The problem is, though, that an EU army won't result in more spending. German politicians have made it clear that they are not going to be upping their defence budgets. There will be a new fancy EU military HQ, staffed by pan EU top brass with shiny new braid, but no more tanks, or ships, or guns. More disengagement from NATO, though.
Not as fast an increase as Trump would like. I think Germany will pull its socks up. Firstly, they accept Trump and others have a point. Germany let its defence capabilities hollow out. Secondly they are worried about Putin. Thirdly they don't trust the US and the UK as much as before because of the rhetoric around Brexit and Trump and think they need to take more of a leadership role on defence
Whether the Lib Dems are surging or drifting depends on whether you think their recent and undoubtedly new by-election success is leading indicator or irrelevant. Back in the day, the Lib Dems had support amongst the CDE's. Now it's pretty much AB's only, in the polls. Is that a Brexit effect or are the CDE's, who are less interested in politics, just lagging?
I think it is Brexit, mostly. The Lib Dems are doing very well with wealthier voters who are really upset about Brexit.
Not all of the by-election massive swings have been in areas full of AB Remain voters.
The point Mark makes in the podcast is an important one - there is a constituency of 'moderate' Leave voters (both moderate Tory and Labour-leaning people) who are concerned about the progression towards a harder Brexit for whom the LibDems offer an effective way to shoot across the government's bows,
Even in moderate Leave seats it has been mainly Remain voters voting LD
In the national polls, perhaps, but not in the by-elections. In the national polls most of the LibDem support comes from Remain voters, for sure. In by-elections, particularly local ones, there have been huge swings that must have included leave voters (what evidence to the contrary do you have?) - for example the big gains in Sunderland, Rotherham and Oldham.
Indeed the answer to the conundrum as to why LibDems are doing well in by-elections but not in "next GE" polling may be that the latter only picks up the Remain LibDems whereas 'soft Leave' people too are willing to back them in an actual election to fire across government bows, as both Mark and I are suggesting.
This is the change in LibDem support between 2010 and the by-election:
Copeland -3.0% Stoke Central -11.9% Sleaford -7.2% Richmond Park +6.9% Witney +10.8%
Not much evidence there that the LibDems are picking up 'soft Leave' votes. Rather that they have potential in middle class Remain areas.
Local elections suggest a little more. Anyhow we'll have an important further clue in a few weeks.
Whether the Lib Dems are surging or drifting depends on whether you think their recent and undoubtedly new by-election success is leading indicator or irrelevant. Back in the day, the Lib Dems had support amongst the CDE's. Now it's pretty much AB's only, in the polls. Is that a Brexit effect or are the CDE's, who are less interested in politics, just lagging?
I think it is Brexit, mostly. The Lib Dems are doing very well with wealthier voters who are really upset about Brexit.
So an easy Labour hold in Gorton?
I would expect a fairly comfortable hold.
Assuming the local party doesn't split and leave a prominent 'rebel' independent Labour candidate, then anything but a comfortable hold is highly unlikely. When do nominations close, must be this week or last for May 4th surely?
Trump's conversion to NATO and the EU is a very big deal, isn't it?
If longterm - he seems to believe the last thing he hears, and follow the advice of whoever speaks to him last.
As you say, it could all change again; but that actually makes it harder for us to build a sustainable, coherent position.
Something that is in line with stated U.K. Government objectives is a problem?
A Trump committed to the EU and NATO certainly reduces the small amount of Brexit negotiation leverage the UK might have, yes. It removes from the table the threats about withdrawing security cooperation some of the more swivel-eyed on the right have been talking about, while generally strengthening the EU's already strong hand - there is no Brexit saviour across the Atlantic. The good news is that it may mean we end up with a much softer Brexit, of course.
It doesn't change anything on either front. How much the UK intelligence services share with the EU or any UK US trade deal are not affected at all, it is mainly a movement by Trump against Russia, nothing more
Yes, it does. A US that supports a strong NATO and EU will not countenance or enable anything that undermines either. That applies to both security and trade.
No it doesn't. It was May who pushed this change from Trump and it is the UK who will decide how much intelligence they share with the EU and Trump remains just as committed to a trade deal with the UK even if breaking up the EU is no longer one of his main priorities
No, it was Syria and reality that helped Trump see the NATO light. As for intelligence, a US committed to NATO will not do anything that increases the security threat Europe faces. And a trade deal with the US will be the deal the US says it will be. One that does not give the UK an advantage over EU member states is one that does not provide any leverage in the Brexit negotiations.
No, it was May who pushed Trump away from Putin and Assad too.It is the UK government who will decide how much intelligence they share with the EU. A trade deal with our largest destination for exports will be a boost regardless of any leverage it gives
Trump's conversion to NATO and the EU is a very big deal, isn't it?
If longterm - he seems to believe the last thing he hears, and follow the advice of whoever speaks to him last.
Looks like he is also pulling back from trade war with China.
I am not sure Nigel Farage will be getting as many opportunities to lick the President's arse in future.
More importantly, where does this leave the UK? It's a tricky one to call. If Trump really has realised that a strong NATO and EU are fundamental to the US's interests, how do we play it? Clearly, any threats of reducing security cooperation with the Europeans would have to be predicated on the Americans giving that the green light. That looks far less likely now. As does some kind of special US/UK trade deal designed to screw the EU over.
As you say, it could all change again; but that actually makes it harder for us to build a sustainable, coherent position.
It was actually May who pushed Trump towards NATO and the EU and of course the fact Trump accepts both has nothing to do with any future UK US trade deal or how much information GCHQ supplies the EU
Trump in line with U.K. Government = bad for the UK Trump out of line with U.K. Government = bad for the UK
With Trump's changing stance on NATO it strikes me that we ought to quietly and gradually drop away from the 2% defence spend we do.
Lets be honest there are no real penalties, sanctions or consequences for not doing so. Say down to 1.5%, that would free up cash for other areas, decrease borrowing or allow for lower tax increases/reductions...
No, Trump would take us less seriously and it sends a message of weakness over Gibraltar
Trump blows whichever way the wind takes him, as for Gibraltar - well that is another NATO member.....
See below - I am cheerful. The Farage/Fox/Johnson/Davis hard Brexiteers have been left high and dry by Trump. That's very good news for the UK. How May navigates the fury of the right wing Tory press when all this becomes apparent will be interesting to watch.
The drought is a concern, of course ;-)
Given that from their point of view a soft Brexit means eternal national purgatory, more than a few of them could think, "We might as well stay and join the Euro."
Farage's goal was always to bring down the EU and he can't do that from a soft-Brexity nation. There's a reason Norwegian Eurosceptics don't have any international platform to speak of.
Trump's conversion to NATO and the EU is a very big deal, isn't it?
If longterm - he seems to believe the last thing he hears, and follow the advice of whoever speaks to him last.
As you say, it could all change again; but that actually makes it harder for us to build a sustainable, coherent position.
Something that is in line with stated U.K. Government objectives is a problem?
A Trump committed to the EU and NATO certainly reduces thexit saviour across the Atlantic. The good news is that it may mean we end up with a much softer Brexit, of course.
It doesn't change anything on either front. How much the UK intelligence services share with the EU or any UK US trade deal are not affected at all, it is mainly a movement by Trump against Russia, nothing more
Yes, it does. A US that supports a strong NATO and EU will not countenance or enable anything that undermines either. That applies to both security and trade.
It's not a simple two-dimensional issue.
The logic of Trump's position is that both the UK and the EU play nice, which is exactly what we want.
The UK will not isolate itself. Our government will act rationally. Bad news for right wing, Europe-haters. Trump is not their friend. The Europeans know this.
Well that's fine then. I want our government to act rationally in the national interest. If that involves a soft Brexit, as I believe it does, that is a reason to be cheerful. Despite the oncoming drought.
See below - I am cheerful. The Farage/Fox/Johnson/Davis hard Brexiteers have been left high and dry by Trump. That's very good news for the UK. How May navigates the fury of the right wing Tory press when all this becomes apparent will be interesting to watch.
The drought is a concern, of course ;-)
It occurs to me that this is probably how we get closure on Brexit, as a political class. Leaver vs Remainer becomes Hard Brexit vs Soft Brexit, with the same protagonists moving to new positions, more locked in the argument itself than the actual shifting stance they're arguing for. Feels healthy, actually; allows everyone to stay engaged, part of the demos.
SO Out of genuine interest, why do you say Trump has abandoned the hard brexit crew? Has anything really fundamentally changed?
If he is genuinely committed to a strong NATO and EU then everything has changed as a UK closely tied to the EU will be a Washington priority. If he is just saying it, then clearly he cannot be relied on as an ally. Either way, the negotiating leverage on security and a beneficial US trade deal that hard Brexiteers have placed so much store on is clearly non-existent in reality.
See below - I am cheerful. The Farage/Fox/Johnson/Davis hard Brexiteers have been left high and dry by Trump. That's very good news for the UK. How May navigates the fury of the right wing Tory press when all this becomes apparent will be interesting to watch.
The drought is a concern, of course ;-)
Given that from their point of view a soft Brexit means eternal national purgatory, more than a few of them could think, "We might as well stay and join the Euro."
Farage's goal was always to bring down the EU and he can't do that from a soft-Brexity nation. There's a reason Norwegian Eurosceptics don't have any international platform to speak of.
