 takes the risk that there has been no hard Brexit shock because if anything has gone wrong - the deal involved compromise and brought Dacre's wrath to bear, or the deal involved no compromise and has brought about economic shock which has a lot of leave voters saying "I didn't vote for that".
For me a snap election now buys her not just a thumping majority but insurance in a few years.
How does she get a snap election , by saying her government is crap and we need a new one. What is all the bollox about fixed term parliaments about.
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
The Meeks of this world will still be fighting the referendum in decades to come, much like some are still fighting the 1983 election against Fatcher. Sad really.
Rather like some people went on fighting the 1975 Referendum.
Thing is, as the EEC evolved into the EU and that EU now evolves into a federal country, it becomes harder to either join or leave the entity.
Marr's interview with Ruth Davidson is shameful and irritating. He will not let her talk without continual interruptions by him throughout. He is as bad with this interview as I have seen him.
If he can stop her sounding off then he must have improved a million fold. It never usually matters to her.
at 0723 I posted "There are 28 Parliaments in the EU that have the right to discuss and reject any Brexit deal mid negotiations. Those are the ones of the EU27 and of the EU itself. The only one that does not have that right is Westminster. Tis a strange sort of control that we have taken back."
This is correct. While the final Brexit is done by QMV, though perhaps needing unanimity on trade issues, Any EU27 parliament can debate the negotiations and direct their negotiating team as they see fit. Except Westminster.
Sturgeon has played a blinder, whatever the status of #indyref2, May cannot ignore the Scottish interest.
Sturgeon has undermined her credibility - the trick was to continually to say that you might demand one but not actually to do so. Now she's got a bit for "grievance" but nothing of practical value.
And May won't ignore the Scottish interest. She is PM of the UK and will weigh the interest alongside the interests of, say, Herefordshire, and determine the right way forward for the UK a a whole. (I can understand why ScotNats might not think this works - I wasn't happy with the Mercosur negotiations, for instance, which were in the EU's interest but were negative for the UK - but they had a referendum on leaving and were denied)
Garbage, Scotland has been ignored for years, it is being ignored now and will be ignored in the future. That si guaranteed under Tories. We will see a referendum for sure and May's Mugabe announcement will only strengthen public opinion further.
An election in May 2017 would see the Tories winning a majority of Thatcheresque proportions. No risk at all. And election in May 2020 takes the risk that there has been no hard Brexit shock because if anything has gone wrong - the deal involved compromise and brought Dacre's wrath to bear, or the deal involved no compromise and has brought about economic shock which has a lot of leave voters saying "I didn't vote for that".
For me a snap election now buys her not just a thumping majority but insurance in a few years.
How does she get a snap election , by saying her government is crap and we need a new one. What is all the bollox about fixed term parliaments about.
Surely SNP would vote for one - they aren't scared are they?
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
I am convinced that when TM gets into the real deal she will not even take into account the so called hard Brexit. She will be seeking a compromise that may not suit the remainers but will not be anywhere near the so called hard Brexiteers.
However, her starting point absolutely has to be a hard Brexit as anything less would show weakness.
The deal with the EU is being enormously exaggerated in its importance. In reality, post Brexit, we will struggle to tell the difference on a day to day basis. I am confident that we will have tariff free trade, that we will get equivalence to regulation in financial services, that there will be some sort of fast track for EU citizens who want to come here making it easier for them than it is for other parts of the world, that those already here will have unqualified rights to remain, that there will be things in the deal that upset some Brexiteers and some remainers but the majority of us will accept it and move on.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
And the same thing for Scotland vis a vis the Union?
Marr's interview with Ruth Davidson is shameful and irritating. He will not let her talk without continual interruptions by him throughout. He is as bad with this interview as I have seen him.
If he can stop her sounding off then he must have improved a million fold. It never usually matters to her.
No matter your views of the person being interviewed they should be permitted to provide their view without constant interruptions from the interviewer
at 0723 I posted "There are 28 Parliaments in the EU that have the right to discuss and reject any Brexit deal mid negotiations. Those are the ones of the EU27 and of the EU itself. The only one that does not have that right is Westminster. Tis a strange sort of control that we have taken back."
This is correct. While the final Brexit is done by QMV, though perhaps needing unanimity on trade issues, Any EU27 parliament can debate the negotiations and direct their negotiating team as they see fit. Except Westminster.
Sturgeon has played a blinder, whatever the status of #indyref2, May cannot ignore the Scottish interest.
Sturgeon has undermined her credibility - the trick was to continually to say that you might demand one but not actually to do so. Now she's got a bit for "grievance" but nothing of practical value.
And May won't ignore the Scottish interest. She is PM of the UK and will weigh the interest alongside the interests of, say, Herefordshire, and determine the right way forward for the UK a a whole. (I can understand why ScotNats might not think this works - I wasn't happy with the Mercosur negotiations, for instance, which were in the EU's interest but were negative for the UK - but they had a referendum on leaving and were denied)
Garbage, Scotland has been ignored for years, it is being ignored now and will be ignored in the future. That si guaranteed under Tories. We will see a referendum for sure and May's Mugabe announcement will only strengthen public opinion further.
When the Queen's father died it was noted that the new monarch would be the first Elizabeth of Scotland. Accordingly the convention of higher regnal number was instituted. Thus the future King William will be William V whereas in the future we would have David III, Alexander IV or Macbeth II ... .... from the Scottish line.
The cost of WTO tariffs is broadly similar to what we pay the EU, so no £350m a week
I don't understand this bit.
WTO tariffs aren't stumped out by government in the same way EU contributions are.
Unless a government were foolish enough to promise to compensate or recompense companies for having to pay them?
Even if this were done in a few key industries (not saying it should be!), I have seen no serious suggestion of the government paying all tariffs for everyone.
I only picked this up because this seems to be a surprisingly common misunderstanding, that governments pay tariffs.
We know it will be hard Brexit and that's not because of Jacob Rees-Mogg and the Daily Mail. The EU are worried about the fracturing of their project and the rise of fascism. Set aside the practical reality that negotiating a deal in 18 months isn't just impossible it's insane, they can't and won't grant a deal. If they did it might encourage others to consider their own position.
So unfortunately for Blighty the deal we will be offered is va te faire foutre, and so off we go to WTO land. In a few years time things might settle back down, but thats like saying that after a big asteroid crashes into the earth things might settle back down.
The cost of WTO tariffs is broadly similar to what we pay the EU, so no £350m a week for the NHS. But it's the shock impact to industry that will do the terminal damage - a British car industry reliant on parts being shipped to and from the EU to be built here won't be viable if BMW have to pay an import tariff to the EU to ship Hams Hall engines to Germany for gearbox fitting then a tariff to the UK to install them in a Mini. Yes in the long term a supply chain can be set up. But in practice it will be the same impact as privatisation had on the train building industry - its swift closure.
And the same with banking, where it's even easier to up sticks and move. This I believe is the Trump card Sturgeon intends to play. All the way through our "negotiations" the EU will tell us not to go. They'll say stay in the market are you mad? So Sturgeon will agree her own deal - an independent Scotland in the EEA via EFTA, they'll give her transitional access, and so she'll have her referendum next autumn whether London likes it or not. And the carrot? No need to move to Frankfurt Mr Barclays, just come to Edinburgh.
I can see a Sturgeon platform of 'vote Yes for unlimited migration from Eastern Europe and a few City bankers moving to Edinburgh' sweeping all before it, yes!
Have to admit I'd never thought until now of the Remainer May strategy to be one of bluff and double bluff in order to get her own way but such is the intellect of your average Leaver, who would make Worzel Gummidge look like an intellect giant, it's quite possible that she's run rings round them to ensure that the country isn't damaged unnecessarily.
if remainers are so stonkingly clever, how come they lost ?
I mean by your own admission you only had to bamboozle a bunch of thickos and you couldnt, so what does that say about you ?
Campaigns and parties that play to voters baser instincts often succeed in the short term. history is littered with examples.
Nicola on Sophy (Sky) does seem less confident than usual. She seems almost to be pleading with Theresa May to at the very least to discuss a date.