More likely the EU splits leaving just a eurozone inner core with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe outside on the periphery
Whether the Lib Dems are surging or drifting depends on whether you think their recent and undoubtedly new by-election success is leading indicator or irrelevant. Back in the day, the Lib Dems had support amongst the CDE's. Now it's pretty much AB's only, in the polls. Is that a Brexit effect or are the CDE's, who are less interested in politics, just lagging?
I think it is Brexit, mostly. The Lib Dems are doing very well with wealthier voters who are really upset about Brexit.
Not all of the by-election massive swings have been in areas full of AB Remain voters.
The point Mark makes in the podcast is an important one - there is a constituency of 'moderate' Leave voters (both moderate Tory and Labour-leaning people) who are concerned about the progression towards a harder Brexit for whom the LibDems offer an effective way to shoot across the government's bows,
Even in moderate Leave seats it has been mainly Remain voters voting LD
In the national polls, perhaps, but not in the by-elections. In the national polls most of the LibDem support comes from Remain voters, for sure. In by-elections, particularly local ones, there have been huge swings that must have included leave voters (what evidence to the contrary do you have?) - for example the big gains in Sunderland, Rotherham and Oldham.
Indeed the answer to the conundrum as to why LibDems are doing well in by-elections but not in "next GE" polling may be that the latter only picks up the Remain LibDems whereas 'soft Leave' people too are willing to back them in an actual election to fire across government bows, as both Mark and I are suggesting.
This is the change in LibDem support between 2010 and the by-election:
Copeland -3.0% Stoke Central -11.9% Sleaford -7.2% Richmond Park +6.9% Witney +10.8%
Not much evidence there that the LibDems are picking up 'soft Leave' votes. Rather that they have potential in middle class Remain areas.
Local elections suggest a little more. Anyhow we'll have an important further clue in a few weeks.
There's a clue in the word 'local' why local by-elections are not a good guide to national elections.
See below - I am cheerful. The Farage/Fox/Johnson/Davis hard Brexiteers have been left high and dry by Trump. That's very good news for the UK. How May navigates the fury of the right wing Tory press when all this becomes apparent will be interesting to watch.
The drought is a concern, of course ;-)
Given that from their point of view a soft Brexit means eternal national purgatory, more than a few of them could think, "We might as well stay and join the Euro."
Farage's goal was always to bring down the EU and he can't do that from a soft-Brexity nation. There's a reason Norwegian Eurosceptics don't have any international platform to speak of.
More likely the EU splits leaving just a eurozone inner core with Scandinavia and Eastern outside on the periphery
And Trump will support this? The US will say to Poland, "That's ok, we've got your back?"
Perhaps 'likely' has a different meaning in your dictionary.
The problem is, though, that an EU army won't result in more spending. German politicians have made it clear that they are not going to be upping their defence budgets. There will be a new fancy EU military HQ, staffed by pan EU top brass with shiny new braid, but no more tanks, or ships, or guns. More disengagement from NATO, though.
Not as fast an increase as Trump would like. I think Germany will pull its socks up. Firstly, they accept Trump and others have a point. Germany let its defence capabilities hollow out. Secondly they are worried about Putin. Thirdly they don't trust the US and the UK as much as before because of the rhetoric around Brexit and Trump and think they need to take more of a leadership role on defence
I think you've misread them. Taking a leadership role on defence is anathema to the German political establishment. More likely, they'd try to deal with Putin's Russia through soft political routes; compromising on sanctions, watering down EU opposition to Russian aggression, and similar. We'd call it appeasement; they'll call it pragmatism.
With Trump's changing stance on NATO it strikes me that we ought to quietly and gradually drop away from the 2% defence spend we do.
Lets be honest there are no real penalties, sanctions or consequences for not doing so. Say down to 1.5%, that would free up cash for other areas, decrease borrowing or allow for lower tax increases/reductions...
Reducing the defence budget by a quarter reduces the military capacity by much more than a quarter as so much of the defence budget funds Trident, ceremonial troops for the tourists, expensive equipment which doesn't work and hundreds of generals, admirals and air marshals.
A better way to save money on military spending would be to stop the warmongering that British politicians are so prone to.
A possible analogy to defence is the NHS. Thankfully, the US doesn't (yet) advise other OECD countries that they should aim to spend 17% of GDP on healthcare.
The UK and Canada both run their health services more efficiently than the US; it's called socialised medicine. Various studies seem to show Canada has equal or better outcomes vs. the US but it only spends 11-13% of GDP. Life expectancy is higher than the US.
Apply that more intelligent approach to defence spending.
See below - I am cheerful. The Farage/Fox/Johnson/Davis hard Brexiteers have been left high and dry by Trump. That's very good news for the UK. How May navigates the fury of the right wing Tory press when all this becomes apparent will be interesting to watch.
The drought is a concern, of course ;-)
Given that from their point of view a soft Brexit means eternal national purgatory, more than a few of them could think, "We might as well stay and join the Euro."
Farage's goal was always to bring down the EU and he can't do that from a soft-Brexity nation. There's a reason Norwegian Eurosceptics don't have any international platform to speak of.
If you think that's what British people will think, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Trump's conversion to NATO and the EU is a very big deal, isn't it?
If longterm - he seems to believe the last thing he hears, and follow the advice of whoever speaks to him last.
As you say, it could all change again; but that actually makes it harder for us to build a sustainable, coherent position.
Something that is in line with stated U.K. Government objectives is a problem?
A Trump committed to the EUa much softer Brexit, of course.
It doesn't change anything on either front. How much the UK intelligence services share with the EU or any UK US trade deal are not affected at all, it is mainly a movement by Trump against Russia, nothing more
Yes, it does. A US that supports a strong NATO and EU will not countenance or enable anything that undermines either. That applies to both security and trade.
No it doesn't. It was May who pushed this change from Trump and it is the UK who will decide how much intelligence they share with the EU and Trump remains just as committed to a trade deal with the UK even if breaking up the EU is no longer one of his main priorities
No, it was Syria and reality that helped Trump see the NATO light. As for intelligence, a US committed to NATO will not do anything that increases the security threat Europe faces. And a trade deal with the US will be the deal the US says it will be. One that does not give the UK an advantage over EU member states is one that does not provide any leverage in the Brexit negotiations.
No, it was May who pushed Trump away from Putin and Assad too.It is the UK government who will decide how much intelligence they share with the EU. A trade deal with our largest destination for exports will be a boost regardless of any leverage it gives
The single market is our largest destination for exports. And the idea that any trade deal with the US would be of net benefit to the UK is an interesting one. I hope our negotiators are a bit more savvy than that. As for intelligence sharing, again your naivity is somewhat puzzling: a US committed to NATO will ensure Europe's security is not compromised. That means that what the UK decides to do is pretty much irrelevant.
See below - I am cheerful. The Farage/Fox/Johnson/Davis hard Brexiteers have been left high and dry by Trump. That's very good news for the UK. How May navigates the fury of the right wing Tory press when all this becomes apparent will be interesting to watch.
The drought is a concern, of course ;-)
Given that from their point of view a soft Brexit means eternal national purgatory, more than a few of them could think, "We might as well stay and join the Euro."
Farage's goal was always to bring down the EU and he can't do that from a soft-Brexity nation. There's a reason Norwegian Eurosceptics don't have any international platform to speak of.
More likely the EU splits leaving just a eurozone inner core with Scandinavia and Eastern outside on the periphery
And Trump will support this? The US will say to Poland, "That's ok, we've got your back?"
Perhaps 'likely' has a different meaning in your dictionary.
What has that got to do with Poland, Sweden, Hungary, Denmark etc joining the Euro?
With Trump's changing stance on NATO it strikes me that we ought to quietly and gradually drop away from the 2% defence spend we do.
Lets be honest there are no real penalties, sanctions or consequences for not doing so. Say down to 1.5%, that would free up cash for other areas, decrease borrowing or allow for lower tax increases/reductions...
Hmmm....the world is a more dangerous place now than it's been for a while. Norks. Russkies. Jihadists. China. Falling oil price. 2008 Mk2 on its way. The Donald. Juncker. I'd humbly suggest it's folly on stilts to weaken ourselves deliberately even further. The armed services are critically understaffed. If we're going to not spend some money please can we not spend £10bn on DfiD - Lambos n Mercs for dictators and a spurious number pulled out of Dave's butt for PR purposes.
Some good accounting would see certain projects appear in both DoD and DfID spending - sending a bunch of squaddies and logisticians to set up a tented village for the displaced in Syria, as an example.
Trump's conversion to NATO and the EU is a very big deal, isn't it?
If longterm - he seems to believe the last thing he hears, and follow the advice of whoever speaks to him last.
As you say, it could all change again; but that actually makes it harder for us to build a sustainable, coherent position.
Something that is in line with stated U.K. Government objectives is a problem?
A Trump committed to the EUa much softer Brexit, of course.
It doesn't change anything on either front. How much the UK intelligence services share with the EU or any UK US trade deal are not affected at all, it is mainly a movement by Trump against Russia, nothing more
Yes, it does. A US that supports a strong NATO and EU will not countenance or enable anything that undermines either. That applies to both security and trade.
No it doesn't. It was May who pushed this change from Trump and it is the UK who will decide how much intelligence they share with the EU and Trump remains just as committed to a trade deal with the UK even if breaking up the EU is no longer one of his main priorities
No, it was Syria and reality that helped Trump see the NATO light. As for intelligence, a US committed to NATO will not do anything that increases the security threat Europe faces.