In sales, that's known as the "presumptive close". "How would you like to pay?" presumes you have decided to buy. Nicola Sturgeon at this stage is pushing for the validity of having a referendum a couple of years after the last one and without her committing definitely to a straight choice between the UK and the EU. If the argument is about dates, that presumes a decision to have a referendum.
As a devotee of fine language, I admire this phrase: Those Leavers who are regarded on their own side as intellectuals have often stressed...
On the topic, I am not convinced committed Leavers will think the actual Brexit a betrayal. You don't take into account the human capacity to rationalise outcomes previously dismissed. In the several months since the referendum we have seen people move without missing a heart beat from
"Of course the EU will keep giving us all the things we want. They would be acting against their own interests if they didn't"
to
"Who needs that stuff anyway?"
There is nothing we can do except wait for reality to kick Leavers in the shins. When that happens, the fingers they have wedged firmly in their ears will not matter.
We are heading for WTO unless something truly monumental happens
Marr's interview with Ruth Davidson is shameful and irritating. He will not let her talk without continual interruptions by him throughout. He is as bad with this interview as I have seen him.
If he can stop her sounding off then he must have improved a million fold. It never usually matters to her.
Quite, and Lord knows she gave him plenty of one rule for brexit, another for sindy type nonsense to challenge. I don't find her a particularly serious politicisn tbh.
You miss my point. The EU cannot guarantee the rights of UK nationals in the EU post Brexit (unless we remain in the EEA with all that means) as this is a national rather than an EU competence.
It would be a Spanish govt decision to keep the Costa Geriatrica, not an EU one.
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
I am convinced that when TM gets into the real deal she will not even take into account the so called hard Brexit. She will be seeking a compromise that may not suit the remainers but will not be anywhere near the so called hard Brexiteers.
However, her starting point absolutely has to be a hard Brexit as anything less would show weakness.
The deal with the EU is being enormously exaggerated in its importance. In reality, post Brexit, we will struggle to tell the difference on a day to day basis. I am confident that we will have tariff free trade, that we will get equivalence to regulation in financial services, that there will be some sort of fast track for EU citizens who want to come here making it easier for them than it is for other parts of the world, that those already here will have unqualified rights to remain, that there will be things in the deal that upset some Brexiteers and some remainers but the majority of us will accept it and move on.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
It's not just tariffs. Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union has the potential to considerably increase the cost of doing business - both financially and in terms of time.
We know it will be hard Brexit and that's not because of Jacob Rees-Mogg and the Daily Mail. The EU are worried about the fracturing of their project and the rise of fascism. Set aside the practical reality that negotiating a deal in 18 months isn't just impossible it's insane, they can't and won't grant a deal. If they did it might encourage others to consider their own position.
So unfortunately for Blighty the deal we will be offered is va te faire foutre, and so off we go to WTO land. In a few years time things might settle back down, but thats like saying that after a big asteroid crashes into the earth things might settle back down.
The cost of WTO tariffs is broadly similar to what we pay the EU, so no £350m a week for the NHS. But it's the shock impact to industry that will do the terminal damage - a British car industry reliant on parts being shipped to and from the EU to be built here won't be viable if BMW have to pay an import tariff to the EU to ship Hams Hall engines to Germany for gearbox fitting then a tariff to the UK to install them in a Mini. Yes in the long term a supply chain can be set up. But in practice it will be the same impact as privatisation had on the train building industry - its swift closure.
And the same with banking, where it's even easier to up sticks and move. This I believe is the Trump card Sturgeon intends to play. All the way through our "negotiations" the EU will tell us not to go. They'll say stay in the market are you mad? So Sturgeon will agree her own deal - an independent Scotland in the EEA via EFTA, they'll give her transitional access, and so she'll have her referendum next autumn whether London likes it or not. And the carrot? No need to move to Frankfurt Mr Barclays, just come to Edinburgh.
I can see a Sturgeon platform of 'vote Yes for unlimited migration from Eastern Europe and a few City bankers moving to Edinburgh' sweeping all before it, yes!