No, it was May who pushed Trump away from Putin and Assad too.It is the UK government who will decide how much intelligence they share with the EU. A trade deal with our largest destination for exports will be a boost regardless of any leverage it gives
The single market is our largest destination for exports. And the idea that any trade deal with the US would be of net benefit to the UK is an interesting one. I hope our negotiators are a bit more savvy than that. As for intelligence sharing, again your naivity is somewhat puzzling: a US committed to NATO will ensure Europe's security is not compromised. That means that what the UK decides to do is pretty much irrelevant.
We are leaving the single market to control immigration and reduce payments to the EU, nothing to do with the US though a trade deal may help. GCHQ has its own intelligence network
See below - I am cheerful. The Farage/Fox/Johnson/Davis hard Brexiteers have been left high and dry by Trump. That's very good news for the UK. How May navigates the fury of the right wing Tory press when all this becomes apparent will be interesting to watch.
The drought is a concern, of course ;-)
Given that from their point of view a soft Brexit means eternal national purgatory, more than a few of them could think, "We might as well stay and join the Euro."
Farage's goal was always to bring down the EU and he can't do that from a soft-Brexity nation. There's a reason Norwegian Eurosceptics don't have any international platform to speak of.
More likely the EU splits leaving just a eurozone inner core with Scandinavia and Eastern outside on the periphery
And Trump will support this? The US will say to Poland, "That's ok, we've got your back?"
Perhaps 'likely' has a different meaning in your dictionary.
What has that got to do with Poland, Sweden, Hungary, Denmark etc joining the Euro?
You said that the EU would split. Is that not what you meant?
This is the change in LibDem support between 2010 and the by-election:
Copeland -3.0% Stoke Central -11.9% Sleaford -7.2% Richmond Park +6.9% Witney +10.8%
Not much evidence there that the LibDems are picking up 'soft Leave' votes. Rather that they have potential in middle class Remain areas.
Indeed. In fact, there is evidence that far from picking up 'soft Leave' votes, the Lib Dems are losing Leave voters by their efforts to reverse Brexit.
eg. YouGov 5th April "In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?"
2015 Lib Dem voters: 27% right, 67% wrong Current Lib Dem voters: 10% right, 86% wrong
Yes, the Lib Dems have picked up a meagre 3% overall since the general election, but given that their performance in 2015 was so abject, that we're mid term, that the squeeze on living standards etc is continuing and that the main opposition party is hobbled by a leader with record unpopularity ratings, that's hardly something to write home about. They're picking up middle class Remain voters but that's partly offset by their losing Leave voters. That's the strategy of a party seeking to appeal to a niche market and as such it puts a natural ceiling on their support, limiting the scale of their revival other than in heavily Remain constituencies. In the past, the Lib Dems and the SDP/Libs would never have adopted such a Marmite approach. It smacks to me of lack of ambition.
The Conservatives and Labour have the better long term strategy, seeking to appeal to both camps, as they must do as parties which aspire to form governments. It's working for the Conservatives. Corbyn has scuppered Labour's attempts to reconnect to Leave voters by his general unpopularity and by specifically undermining in January the widespread efforts amongst Labour MPs to accept some limitations on freedom of movement, the touchstone issue for C2DE Leave voters, but under a different leader the approach might in time still pay dividends for Labour.
Careful with US life expectancy stats. They are massively skewed by violent early death. If you strip out those then what's left is a better picture than the UK on survival rates for major disease. But ...they are just very keen on blasting one another though. If you ONLY look at the urban black and hispanic stats then there is a truly grim pre-modern life picture. A civilised and healthy (but pricey) America and a fucking war zone live side by side.
I'd humbly suggest it's folly on stilts to weaken ourselves deliberately even further. The armed services are critically understaffed. If we're going to not spend some money please can we not spend £10bn on DfiD - Lambos n Mercs for dictators and a spurious number pulled out of Dave's butt for PR purposes.
Oh, I'd quite agree with this. Looking through the numbers they seem desperately "over-chiefed" though - I think there is room for a tremendous amount of cost saving without compromising efficacy.
What does over chiefed mean? Too many staff? If anything less than 3,000 staff with a budget of £11bn or so seems too few to me.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Trump's conversion to NATO and the EU is a very big deal, isn't it?
If longterm - he seems to believe the last thing he hears, and follow the advice of whoever speaks to him last.
As you say, it could all change again; but that actually makes it harder for us to build a sustainable, coherent position.
Something that is in line with stated U.K. Government objectives is a problem?
A Trump committed to the EU and NATO certainly reduces the small amount of Brexit negotiation leverage the UK might have, yes. It removes from the table the threats about withdrawing security cooperation some of the more swivel-eyed on the right have been talking about, while generally strengthening the EU's already strong hand - there is no Brexit saviour across the Atlantic. The good news is that it may mean we end up with a much softer Brexit, of course.
It doesn't change anything on either front. How much the UK intelligence services share with the EU or any UK US trade deal are not affected at all, it is mainly a movement by Trump against Russia, nothing more
Yes, it does. A US that supports a strong NATO and EU will not countenance or enable anything that undermines either. That applies to both security and trade.
There's a tension there, though. A lot of the thrust of current EU political development undercuts NATO - I think we know which one Trump will prioritise. It's not a simple two-dimensional issue.
Exactly he will back NATO over an EU army in line with the position of the UK government
I doubt he cares particularly about an EU army. If it means Germany spends more on defence and brings in Sweden, there are some advantages to it from his point of view. His main concern is to get get Germany to reduce the number of cars and components it imports into the US
The problem is, though, that an EU army won't result in more spending. German politicians have made it clear that they are not going to be upping their defence budgets. There will be a new fancy EU military HQ, staffed by pan EU top brass with shiny new braid, but no more tanks, or ships, or guns. More disengagement from NATO, though.
Yes, there's no suggestion that the proposed "EU Army" is any more than another layer of brass hats who will never agree on any deployments where they might be useful.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
So no bitterness whatsoever about the way Johnson and Gove stabbed Cameron in the back and led the party and the country up the garden path?
See below - I am cheerful. The Farage/Fox/Johnson/Davis hard Brexiteers have been left high and dry by Trump. That's very good news for the UK. How May navigates the fury of the right wing Tory press when all this becomes apparent will be interesting to watch.
The drought is a concern, of course ;-)
Given that from their point of view a soft Brexit means eternal national purgatory, more than a few of them could think, "We might as well stay and join the Euro."
Farage's goal was always to bring down the EU and he can't do that from a soft-Brexity nation. There's a reason Norwegian Eurosceptics don't have any international platform to speak of.
More likely the EU splits leaving just a eurozone inner core with Scandinavia and Eastern outside on the periphery
And Trump will support this? The US will say to Poland, "That's ok, we've got your back?"
Perhaps 'likely' has a different meaning in your dictionary.
What has that got to do with Poland, Sweden, Hungary, Denmark etc joining the Euro?
You said that the EU would split. Is that not what you meant?
Into an outer periphery and inner Eurozone core as even Eurocrats have suggested
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
This brexiteer is happy with any form of Brexit. Many people on here are more worried about not being seen to be on the losing side of any argument; moving the goalposts & saying a soft Brexit is a win for them and implying it a horrific loss for Leavers will be the strategy it seems.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
So no bitterness whatsoever about the way Johnson and Gove stabbed Cameron in the back and led the party and the country up the garden path?
It's a really nice garden, like Hidcote or Sissinghurst
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Quite.
Labour cheerleaders are now keeping their fingers crossed for soft Brexit because they think it will anger the Tory right and split the party.
They fail to understand that:
- The Tory right care far more about British laws and sovereignty than they think. - The Tory right care far less about atlanticism than they think. - The Tory right care quite a lot more for Mrs May than Cameron/Osborne - The Tory traditionalists are going to win on domestic issues such as grammar schools in the coming years. Given the Venn diagram of Tory right and Tory traditionalists is almost a perfect circle, this will assuage any slight issues they may have on trade relations.
For purely partisan purposes, Labour cheerleaders should be hoping for the hardest of hard.
Edit to add:
In short, Mrs May is a far more typical Tory leader than Cameron could ever have been. Appealing to all parts of the party for different reasons.
With Trump's changing stance on NATO it strikes me that we ought to quietly and gradually drop away from the 2% defence spend we do.
Lets be honest there are no real penalties, sanctions or consequences for not doing so. Say down to 1.5%, that would free up cash for other areas, decrease borrowing or allow for lower tax increases/reductions...
Hmmm....the world is a more dangerous place now than it's been for a while. Norks. Russkies. Jihadists. China. Falling oil price. 2008 Mk2 on its way. The Donald. Juncker. I'd humbly suggest it's folly on stilts to weaken ourselves deliberately even further. The armed services are critically understaffed. If we're going to not spend some money please can we not spend £10bn on DfiD - Lambos n Mercs for dictators and a spurious number pulled out of Dave's butt for PR purposes.
Some good accounting would see certain projects appear in both DoD and DfID spending - sending a bunch of squaddies and logisticians to set up a tented village for the displaced in Syria, as an example.