We badly need immigration.
You do and you will have it post Brexit but subject to work visas
Nicola just said she is not responsible for Scotland's enormous deficit - so her overspending is not her fault
G, now you are being silly, Scotland gets a block grant , they are unable to overspend or have a deficit. Only the UK can have a deficit as it controls all the money.
By the way, is there any sign of the future Dutch government's likely make-up? I know it can take months, but a glance at De Telegraaf website has nothing about it at all, except for a minor "PdvA licks wounds' story. Has everyone paused to have a think?
Have to admit I'd never thought until now of the Remainer May strategy to be one of bluff and double bluff in order to get her own way but such is the intellect of your average Leaver, who would make Worzel Gummidge look like an intellect giant, it's quite possible that she's run rings round them to ensure that the country isn't damaged unnecessarily.
if remainers are so stonkingly clever, how come they lost ?
I mean by your own admission you only had to bamboozle a bunch of thickos and you couldnt, so what does that say about you ?
Campaigns and parties that play to voters baser instincts often succeed in the short term. history is littered with examples.
ah yes, blame the voters, not your own cack handed mismanagement
Mr Farron has always bent the truth. In 1997 he was sacked by the leader of Lancashire CC Lib Dems for refusing to stand during the loyal toast at a civic function. Today he is claiming patriotism. Journalists - ask him about that civic function in 1997 !
Patriotism and the loyal toast are not the same thing.
*excepting those still living in the 18th century.
I believe JackW is a Jacobite.
Old school 17th century tho'?
But equally unlikely to regard toasting the House of Hanover as patriotic.
I am a "Liegance Jacobite" as espoused by Sir Ian Moncreiffe of that Ilk :
From Wiki :
In his book The Highland Clans, Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk claimed that Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom "is the lawful Jacobite sovereign of this realm". Moncreiffe made the following argument:
"... by the fourteenth century it had become common law (in both England and Scotland) that a person who was not born in the liegeance of the Sovereign, nor naturalised, could not have the capacity to succeed as an heir .... In Scotland, this law was modified in favour of the French from the sixteenth century, but was otherwise rigorously applied until the Whig Revolution of 1688, after which it was gradually done away with by the mid-nineteenth century. It was precisely because of this law that Queen Anne found it necessary to pass a special Act of Parliament naturalising all alien-born potential royal heirs under her Act of Settlement of the throne. But, of course, from the Jacobite point of view, no new statute could be passed after 1688 .... The nearest lawful heir of the Cardinal York in 1807 was, in fact, curiously enough, King George III himself, who had been born in England (and therefore in the technical liegance of James VIII)."
1685-1702 James II & VII 1702-1766 James III & VIII 1766-1788 Charles III 1788-1807 Henry IX & I 1807-1820 George I 1820-1830 George II 1830-1837 William IV & II 1837-1901 Victoria 1901-1910 Edward VII & I 1910-1936 George III 1936-1936 Edward VIII & II 1936-1952 George IV 1952- Elizabeth II
From the present monarch the higher regnal number from either English or Scottish monarchs takes precedence.
We know it will be hard Brexit and that's not because of Jacob Rees-Mogg and the Daily Mail. The EU are worried about the fracturing of their project and the rise of fascism. Set aside the practical reality that negotiating a deal in 18 months isn't just impossible it's insane, they can't and won't grant a deal. If they did it might encourage others to consider their own position.
So unfortunately for Blighty the deal we will be offered is va te faire foutre, and so off we go to WTO land. In a few years time things might settle back down, but thats like saying that after a big asteroid crashes into the earth things might settle back down.
The cost of WTO tariffs is broadly similar to what we pay the EU, so no £350m a week for the NHS. But it's the shock impact to industry that will do the terminal damage - a British car industry reliant on parts being shipped to and from the EU to be built here won't be viable if BMW have to pay an import tariff to the EU to ship Hams Hall engines to Germany for gearbox fitting then a tariff to the UK to install them in a Mini. Yes in the long term a supply chain can be set up. But in practice it will be the same impact as privatisation had on the train building industry - its swift closure.