I had an idea once that may or may not be bollocks: Devote DfiD solely to rescue operations (tsunami, earthquake, hurricance, etc). Spend their budget on new amphibious logistical support / helicopter ships like HMS Ocean (with extended medical facilities), Chinooks, tents, blankets, advance logistical bases, medics, search and rescue teams, etc. Staff mostly with ex-servicemen. When shit happens the UK will be there quickly to help, free of charge. If anything really hit the fan we'd have an extra HMS Ocean and air wing to deploy. That'd be a MUCH better way to spend £10bn than 'Lambos for scumbags'.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
This brexiteer is happy with any form of Brexit. Many people on here are more worried about not being seen to be on the losing side of any argument; moving the goalposts & saying a soft Brexit is a win for them and implying it a horrific loss for Leavers will be the strategy it seems.
Just another day of god awful whining and verbal bollox about the EU from the projectionists.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Having lost the main argument some REMAINERS are now seeking a mythical victory over a "hard Brexit" - as Tusk made clear, there is no "Hard Brexit" or "Soft Brexit", there is only "Brexit".
But to be fair David you don't want to see it the Brexit downside for the Tories. As long as the economy stays strong with unemployment below 5 per cent then the Brexit chickens will not come home to roost in a political sense.
However if the economy turns (as the industrial production figures are now suggesting) then then will be hell to pay. It will not take many more relocations of companies to the single market to illustrate the point to most people that they were sold one almighty pup. When that happens Brexit voters will not blame themselves but the party in charge of the process.
Since I have been off for a few days I totally missed the YouGov this week and I realise why it has not been mentioned by the usual suspects in this site Scottish sub sample SNP 53, TORY 23, LAB 13, LIB 8 AND UKIP 1 entire percent. Now , of course, I make no claims for a sub sample of 158 but it is interesting to contrast the straw clutching from unionists when this sub sample puts the SNP in the mid 40s and the silence which greets them in the low 50s!
The single market is our largest destination for exports.
The EU has been rapidly declining as a share of our overall export markets over the past decade, a trend that was very likely to continue regardless of Brexit.
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
This brexiteer is happy with any form of Brexit. Many people on here are more worried about not being seen to be on the losing side of any argument; moving the goalposts & saying a soft Brexit is a win for them and implying it a horrific loss for Leavers will be the strategy it seems.
I think it's called "bargaining" - at least they've moved on from "denial"' and "anger". Only "depression" to go until we reach "acceptance"...
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Quite.
Labour cheerleaders are now keeping their fingers crossed for soft Brexit because they think it will anger the Tory right and split the party.
They fail to understand that:
- The Tory right care far more about British laws and sovereignty than they think. - The Tory right care far less about atlanticism than they think. - The Tory right care quite a lot more for Mrs May than Cameron/Osborne - The Tory traditionalists are going to win on domestic issues such as grammar schools in the coming years. Given the Venn diagram of Tory right and Tory traditionalists is almost a perfect circle, this will assuage any slight issues they may have on trade relations.
For purely partisan purposes, Labour cheerleaders should be hoping for the hardest of hard.
Edit to add:
In short, Mrs May is a far more typical Tory leader than Cameron could ever have been. Appealing to all parts of the party for different reasons.
It's not about Mrs May's qualities, but about the position she finds herself in. The problem the Tory right will have with a soft Brexit is not any of the things you mentioned, but the fact that it will be a Brexit entirely on the EU's terms.
With Trump's changing stance on NATO it strikes me that we ought to quietly and gradually drop away from the 2% defence spend we do.
Lets be honest there are no real penalties, sanctions or consequences for not doing so. Say down to 1.5%, that would free up cash for other areas, decrease borrowing or allow for lower tax increases/reductions...
Hmmm....the world is a more dangerous place now than it's been for a while. Norks. Russkies. Jihadists. China. Falling oil price. 2008 Mk2 on its way. The Donald. Juncker. I'd humbly suggest it's folly on stilts to weaken ourselves deliberately even further. The armed services are critically understaffed. If we're going to not spend some money please can we not spend £10bn on DfiD - Lambos n Mercs for dictators and a spurious number pulled out of Dave's butt for PR purposes.
Some good accounting would see certain projects appear in both DoD and DfID spending - sending a bunch of squaddies and logisticians to set up a tented village for the displaced in Syria, as an example.
I had an idea once that may or may not be bollocks: Devote DfiD solely to rescue operations (tsunami, earthquake, hurricance, etc). Spend their budget on new amphibious logistical support / helicopter ships like HMS Ocean (with extended medical facilities), Chinooks, tents, blankets, advance logistical bases, medics, search and rescue teams, etc. Staff mostly with ex-servicemen. When shit happens the UK will be there quickly to help, free of charge. If anything really hit the fan we'd have an extra HMS Ocean and air wing to deploy. That'd be a MUCH better way to spend £10bn than 'Lambos for scumbags'.
Lord - I see on Wiki that HMS Ocean is to be decommissioned in 2018 with no replacement. Double plus ungood. The Navy is going to end up being a bloke in a dinghy with a pistol.
But to be fair David you don't want to see it the Brexit downside for the Tories. As long as the economy stays strong with unemployment below 5 per cent then the Brexit chickens will not come home to roost in a political sense.
However if the economy turns (as the industrial production figures are now suggesting) then then will be hell to pay. It will not take many more relocations of companies to the single market to illustrate the point to most people that they were sold one almighty pup. When that happens Brexit voters will not blame themselves but the party in charge of the process.
Since I have been off for a few days I totally missed the YouGov this week and I realise why it has not been mentioned by the usual suspects in this site Scottish sub sample SNP 53, TORY 23, LAB 13, LIB 8 AND UKIP 1 entire percent. Now , of course, I make no claims for a sub sample of 158 but it is interesting to contrast the straw clutching from unionists when this sub sample puts the SNP in the mid 40s and the silence which greets them in the low 50s!
We had recessions in the EU and we will have them out of it. Demonstrating the cause and effect will be difficult and open to debate.
So far as Scotland is concerned let's see how May 4th turns out. I expect the Tories to gain more Councillors than the SNP (from a much lower base of course). What do you expect?
Careful with US life expectancy stats. They are massively skewed by violent early death. If you strip out those then what's left is a better picture than the UK on survival rates for major disease. But ...they are just very keen on blasting one another though. If you ONLY look at the urban black and hispanic stats then there is a truly grim pre-modern life picture. A civilised and healthy (but pricey) America and a fucking war zone live side by side.
Life expectancy appears to be 80 (84) for men (women) in Canada and 77 (79) for men (women) in US
I wouldn't be surprised if US and Canada both have better survival rates than the UK. After all, the UK spends less than Canada but otherwise has a pretty similar healthcare approach (paid for by taxation and free to residents).
However, the main point was that inefficient approaches to national defence systems, on a par with the US healthcare system, should be reformed in preference to increasing defence spending.
The single market is our largest destination for exports.
The EU has been rapidly declining as a share of our overall export markets over the past decade, a trend that was very likely to continue regardless of Brexit.
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
the whole of Europe is in decline
when I was born ( 1961 ) Europeans were about 20% of people on the planet by the time I die - say in the 2050s- they will be about 5%
With Trump's changing stance on NATO it strikes me that we ought to quietly and gradually drop away from the 2% defence spend we do.
Lets be honest there are no real penalties, sanctions or consequences for not doing so. Say down to 1.5%, that would free up cash for other areas, decrease borrowing or allow for lower tax increases/reductions...
Hmmm....the world is a more dangerous place now than it's been for a while. Norks. Russkies. Jihadists. China. Falling oil price. 2008 Mk2 on its way. The Donald. Juncker. I'd humbly suggest it's folly on stilts to weaken ourselves deliberately even further. The armed services are critically understaffed. If we're going to not spend some money please can we not spend £10bn on DfiD - Lambos n Mercs for dictators and a spurious number pulled out of Dave's butt for PR purposes.
Some good accounting would see certain projects appear in both DoD and DfID spending - sending a bunch of squaddies and logisticians to set up a tented village for the displaced in Syria, as an example.
I had an idea once that may or may not be bollocks: Devote DfiD solely to rescue operations (tsunami, earthquake, hurricance, etc). Spend their budget on new amphibious logistical support / helicopter ships like HMS Ocean (with extended medical facilities), Chinooks, tents, blankets, advance logistical bases, medics, search and rescue teams, etc. Staff mostly with ex-servicemen. When shit happens the UK will be there quickly to help, free of charge. If anything really hit the fan we'd have an extra HMS Ocean and air wing to deploy. That'd be a MUCH better way to spend £10bn than 'Lambos for scumbags'.
And we could re-brand it International Rescue! (there's a much longer joke involving the IRC, but I'll spare everyone that).
In all seriousness, it's not a terrible idea. The question would be around whether you need a UK development fund for worthy causes; I'd argue not, but others would feel differently.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
This brexiteer is happy with any form of Brexit. Many people on here are more worried about not being seen to be on the losing side of any argument; moving the goalposts & saying a soft Brexit is a win for them and implying it a horrific loss for Leavers will be the strategy it seems.
I think it's called "bargaining" - at least they've moved on from "denial"' and "anger". Only "depression" to go until we reach "acceptance"...
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Having lost the main argument some REMAINERS are now seeking a mythical victory over a "hard Brexit" - as Tusk made clear, there is no "Hard Brexit" or "Soft Brexit", there is only "Brexit".
And he is right. It is a radical change of direction. And will become more so over time. Everything else is just froth.
The single market is our largest destination for exports.
The EU has been rapidly declining as a share of our overall export markets over the past decade, a trend that was very likely to continue regardless of Brexit.
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
the whole of Europe is in decline
when I was born ( 1961 ) Europeans were about 20% of people on the planet by the time I die - say in the 2050s- they will be about 5%
The idea that we should change our ways because the rest of the world has had more babies than us seems to run counter to the mindset that gave us Brexit...
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Quite.
Labour cheerleaders are now keeping their fingers crossed for soft Brexit because they think it will anger the Tory right and split the party.
They fail to understand that:
- The Tory right care far more about British laws and sovereignty than they think. - The Tory right care far less about atlanticism than they think. - The Tory right care quite a lot more for Mrs May than Cameron/Osborne - The Tory traditionalists are going to win on domestic issues such as grammar schools in the coming years. Given the Venn diagram of Tory right and Tory traditionalists is almost a perfect circle, this will assuage any slight issues they may have on trade relations.
For purely partisan purposes, Labour cheerleaders should be hoping for the hardest of hard.
Edit to add:
In short, Mrs May is a far more typical Tory leader than Cameron could ever have been. Appealing to all parts of the party for different reasons.
It's not about Mrs May's qualities, but about the position she finds herself in. The problem the Tory right will have with a soft Brexit is not any of the things you mentioned, but the fact that it will be a Brexit entirely on the EU's terms.
If it's a Brexit entirely on the EU's terms, then it is indeed going to be a no deal Brexit and it's much more their loss short term and their loss entirely long term economically.
Moreover, if the EU apparatchiks wanted to foist such an irrational stance on citizens of its constituent nations, imagine what damage that's going to do to the long term prospects of the EU in countries such as France, where already almost half of the population are prepared to vote for EU sceptic candidates next month.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Having lost the main argument some REMAINERS are now seeking a mythical victory over a "hard Brexit" - as Tusk made clear, there is no "Hard Brexit" or "Soft Brexit", there is only "Brexit".
And he is right. It is a radical change of direction. And will become more so over time. Everything else is just froth.
We're going in the same direction but are no longer in the driving seat. We're in the trailer.
The single market is our largest destination for exports.
The EU has been rapidly declining as a share of our overall export markets over the past decade, a trend that was very likely to continue regardless of Brexit.
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
the whole of Europe is in decline
when I was born ( 1961 ) Europeans were about 20% of people on the planet by the time I die - say in the 2050s- they will be about 5%
As another '61er that is a fantastic stat I am going to pinch.
With Trump's changing stance on NATO it strikes me that we ought to quietly and gradually drop away from the 2% defence spend we do.
Lets be honest there are no real penalties, sanctions or consequences for not doing so. Say down to 1.5%, that would free up cash for other areas, decrease borrowing or allow for lower tax increases/reductions...
Hmmm....the world is a more dangerous place now than it's been for a while. Norks. Russkies. Jihadists. China. Falling oil price. 2008 Mk2 on its way. The Donald. Juncker. I'd humbly suggest it's folly on stilts to weaken ourselves deliberately even further. The armed services are critically understaffed. If we're going to not spend some money please can we not spend £10bn on DfiD - Lambos n Mercs for dictators and a spurious number pulled out of Dave's butt for PR purposes.
Some good accounting would see certain projects appear in both DoD and DfID spending - sending a bunch of squaddies and logisticians to set up a tented village for the displaced in Syria, as an example.
I had an idea once that may or may not be bollocks: Devote DfiD solely to rescue operations (tsunami, earthquake, hurricance, etc). Spend their budget on new amphibious logistical support / helicopter ships like HMS Ocean (with extended medical facilities), Chinooks, tents, blankets, advance logistical bases, medics, search and rescue teams, etc. Staff mostly with ex-servicemen. When shit happens the UK will be there quickly to help, free of charge. If anything really hit the fan we'd have an extra HMS Ocean and air wing to deploy. That'd be a MUCH better way to spend £10bn than 'Lambos for scumbags'.
Not a bad idea, it would also need some air support though - a couple of C17s and Hercules for getting stuff anywhere in the world in a day or so. Any peacekeeping or humanitarian work done by active military should also be counted as DfID.
After we leave the EU we will be able to help a lot in Africa with trade - let us buy their food and sell them the advanced equipment to produce it. Trade is always better than aid.
In the meantime we should ensure that dictator scumbags buy British - Range Rover, Rolls Royce and McLaren for the foreign despots, if we are giving them aid money we should be making sure we get it back in goods sales!
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Having lost the main argument some REMAINERS are now seeking a mythical victory over a "hard Brexit" - as Tusk made clear, there is no "Hard Brexit" or "Soft Brexit", there is only "Brexit".
And he is right. It is a radical change of direction. And will become more so over time. Everything else is just froth.
We're going in the same direction but are no longer in the driving seat. We're in the trailer.
No we have got off the bus. We can now go in our own direction, for good or ill.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
So no bitterness whatsoever about the way Johnson and Gove stabbed Cameron in the back and led the party and the country up the garden path?
No they didn't and no they didn't. You can't actually campaign in a backstabby sort of way, because unless everybody knows about a campaign it isn't very effective. Perhaps that is where you went wrong...
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
This brexiteer is happy with any form of Brexit. Many people on here are more worried about not being seen to be on the losing side of any argument; moving the goalposts & saying a soft Brexit is a win for them and implying it a horrific loss for Leavers will be the strategy it seems.
Just another day of god awful whining and verbal bollox about the EU from the projectionists.
'Why won't those bloody EU projectionists stop their god awful whining and verbal bollox? I really must present some whining and verbal bollox on the subject.'
After we leave the EU we will be able to help a lot in Africa with trade - let us buy their food and sell them the advanced equipment to produce it. Trade is always better than aid.
We could even photocopy the existing Economic Partnership Agreements for maximum efficiency!
With Trump's changing stance on NATO it strikes me that we ought to quietly and gradually drop away from the 2% defence spend we do.
Lets be honest there are no real penalties, sanctions or consequences for not doing so. Say down to 1.5%, that would free up cash for other areas, decrease borrowing or allow for lower tax increases/reductions...
Hmmm....the world is a more dangerous place now than it's been for a while. Norks. Russkies. Jihadists. China. Falling oil price. 2008 Mk2 on its way. The Donald. Juncker. I'd humbly suggest it's folly on stilts to weaken ourselves deliberately even further. The armed services are critically understaffed. If we're going to not spend some money please can we not spend £10bn on DfiD - Lambos n Mercs for dictators and a spurious number pulled out of Dave's butt for PR purposes.
Some good accounting would see certain projects appear in both DoD and DfID spending - sending a bunch of squaddies and logisticians to set up a tented village for the displaced in Syria, as an example.
I had an idea once that may or may not be bollocks: Devote DfiD solely to rescue operations (tsunami, earthquake, hurricance, etc). Spend their budget on new amphibious logistical support / helicopter ships like HMS Ocean (with extended medical facilities), Chinooks, tents, blankets, advance logistical bases, medics, search and rescue teams, etc. Staff mostly with ex-servicemen. When shit happens the UK will be there quickly to help, free of charge. If anything really hit the fan we'd have an extra HMS Ocean and air wing to deploy. That'd be a MUCH better way to spend £10bn than 'Lambos for scumbags'.
Lord - I see on Wiki that HMS Ocean is to be decommissioned in 2018 with no replacement. Double plus ungood. The Navy is going to end up being a bloke in a dinghy with a pistol.
The single market is our largest destination for exports.
The EU has been rapidly declining as a share of our overall export markets over the past decade, a trend that was very likely to continue regardless of Brexit.
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
the whole of Europe is in decline
when I was born ( 1961 ) Europeans were about 20% of people on the planet by the time I die - say in the 2050s- they will be about 5%
The idea that we should change our ways because the rest of the world has had more babies than us seems to run counter to the mindset that gave us Brexit...
I havent a clue what you are talking about
I realise agitprop is important to you, but maybe once in a while you could produce a rationale to what you are saying
The single market is our largest destination for exports.
The EU has been rapidly declining as a share of our overall export markets over the past decade, a trend that was very likely to continue regardless of Brexit.
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
the whole of Europe is in decline
when I was born ( 1961 ) Europeans were about 20% of people on the planet by the time I die - say in the 2050s- they will be about 5%
As another '61er that is a fantastic stat I am going to pinch.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Having lost the main argument some REMAINERS are now seeking a mythical victory over a "hard Brexit" - as Tusk made clear, there is no "Hard Brexit" or "Soft Brexit", there is only "Brexit".
Nope - there are many forms of Brexit. I believe the one that will serve this country the best is a soft version that sees us maintain close links to the EU. Whether that splits the Tories or not is of very minor importance to me.
After a couple of weeks where Leavers were preparing to invade Spain over Gibraltar and cut off cooperation with the rest of the EU over security, it still seems markedly unlikely that any form of Brexit will lead to a healthy nation.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
This brexiteer is happy with any form of Brexit. Many people on here are more worried about not being seen to be on the losing side of any argument; moving the goalposts & saying a soft Brexit is a win for them and implying it a horrific loss for Leavers will be the strategy it seems.
I think it's called "bargaining" - at least they've moved on from "denial"' and "anger". Only "depression" to go until we reach "acceptance"...
Why not reach for Kuebler-Ross analogies? You clearly think Brexit is a terminal disease ....
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Having lost the main argument some REMAINERS are now seeking a mythical victory over a "hard Brexit" - as Tusk made clear, there is no "Hard Brexit" or "Soft Brexit", there is only "Brexit".