And the same with banking, where it's even easier to up sticks and move. This I believe is the Trump card Sturgeon intends to play. All the way through our "negotiations" the EU will tell us not to go. They'll say stay in the market are you mad? So Sturgeon will agree her own deal - an independent Scotland in the EEA via EFTA, they'll give her transitional access, and so she'll have her referendum next autumn whether London likes it or not. And the carrot? No need to move to Frankfurt Mr Barclays, just come to Edinburgh.
I can see a Sturgeon platform of 'vote Yes for unlimited migration from Eastern Europe and a few City bankers moving to Edinburgh' sweeping all before it, yes!
Britain's principal economic vulnerability is our large current account deficit; associated with our high household debts and spending on imported goods and services. This cannot continue indefinitely, and the currency adjustment doesn't help unless the higher prices dramatically scales back people's appetite for buying foreign stuff. Indeed concern about our ability to sustain and finance this deficit is the principal reason that the £ went down in the first place.
The deal with the EU is being enormously exaggerated in its importance. In reality, post Brexit, we will struggle to tell the difference on a day to day basis. I am confident that we will have tariff free trade, that we will get equivalence to regulation in financial services, that there will be some sort of fast track for EU citizens who want to come here making it easier for them than it is for other parts of the world, that those already here will have unqualified rights to remain, that there will be things in the deal that upset some Brexiteers and some remainers but the majority of us will accept it and move on.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
And the same thing for Scotland vis a vis the Union?
No. The UK is a viable, albeit fairly heavily indebted country. Scotland currently isn't. The UK has a currency. Scotland doesn't. The UK has an internal, deeply integrated market of 66m people. Scotland 5.3m. The UK has a £1.7 trn sized economy. Scotland, regrettably, has a branch economy that is increasingly dependent on servicing the needs of its much larger neighbour and cannot risk any disruption to that.
Scotland has suffered from having politicians obsessed with constitutional deckchairs for more than 30 years now with not nearly enough time, thought or energy being spent on the day job. The cumulative consequences of that failure were hidden by the success of north sea oil and the somewhat eccentric behaviour of RBS but are now increasingly exposed. Anyone serious about Scottish independence should forget this referendum nonsense and focus on our infrastructure, education, exports, private sector growth, housing, public sector efficiency, tax competitiveness, the list is almost endless.
at 0723 I posted "There are 28 Parliaments in the EU that have the right to discuss and reject any Brexit deal mid negotiations. Those are the ones of the EU27 and of the EU itself. The only one that does not have that right is Westminster. Tis a strange sort of control that we have taken back."
This is correct. While the final Brexit is done by QMV, though perhaps needing unanimity on trade issues, Any EU27 parliament can debate the negotiations and direct their negotiating team as they see fit. Except Westminster.
Sturgeon has played a blinder, whatever the status of #indyref2, May cannot ignore the Scottish interest.
Sturgeon has undermined her credibility - the trick was to continually to say that you might demand one but not actually to do so. Now she's got a bit for "grievance" but nothing of practical value.
And May won't ignore the Scottish interest. She is PM of the UK and will weigh the interest alongside the interests of, say, Herefordshire, and determine the right way forward for the UK a a whole. (I can understand why ScotNats might not think this works - I wasn't happy with the Mercosur negotiations, for instance, which were in the EU's interest but were negative for the UK - but they had a referendum on leaving and were denied)
Garbage, Scotland has been ignored for years, it is being ignored now and will be ignored in the future. That si guaranteed under Tories. We will see a referendum for sure and May's Mugabe announcement will only strengthen public opinion further.
So 50% want a referendum at the same time Sturgeon does or earlier.
Nope, 51% do not want one in the next few years and 18% only after Brexit negotiations concluded which will not be until the end of March 2019 at the earliest
at 0723 I posted "There are 28 Parliaments in the EU that have the right to discuss and reject any Brexit deal mid negotiations. Those are the ones of the EU27 and of the EU itself. The only one that does not have that right is Westminster. Tis a strange sort of control that we have taken back."