Nope - there are many forms of Brexit. I believe the one that will serve this country the best is a soft version that sees us maintain close links to the EU. Whether that splits the Tories or not is of very minor importance to me.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Quite.
Labour cheerleaders are now keeping their fingers crossed for soft Brexit because they think it will anger the Tory right and split the party.
They fail to understand that:
- The Tory right care far more about British laws and sovereignty than they think. - The Tory right care far less about atlanticism than they think. - The Tory right care quite a lot more for Mrs May than Cameron/Osborne - The Tory traditionalists are going to win on domestic issues such as grammar schools in the coming years. Given the Venn diagram of Tory right and Tory traditionalists is almost a perfect circle, this will assuage any slight issues they may have on trade relations.
For purely partisan purposes, Labour cheerleaders should be hoping for the hardest of hard.
Edit to add:
In short, Mrs May is a far more typical Tory leader than Cameron could ever have been. Appealing to all parts of the party for different reasons.
I note that you cannot find it in yourself to believe that people who do not share your vision of Brexit also want what they believe is best for the UK. In the end, this is what will do for the right. They do not own my country's flag.
I expect the SNP to win the election as they have won every democratic contest in Scotland since 2010.
Well yes of course they will be the largest party. But they won't get a plurality. Will they gain more Councillors than the Tories? That was the question.
With Trump's changing stance on NATO it strikes me that we ought to quietly and gradually drop away from the 2% defence spend we do.
Lets be honest there are no real penalties, sanctions or consequences for not doing so. Say down to 1.5%, that would free up cash for other areas, decrease borrowing or allow for lower tax increases/reductions...
Hmmm....the world is a more dangerous place now than it's been for a while. Norks. Russkies. Jihadists. China. Falling oil price. 2008 Mk2 on its way. The Donald. Juncker. I'd humbly suggest it's folly on stilts to weaken ourselves deliberately even further. The armed services are critically understaffed. If we're going to not spend some money please can we not spend £10bn on DfiD - Lambos n Mercs for dictators and a spurious number pulled out of Dave's butt for PR purposes.
Some good accounting would see certain projects appear in both DoD and DfID spending - sending a bunch of squaddies and logisticians to set up a tented village for the displaced in Syria, as an example.
I had an idea once that may or may not be bollocks: Devote DfiD solely to rescue operations (tsunami, earthquake, hurricance, etc). Spend their budget on new amphibious logistical support / helicopter ships like HMS Ocean (with extended medical facilities), Chinooks, tents, blankets, advance logistical bases, medics, search and rescue teams, etc. Staff mostly with ex-servicemen. When shit happens the UK will be there quickly to help, free of charge. If anything really hit the fan we'd have an extra HMS Ocean and air wing to deploy. That'd be a MUCH better way to spend £10bn than 'Lambos for scumbags'.
Lord - I see on Wiki that HMS Ocean is to be decommissioned in 2018 with no replacement. Double plus ungood. The Navy is going to end up being a bloke in a dinghy with a pistol.
And two dozen admirals to command the dinghy!
Ain't that the sad truth. Maybe we should give up on defending ourselves and pretend we all live in a nice, cosy, progressive, liberal, metrosexual world. Obama had a good go at that, and look what a spiffing success US foreign policy has been in recent years making the world safer. If we aren't going to spend properly on defence we must accept the potential consequences. I quite like the idea of 'shadow' defence spending via DfiD as it looks cosier and fluffier. But a Chinook is a Chinook. A ship a ship. A Herc a Herc. If we paint them all red, white and blue and say 'look, squirrel' when people ask if it's actually an aircraft carrier then we get to be heroic when buildings collapse and nasty to Ivan if and when.
After a couple of weeks where Leavers were preparing to invade Spain over Gibraltar and cut off cooperation with the rest of the EU over security, it still seems markedly unlikely that any form of Brexit will lead to a healthy nation.
of course it will
at the rate chocolate bars are reducing in size we'll be a lean fit nation of demi gods
The single market is our largest destination for exports.
The EU has been rapidly declining as a share of our overall export markets over the past decade, a trend that was very likely to continue regardless of Brexit.
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
The trade balance doesn't matter as nearly much as the amount we export. If we export more we can import more to satisfy our lifestyles. Brexit means we will trade less to the EU and less overall. It will probably have a slightly negative effect on trade with the rest of the world, at least in the short to medium term. Long term, who knows? By then I am old or dead,
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Let us see. Some of us understand there are many kinds of Brexiteer. We have also moved on. At some point, Brexiteers will have to accept that there are people who do not disagree with them out of spite, out of a need to score points, out of partisanship or out of a hatred for the UK, but because they genuinely believe that Brexiteers are wrong and they want to mitigate the effects of leaving the EU as they believe that is in the UK's best interests.
I am delighted Trump has left Boris and co in the lurch because I believe that will lead to a better outcome for the UK.
The single market is our largest destination for exports.
The EU has been rapidly declining as a share of our overall export markets over the past decade, a trend that was very likely to continue regardless of Brexit.
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
the whole of Europe is in decline
when I was born ( 1961 ) Europeans were about 20% of people on the planet by the time I die - say in the 2050s- they will be about 5%
As another '61er that is a fantastic stat I am going to pinch.
I'm guessing the UK's 'decline' will be of a similar ratio, though obviously a much smaller fraction of the world total. Of course losing 8% of your population in one swoop would be a bit of a jolt..
With Trump's changing stance on NATO it strikes me that we ought to quietly and gradually drop away from the 2% defence spend we do.
Lets be honest there are no real penalties, sanctions or consequences for not doing so. Say down to 1.5%, that would free up cash for other areas, decrease borrowing or allow for lower tax increases/reductions...
Hmmm....the world is a more dangerous place now than it's been for a while. Norks. Russkies. Jihadists. China. Falling oil price. 2008 Mk2 on its way. The Donald. Juncker. I'd humbly suggest it's folly on stilts to weaken ourselves deliberately even further. The armed services are critically understaffed. If we're going to not spend some money please can we not spend £10bn on DfiD - Lambos n Mercs for dictators and a spurious number pulled out of Dave's butt for PR purposes.
Some good accounting would see certain projects appear in both DoD and DfID spending - sending a bunch of squaddies and logisticians to set up a tented village for the displaced in Syria, as an example.
I had an idea once that may or may not be bollocks: Devote DfiD solely to rescue operations (tsunami, earthquake, hurricance, etc). Spend their budget on new amphibious logistical support / helicopter ships like HMS Ocean (with extended medical facilities), Chinooks, tents, blankets, advance logistical bases, medics, search and rescue teams, etc. Staff mostly with ex-servicemen. When shit happens the UK will be there quickly to help, free of charge. If anything really hit the fan we'd have an extra HMS Ocean and air wing to deploy. That'd be a MUCH better way to spend £10bn than 'Lambos for scumbags'.
Not a bad idea, it would also need some air support though - a couple of C17s and Hercules for getting stuff anywhere in the world in a day or so. Any peacekeeping or humanitarian work done by active military should also be counted as DfID.
After we leave the EU we will be able to help a lot in Africa with trade - let us buy their food and sell them the advanced equipment to produce it. Trade is always better than aid.
In the meantime we should ensure that dictator scumbags buy British - Range Rover, Rolls Royce and McLaren for the foreign despots, if we are giving them aid money we should be making sure we get it back in goods sales!
Trade with Africa is problematic. Agriculture has been going backwards for generations because of dependency on aid commodities, plus there is no infrastructure of any kind for anything; never mind equipment, you need roads which can be negotiated by anything other than a landcruiser just for starters; and if you try to finance improvements of any kind, the money disappears. Plus most of Africa now belongs to China.
The single market is our largest destination for exports.
The EU has been rapidly declining as a share of our overall export markets over the past decade, a trend that was very likely to continue regardless of Brexit.
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
The trade balance doesn't matter as nearly much as the amount we export. If we export more we can import more to satisfy our lifestyles. Brexit means we will trade less to the EU and less overall. It will probably have a slightly negative effect on trade with the rest of the world, at least in the short to medium term. Long term, who knows? By then I am old or dead,
the trade balance does matter and exports alone are not the way to improve it.
much of our trade deficit is structural becasue we let industries go in the noughties instead of looking after them
our deficit consists of lots of mid tech products made in high cost countries - cars, trucks, fridges, electrics.
on shore these and a large chunk of the BoP will disappear.
The SNP will indeed win a plurality of councillors.
I am not sure you know what a plurality means perhaps because the Tories are more used to being a minority, albeit one which presumes to tell Scotland what to do.
"Plurality (voting), the most votes for any choice in an election, but not necessarily a majority"
The SNP will get that. To gain an absolute majority in an STV system with independents standing as well as political parties would be virtually impossible - much more difficult that a majority under FPP or indeed even the incredibly difficult majority under a list system which Salmond miraculously pulled off in 2011.
I repeat the SNP will win the election as they have won every contest since 2010.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Let us see. Some of us understand there are many kinds of Brexiteer. We have also moved on. At some point, Brexiteers will have to accept that there are people who do not disagree with them out of spite, out of a need to score points, out of partisanship or out of a hatred for the UK, but because they genuinely believe that Brexiteers are wrong and they want to mitigate the effects of leaving the EU as they believe that is in the UK's best interests.
I am delighted Trump has left Boris and co in the lurch because I believe that will lead to a better outcome for the UK.