This is correct. While the final Brexit is done by QMV, though perhaps needing unanimity on trade issues, Any EU27 parliament can debate the negotiations and direct their negotiating team as they see fit. Except Westminster.
Sturgeon has played a blinder, whatever the status of #indyref2, May cannot ignore the Scottish interest.
Sturgeon has undermined her credibility - the trick was to continually to say that you might demand one but not actually to do so. Now she's got a bit for "grievance" but nothing of practical value.
And May won't ignore the Scottish interest. She is PM of the UK and will weigh the interest alongside the interests of, say, Herefordshire, and determine the right way forward for the UK a a whole. (I can understand why ScotNats might not think this works - I wasn't happy with the Mercosur negotiations, for instance, which were in the EU's interest but were negative for the UK - but they had a referendum on leaving and were denied)
Garbage, Scotland has been ignored for years, it is being ignored now and will be ignored in the future. That si guaranteed under Tories. We will see a referendum for sure and May's Mugabe announcement will only strengthen public opinion further.
I checked my family tree back a few generations yesterday. One of my great grandfathers was most likely born in Antwerp. But checking the Belgium citizenship website, it seems this doesn't make me eligible for EU citizenship ;(
You miss my point. The EU cannot guarantee the rights of UK nationals in the EU post Brexit (unless we remain in the EEA with all that means) as this is a national rather than an EU competence.
It would be a Spanish govt decision to keep the Costa Geriatrica, not an EU one.
Yes, well as most Brits in the EU are in Spain and they put a lot of money into the Spanish economy the Spanish government will not be kicking them out
Have to admit I'd never thought until now of the Remainer May strategy to be one of bluff and double bluff in order to get her own way but such is the intellect of your average Leaver, who would make Worzel Gummidge look like an intellect giant, it's quite possible that she's run rings round them to ensure that the country isn't damaged unnecessarily.
if remainers are so stonkingly clever, how come they lost ?
I mean by your own admission you only had to bamboozle a bunch of thickos and you couldnt, so what does that say about you ?
Campaigns and parties that play to voters baser instincts often succeed in the short term. history is littered with examples.
As I said upthread, perhaps you were just arguing a bad case.
Or maybe the EU and/or Remainers said and did things that upset the voters.
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
I am convinced that when TM gets into the real deal she will not even take into account the so called hard Brexit. She will be seeking a compromise that may not suit the remainers but will not be anywhere near the so called hard Brexiteers.
However, her starting point absolutely has to be a hard Brexit as anything less would show weakness.
The deal with the EU is being enormously exaggerated in its importance. In reality, post Brexit, we will struggle to tell the difference on a day to day basis. I am confident that we will have tariff free trade, that we will get equivalence to regulation in financial services, that there will be some sort of fast track for EU citizens who want to come here making it easier for them than it is for other parts of the world, that those already here will have unqualified rights to remain, that there will be things in the deal that upset some Brexiteers and some remainers but the majority of us will accept it and move on.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
It's not just tariffs. Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union has the potential to considerably increase the cost of doing business - both financially and in terms of time.
Not really. It will only affect those who import and then re-export. It will become routine. Remember that the US is our biggest single trading partner and we don't even have a trade deal with them. Businesses adapt and cope.
An election in May 2017 would see the Tories winning a majority of Thatcheresque proportions. No risk at all. And election in May 2020 takes the risk that there has been no hard Brexit shock because if anything has gone wrong - the deal involved compromise and brought Dacre's wrath to bear, or the deal involved no compromise and has brought about economic shock which has a lot of leave voters saying "I didn't vote for that".
For me a snap election now buys her not just a thumping majority but insurance in a few years.
How does she get a snap election , by saying her government is crap and we need a new one. What is all the bollox about fixed term parliaments about.
Surely SNP would vote for one - they aren't scared are they?
I was asking a question , not giving an SNP speechm I have no connection to SNP and have no idea what they would do. The patter on here for months has been to deride idiots who did not realise theat we had fixed term parliaments and so could not have snap elections, I wondered what had changed that the same idiots are now stating the exact opposite.
Merkel has been in power longer than Thatcher, and has split her own voting coalition by tacking to the Left in office.
So Schulz will probably win, and he will probably play hardball with the UK.
Total exaggeration. Even on that poll the CDU on 33% is ahead of the SPD on 32% and the SPD would only form a government by 1% with Die Linle which they have historically ruled out as much as the CDU has with the AdD. As I have also consistently said it is complete fantasy to suggest Merkel will play soft with the UK while Schulz will play hard, everything Merkel has said is consistent with the EU line that the UK will only get a trade deal if it makes some concessions on EU immigration and maintains some continued payments to the EU. The only party which would really support Brexit UK is the AfD. In any case all 27 EU nations must agree to a deal and Germany is just one of them
There hardball but then there's very hardball, backing a downright punitive response to Brexit to send a message, even if it causes someblowback. Germanys stance will be a critical factor in swaying others.
What 'downright punitive response'? Schulz has met May at No10 and as far as I can see his line is identical to Merkel's
I didn't say he would be necessarily want such a response - I don't know - merely acknowledging there is a possibility of hardball vs even more hardball.
The cost of WTO tariffs is broadly similar to what we pay the EU, so no £350m a week
I don't understand this bit.
WTO tariffs aren't stumped out by government in the same way EU contributions are.
Unless a government were foolish enough to promise to compensate or recompense companies for having to pay them?
There is no need for the government to commit to direct payments, merely over-arching adjustments.
Civitas assessed EU imports as close to £13bn in tariff income for the exchequer on WTO levels. That's a very large chunk of money for the government to possess for either tax adjustments or investment.
It's not as if we do not pay tariffs anyway. The Uk exchequer already receives £3.1bn per annum in import duties (+VAT on them) from eurodiktat tariffs on global goods.
It's entirely conceivable that we could sweep away existing global tariffs where it is perceived to be beneficial.
The impact would most probably be more businesses and consumers opting for global goods at the expense of european ones.
The deal with the EU is being enormously exaggerated in its importance. In reality, post Brexit, we will struggle to tell the difference on a day to day basis. I am confident that we will have tariff free trade, that we will get equivalence to regulation in financial services, that there will be some sort of fast track for EU citizens who want to come here making it easier for them than it is for other parts of the world, that those already here will have unqualified rights to remain, that there will be things in the deal that upset some Brexiteers and some remainers but the majority of us will accept it and move on.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
And the same thing for Scotland vis a vis the Union?
No. The UK is a viable, albeit fairly heavily indebted country. Scotland currently isn't. The UK has a currency. Scotland doesn't. The UK has an internal, deeply integrated market of 66m people. Scotland 5.3m. The UK has a £1.7 trn sized economy. Scotland, regrettably, has a branch economy that is increasingly dependent on servicing the needs of its much larger neighbour and cannot risk any disruption to that.
Scotland has suffered from having politicians obsessed with constitutional deckchairs for more than 30 years now with not nearly enough time, thought or energy being spent on the day job. The cumulative consequences of that failure were hidden by the success of north sea oil and the somewhat eccentric behaviour of RBS but are now increasingly exposed. Anyone serious about Scottish independence should forget this referendum nonsense and focus on our infrastructure, education, exports, private sector growth, housing, public sector efficiency, tax competitiveness, the list is almost endless.
I was being bad in putting you on the spot. More seriously, you are changing the subject here. I mostly agree with you on the poor consequences for Scotland following independence. The claim you were making for the UK and the EU is things will carry on in a benign way because that's the sensible to do. I don't actually think that the case because Brexit itself was far from sensible so why expect the other side to be entirely rational, when we aren't? But let's say it isn't like that, why wouldn't the sensible approach also apply to an independent Scotland and the new South Britain?
Sophy Ridge (Sky on Sundays) is proving a very good political journalist with a much less confrontation technique than most and a good questioning style
Comments
I see loads of small countries , many more prosperous than UK surviving perfectly well. Why would Scotland be the only odd man out.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
However, her starting point absolutely has to be a hard Brexit as anything less would show weakness.
off polluting the site with common sense again
My newsnow feed has the Guardian/Independent often churning out ten anti-Brexit type articles every few hours.