I think you creating straw men to poke. Boris has always recognised the importance of immigration to our growth, for example, and Davis sounds more pragmatic by the day. They want what is in the national interest and that certainly includes a soft Brexit at this point so we have time to adjust.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Quite.
Labour cheerleaders are now keeping their fingers crossed for soft Brexit because they think it will anger the Tory right and split the party.
They fail to understand that:
- The Tory right care far more about British laws and sovereignty than they think. - The Tory right care far less about atlanticism than they think. - The Tory right care quite a lot more for Mrs May than Cameron/Osborne - The Tory traditionalists are going to win on domestic issues such as grammar schools in the coming years. Given the Venn diagram of Tory right and Tory traditionalists is almost a perfect circle, this will assuage any slight issues they may have on trade relations.
For purely partisan purposes, Labour cheerleaders should be hoping for the hardest of hard.
Edit to add:
In short, Mrs May is a far more typical Tory leader than Cameron could ever have been. Appealing to all parts of the party for different reasons.
I note that you cannot find it in yourself to believe that people who do not share your vision of Brexit also want what they believe is best for the UK. In the end, this is what will do for the right. They do not own my country's flag.
No, SO, we all know you mean well. You're a thoroughly decent old stick, and a much nicer person than many of the rest of us.
The single market is our largest destination for exports.
The EU has been rapidly declining as a share of our overall export markets over the past decade, a trend that was very likely to continue regardless of Brexit.
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
The trade balance doesn't matter as nearly much as the amount we export. If we export more we can import more to satisfy our lifestyles. Brexit means we will trade less to the EU and less overall. It will probably have a slightly negative effect on trade with the rest of the world, at least in the short to medium term. Long term, who knows? By then I am old or dead,
the trade balance does matter and exports alone are not the way to improve it.
much of our trade deficit is structural becasue we let industries go in the noughties instead of looking after them
our deficit consists of lots of mid tech products made in high cost countries - cars, trucks, fridges, electrics.
on shore these and a large chunk of the BoP will disappear.
Indeed. We are pointing a cannon at Germany's surplus. (A very big chunk of the EU trade deficit is with the Germans)
Trump is becoming institutionalised. Pivots away from Russia, towards China, towards NATO. Abandoning Bannon. Abandoning Obamacare repeal. Abandoning the travel ban. Only the wall remains (and I never saw that policy as particularly unreasonable anyway, even if his rhetoric was).
That sound you are hearing is thousands of scales falling from the eyes of his alt-right supporters.
The single market is our largest destination for exports.
The EU has been rapidly declining as a share of our overall export markets over the past decade, a trend that was very likely to continue regardless of Brexit.
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
the whole of Europe is in decline
when I was born ( 1961 ) Europeans were about 20% of people on the planet by the time I die - say in the 2050s- they will be about 5%
As another '61er that is a fantastic stat I am going to pinch.
I'm guessing the UK's 'decline' will be of a similar ratio, though obviously a much smaller fraction of the world total. Of course losing 8% of your population in one swoop would be a bit of a jolt..
I think that the UK's population has grown much more rapidly that the European average, largely as a result of mass migration. Scotland has seen very little of that which in some ways is a pity.
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Let us see. Some of us understand there are many kinds of Brexiteer. We have also moved on. At some point, Brexiteers will have to accept that there are people who do not disagree with them out of spite, out of a need to score points, out of partisanship or out of a hatred for the UK, but because they genuinely believe that Brexiteers are wrong and they want to mitigate the effects of leaving the EU as they believe that is in the UK's best interests.
I am delighted Trump has left Boris and co in the lurch because I believe that will lead to a better outcome for the UK.
From my perspective it's about making the best of a bad job. It's worth doing, but there are real arguments about how best to do it, many of which cut right across the false premises that Brexit was built on. It's about developing a new and (even) more uncomfortable for us relationship with the EU. In a way, we can only progress when both sides move on from Brexit.
Trump is becoming institutionalised. Pivots away from Russia, towards China, towards NATO. Abandoning Bannon. Abandoning Obamacare repeal. Abandoning the travel ban. Only the wall remains (and I never saw that policy as particularly unreasonable anyway, even if his rhetoric was).
That sound you are hearing is thousands of scales falling from the eyes of his alt-right supporters.
I bet those alt.righters must be feeling like a bunch of right cuckservatives.
With Trump's changing stance on NATO it strikes me that we ought to quietly and gradually drop away from the 2% defence spend we do.
Lets be honest there are no real penalties, sanctions or consequences for not doing so. Say down to 1.5%, that would free up cash for other areas, decrease borrowing or allow for lower tax increases/reductions...
Hmmm....the world is a more dangerous place now than it's been for a while. Norks. Russkies. Jihadists. China. Falling oil price. 2008 Mk2 on its way. The Donald. Juncker. I'd humbly suggest it's folly on stilts to weaken ourselves deliberately even further. The armed services are critically understaffed. If we're going to not spend some money please can we not spend £10bn on DfiD - Lambos n Mercs for dictators and a spurious number pulled out of Dave's butt for PR purposes.
Some good accounting would see certain projects appear in both DoD and DfID spending - sending a bunch of squaddies and logisticians to set up a tented village for the displaced in Syria, as an example.
I had an idea once that may or may not be bollocks: Devote DfiD solely to rescue operations (tsunami, earthquake, hurricance, etc). Spend their budget on new amphibious logistical support / helicopter ships like HMS Ocean (with extended medical facilities), Chinooks, tents, blankets, advance logistical bases, medics, search and rescue teams, etc. Staff mostly with ex-servicemen. When shit happens the UK will be there quickly to help, free of charge. If anything really hit the fan we'd have an extra HMS Ocean and air wing to deploy. That'd be a MUCH better way to spend £10bn than 'Lambos for scumbags'.
Lord - I see on Wiki that HMS Ocean is to be decommissioned in 2018 with no replacement. Double plus ungood. The Navy is going to end up being a bloke in a dinghy with a pistol.
HMS Ocean is completely worn out. The replacement will be using the new carriers in a similar role.
The single market is our largest destination for exports.
The EU has been rapidly declining as a share of our overall export markets over the past decade, a trend that was very likely to continue regardless of Brexit.
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
the whole of Europe is in decline
when I was born ( 1961 ) Europeans were about 20% of people on the planet by the time I die - say in the 2050s- they will be about 5%
As another '61er that is a fantastic stat I am going to pinch.
I'm guessing the UK's 'decline' will be of a similar ratio, though obviously a much smaller fraction of the world total. Of course losing 8% of your population in one swoop would be a bit of a jolt..
I think that the UK's population has grown much more rapidly that the European average, largely as a result of mass migration. Scotland has seen very little of that which in some ways is a pity.
Since 1960:
UK 52 -> 66 million France 47 -> 67 million Spain 30 -> 46 million Netherlands 11 -> 17 million
the trade balance does matter and exports alone are not the way to improve it.
much of our trade deficit is structural becasue we let industries go in the noughties instead of looking after them
our deficit consists of lots of mid tech products made in high cost countries - cars, trucks, fridges, electrics.
on shore these and a large chunk of the BoP will disappear.
Leaving our main market won't result in industries being onshored. Actually the opposite to some extent. Companies with complex trading relationships will consolidate their investments in their main market, which now no longer includes the UK.
The SNP will indeed win a plurality of councillors.
I am not sure you know what a plurality means perhaps because the Tories are more used to being a minority, albeit one which presumes to tell Scotland what to do.
"Plurality (voting), the most votes for any choice in an election, but not necessarily a majority"
The SNP will get that. To gain an absolute majority in an STV system with independents standing as well as political parties would be virtually impossible - much more difficult that a majority under FPP or indeed even the incredibly difficult majority under a list system which Salmond miraculously pulled off in 2011.
I repeat the SNP will win the election as they have won every contest since 2010.
The single market is our largest destination for exports.
The EU has been rapidly declining as a share of our overall export markets over the past decade, a trend that was very likely to continue regardless of Brexit.
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
the whole of Europe is in decline
when I was born ( 1961 ) Europeans were about 20% of people on the planet by the time I die - say in the 2050s- they will be about 5%
As another '61er that is a fantastic stat I am going to pinch.
I'm guessing the UK's 'decline' will be of a similar ratio, though obviously a much smaller fraction of the world total. Of course losing 8% of your population in one swoop would be a bit of a jolt..
I think that the UK's population has grown much more rapidly that the European average, largely as a result of mass migration. Scotland has seen very little of that which in some ways is a pity.
Since 1960:
UK 52 -> 66 million France 47 -> 67 million Spain 30 -> 46 million Netherlands 11 -> 17 million
Perhaps you need to rethink.
I was thinking over more recent years where Germany, for example, seems to have a negative birth rate. But that is interesting. Thanks.
The single market is our largest destination for exports.
The EU has been rapidly declining as a share of our overall export markets over the past decade, a trend that was very likely to continue regardless of Brexit.
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
the whole of Europe is in decline
when I was born ( 1961 ) Europeans were about 20% of people on the planet by the time I die - say in the 2050s- they will be about 5%
As another '61er that is a fantastic stat I am going to pinch.
I'm guessing the UK's 'decline' will be of a similar ratio, though obviously a much smaller fraction of the world total. Of course losing 8% of your population in one swoop would be a bit of a jolt..
I think that the UK's population has grown much more rapidly that the European average, largely as a result of mass migration. Scotland has seen very little of that which in some ways is a pity.
All the fault of the SNP, nae doot.