It's the double standards that are the most amusing.
they need young Meeks as their editor
I would still rather not have it though!
now shes apparently applying to join the EU
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
Early days still, of course, but he'd probably concede privately himself that it's been a rocky start.
From Wiki :
In his book The Highland Clans, Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk claimed that Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom "is the lawful Jacobite sovereign of this realm". Moncreiffe made the following argument:
"... by the fourteenth century it had become common law (in both England and Scotland) that a person who was not born in the liegeance of the Sovereign, nor naturalised, could not have the capacity to succeed as an heir .... In Scotland, this law was modified in favour of the French from the sixteenth century, but was otherwise rigorously applied until the Whig Revolution of 1688, after which it was gradually done away with by the mid-nineteenth century. It was precisely because of this law that Queen Anne found it necessary to pass a special Act of Parliament naturalising all alien-born potential royal heirs under her Act of Settlement of the throne. But, of course, from the Jacobite point of view, no new statute could be passed after 1688 .... The nearest lawful heir of the Cardinal York in 1807 was, in fact, curiously enough, King George III himself, who had been born in England (and therefore in the technical liegance of James VIII)."
............................................................................................
The Jacobite line from 1685 was :
1685-1702 James II & VII
1702-1766 James III & VIII
1766-1788 Charles III
1788-1807 Henry IX & I
1807-1820 George I
1820-1830 George II
1830-1837 William IV & II
1837-1901 Victoria
1901-1910 Edward VII & I
1910-1936 George III
1936-1936 Edward VIII & II
1936-1952 George IV
1952- Elizabeth II
From the present monarch the higher regnal number from either English or Scottish monarchs takes precedence.
On the topic, I am not convinced committed Leavers will think the actual Brexit a betrayal. You don't take into account the human capacity to rationalise outcomes previously dismissed. In the several months since the referendum we have seen people move without missing a heart beat from
"Of course the EU will keep giving us all the things we want. They would be acting against their own interests if they didn't"
to
"Who needs that stuff anyway?"
WTO tariffs aren't stumped out by government in the same way EU contributions are.
https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/843372724630290432
https://mobile.twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/843261614136659969
https://mobile.twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/843260938933407744
When the Queen's father died it was noted that the new monarch would be the first Elizabeth of Scotland. Accordingly the convention of higher regnal number was instituted. Thus the future King William will be William V whereas in the future we would have David III, Alexander IV or Macbeth II ...
I only picked this up because this seems to be a surprisingly common misunderstanding, that governments pay tariffs.
Campaigns and parties that play to voters baser instincts often succeed in the short term. history is littered with examples.
There is nothing we can do except wait for reality to kick Leavers in the shins. When that happens, the fingers they have wedged firmly in their ears will not matter.
We are heading for WTO unless something truly monumental happens
You miss my point. The EU cannot guarantee the rights of UK nationals in the EU post Brexit (unless we remain in the EEA with all that means) as this is a national rather than an EU competence.
It would be a Spanish govt decision to keep the Costa Geriatrica, not an EU one.
Scotland has suffered from having politicians obsessed with constitutional deckchairs for more than 30 years now with not nearly enough time, thought or energy being spent on the day job. The cumulative consequences of that failure were hidden by the success of north sea oil and the somewhat eccentric behaviour of RBS but are now increasingly exposed. Anyone serious about Scottish independence should forget this referendum nonsense and focus on our infrastructure, education, exports, private sector growth, housing, public sector efficiency, tax competitiveness, the list is almost endless.
Or maybe the EU and/or Remainers said and did things that upset the voters.
Civitas assessed EU imports as close to £13bn in tariff income for the exchequer on WTO levels. That's a very large chunk of money for the government to possess for either tax adjustments or investment.
It's not as if we do not pay tariffs anyway. The Uk exchequer already receives £3.1bn per annum in import duties (+VAT on them) from eurodiktat tariffs on global goods.
It's entirely conceivable that we could sweep away existing global tariffs where it is perceived to be beneficial.
The impact would most probably be more businesses and consumers opting for global goods at the expense of european ones.