'Much more' may be an exaggeration, or plain wrong. A quick trawl has the EU 28 showing an increase of around 25% since 1960 (c.400m - 500m), the UK a bit under 25% (c.53m-65m)
The soft Brexit/hard Brexit dichotomy is eminently bridgeable. Once we are out we are out. Our share of trade with the EU will fall, as it has been for many years now. Over time we will drift away from the overly bureaucratic approach that the EU has to every problem.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Quite.
Labour cheerleaders are now keeping their fingers crossed for soft Brexit because they think it will anger the Tory right and split the party.
They fail to understand that:
- The Tory right care far more about British laws and sovereignty than they think. - The Tory right care far less about atlanticism than they think. - The Tory right care quite a lot more for Mrs May than Cameron/Osborne - The Tory traditionalists are going to win on domestic issues such as grammar schools in the coming years. Given the Venn diagram of Tory right and Tory traditionalists is almost a perfect circle, this will assuage any slight issues they may have on trade relations.
For purely partisan purposes, Labour cheerleaders should be hoping for the hardest of hard.
Edit to add:
In short, Mrs May is a far more typical Tory leader than Cameron could ever have been. Appealing to all parts of the party for different reasons.
I note that you cannot find it in yourself to believe that people who do not share your vision of Brexit also want what they believe is best for the UK. In the end, this is what will do for the right. They do not own my country's flag.
No, SO, we all know you mean well. You're a thoroughly decent old stick, and a much nicer person than many of the rest of us.
You're just wrong.
Tis always the way, isn't it?
The right think the left are good people with bad ideas.
Comments
Out of genuine interest, why do you say Trump has abandoned the hard brexit crew? Has anything really fundamentally changed?
Farage's goal was always to bring down the EU and he can't do that from a soft-Brexity nation. There's a reason Norwegian Eurosceptics don't have any international platform to speak of.
Apart from poor old William, obviously.
Not 'always'
Perhaps 'likely' has a different meaning in your dictionary.
The UK and Canada both run their health services more efficiently than the US; it's called socialised medicine. Various studies seem to show Canada has equal or better outcomes vs. the US but it only spends 11-13% of GDP. Life expectancy is higher than the US.
Apply that more intelligent approach to defence spending.
eg. YouGov 5th April
"In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?"
2015 Lib Dem voters: 27% right, 67% wrong
Current Lib Dem voters: 10% right, 86% wrong
Yes, the Lib Dems have picked up a meagre 3% overall since the general election, but given that their performance in 2015 was so abject, that we're mid term, that the squeeze on living standards etc is continuing and that the main opposition party is hobbled by a leader with record unpopularity ratings, that's hardly something to write home about. They're picking up middle class Remain voters but that's partly offset by their losing Leave voters. That's the strategy of a party seeking to appeal to a niche market and as such it puts a natural ceiling on their support, limiting the scale of their revival other than in heavily Remain constituencies. In the past, the Lib Dems and the SDP/Libs would never have adopted such a Marmite approach. It smacks to me of lack of ambition.
The Conservatives and Labour have the better long term strategy, seeking to appeal to both camps, as they must do as parties which aspire to form governments. It's working for the Conservatives. Corbyn has scuppered Labour's attempts to reconnect to Leave voters by his general unpopularity and by specifically undermining in January the widespread efforts amongst Labour MPs to accept some limitations on freedom of movement, the touchstone issue for C2DE Leave voters, but under a different leader the approach might in time still pay dividends for Labour.
If anything less than 3,000 staff with a budget of £11bn or so seems too few to me.
It is a favourite theme of many on here that a soft Brexit now will leave Brexiteers high and dry and frothing. I just don't see it. They have won and time will deliver all that they wanted for good or ill. Those looking for great splits in the Tories are going to be disappointed. They are more united than they have been since Maastricht.
Labour cheerleaders are now keeping their fingers crossed for soft Brexit because they think it will anger the Tory right and split the party.
They fail to understand that:
- The Tory right care far more about British laws and sovereignty than they think.
- The Tory right care far less about atlanticism than they think.
- The Tory right care quite a lot more for Mrs May than Cameron/Osborne
- The Tory traditionalists are going to win on domestic issues such as grammar schools in the coming years. Given the Venn diagram of Tory right and Tory traditionalists is almost a perfect circle, this will assuage any slight issues they may have on trade relations.
For purely partisan purposes, Labour cheerleaders should be hoping for the hardest of hard.
Edit to add:
In short, Mrs May is a far more typical Tory leader than Cameron could ever have been. Appealing to all parts of the party for different reasons.
But to be fair David you don't want to see it the Brexit downside for the Tories. As long as the economy stays strong with unemployment below 5 per cent then the Brexit chickens will not come home to roost in a political sense.
However if the economy turns (as the industrial production figures are now suggesting) then then will be hell to pay. It will not take many more relocations of companies to the single market to illustrate the point to most people that they were sold one almighty pup. When that happens Brexit voters will not blame themselves but the party in charge of the process.
Since I have been off for a few days I totally missed the YouGov this week and I realise why it has not been mentioned by the usual suspects in this site Scottish sub sample SNP 53, TORY 23, LAB 13, LIB 8 AND UKIP 1 entire percent. Now , of course, I make no claims for a sub sample of 158 but it is interesting to contrast the straw clutching from unionists when this sub sample puts the SNP in the mid 40s and the silence which greets them in the low 50s!
The salient point is that our trade imbalance with the EU had widened rapidly up to the point of Brexit, such that if the overall volume of trade falls post Brexit (as I expect it will) the opportunities for UK based companies to take up new opportunities in UK domestic markets should more than outweigh the impact of lost markets on the continent. The risks arising from the loss of trade fall on the EU side, since for them the reverse is true i.e. closing down a previously expanding market for EU exports, with fewer additional opportunities in EU domestic markets if British firms withdraw.
Or, to put it more succinctly, the UK trade deficit which at Brexit stood at record levels as a share of GDP, would all but disappear if trade with the EU were removed from the equation.
So far as Scotland is concerned let's see how May 4th turns out. I expect the Tories to gain more Councillors than the SNP (from a much lower base of course). What do you expect?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
I wouldn't be surprised if US and Canada both have better survival rates than the UK. After all, the UK spends less than Canada but otherwise has a pretty similar healthcare approach (paid for by taxation and free to residents).
However, the main point was that inefficient approaches to national defence systems, on a par with the US healthcare system, should be reformed in preference to increasing defence spending.
when I was born ( 1961 ) Europeans were about 20% of people on the planet by the time I die - say in the 2050s- they will be about 5%
In all seriousness, it's not a terrible idea. The question would be around whether you need a UK development fund for worthy causes; I'd argue not, but others would feel differently.
Moreover, if the EU apparatchiks wanted to foist such an irrational stance on citizens of its constituent nations, imagine what damage that's going to do to the long term prospects of the EU in countries such as France, where already almost half of the population are prepared to vote for EU sceptic candidates next month.
After we leave the EU we will be able to help a lot in Africa with trade - let us buy their food and sell them the advanced equipment to produce it. Trade is always better than aid.
In the meantime we should ensure that dictator scumbags buy British - Range Rover, Rolls Royce and McLaren for the foreign despots, if we are giving them aid money we should be making sure we get it back in goods sales!
I realise agitprop is important to you, but maybe once in a while you could produce a rationale to what you are saying
I expect the SNP to win the election as they have won every democratic contest in Scotland since 2010.
Okay.
I quite like the idea of 'shadow' defence spending via DfiD as it looks cosier and fluffier. But a Chinook is a Chinook. A ship a ship. A Herc a Herc. If we paint them all red, white and blue and say 'look, squirrel' when people ask if it's actually an aircraft carrier then we get to be heroic when buildings collapse and nasty to Ivan if and when.
at the rate chocolate bars are reducing in size we'll be a lean fit nation of demi gods
I am delighted Trump has left Boris and co in the lurch because I believe that will lead to a better outcome for the UK.
- a referendum and
- their majority in Holyrood..
much of our trade deficit is structural becasue we let industries go in the noughties instead of looking after them
our deficit consists of lots of mid tech products made in high cost countries - cars, trucks, fridges, electrics.
on shore these and a large chunk of the BoP will disappear.
The SNP will indeed win a plurality of councillors.
I am not sure you know what a plurality means perhaps because the Tories are more used to being a minority, albeit one which presumes to tell Scotland what to do.
"Plurality (voting), the most votes for any choice in an election, but not necessarily a majority"
The SNP will get that. To gain an absolute majority in an STV system with independents standing as well as political parties would be virtually impossible - much more difficult that a majority under FPP or indeed even the incredibly difficult majority under a list system which Salmond miraculously pulled off in 2011.
I repeat the SNP will win the election as they have won every contest since 2010.
You're just wrong.
That sound you are hearing is thousands of scales falling from the eyes of his alt-right supporters.
Like a eunuch laughing at an un-libbed man not being able to get it up. The latter may be able to improve on that situation, the former, not so much.
UK 52 -> 66 million
France 47 -> 67 million
Spain 30 -> 46 million
Netherlands 11 -> 17 million
Perhaps you need to rethink.
Lol.
'Much more' may be an exaggeration, or plain wrong. A quick trawl has the EU 28 showing an increase of around 25% since 1960 (c.400m - 500m), the UK a bit under 25% (c.53m-65m)
The right think the left are good people with bad ideas.
The left think the right are bad people..