I think that probably correct. Any significant bill will be a political suicide pill for the MPs backing paying it. It could well be why May wants a big majority. It is the Leave Fundamentalists ratber than the Remainers who pose the biggest threat to her.
May has so little interest in the Brexit negotiations and is approaching them so incompetently, I do wonder if she has some plan where the outcome becomes irrelevant. I hardly think she can spring another of her surprises and will declare Brexit cancelled. Slightly more likely, she doesn't mind a Brexit crash if she can blame it on the EU. Most likely, however, she can't cope. So her main effort goes on preventing anyone discussing Brexit or challenging her on it.
It seems that we have a four way split on topic between Leavers:
1) Leavers don't really support Marine Le Pen and the fact that nearly 9 out of 10 of those who expressed a preference named her is neither here nor there 2) Thinking that Marine Le Pen is best for Britain isn't the same as thinking that Marine Le Pen is the more desirable outcome 3) Marine Le Pen isn't really a fascist and is sadly misunderstood 4) Hurrah for the blackshirts!
Most of us think she's far too liberal.
Be sensible, Alastair.
Le Pen's election is much the more likely to throw the EU into disarray and could conceivably lead to its demise, the only circumstance which might in retrospect make Brexit appear to have been a wise policy.
That is the basic point. There is nothing that Leavers are not prepared to sacrifice, whether it be independence of the judiciary, Parliamentary accountability of government or the democracy of one of our closest neighbours, if that sacrifice might assist in some minor way Britain leaving the EU.
The world can burn, so long as among the embers is a Britain that has left the EU.
The only thing that needs discussing is the process of hard Brexit and the final bill.
I presume the final bill for diamond Brexit will be £0.01 - but with a free finger wave attached.
I think that probably correct. Any significant bill will be a political suicide pill for the MPs backing paying it. It could well be why May wants a big majority. It is the Leave Fundamentalists ratber than the Remainers who pose the biggest threat to her.
Why do we not get money back?
The Scots thought that they were entitled to 10% of everything back including 10% of all shared embassy floor space.
Why do the EU not, on the same measure, owe us 1/27th of everything?
They do, and this has been included in the current net total of debt discussed in informed estimates.
The talk of us getting assets back and therefore no exit bill must be pretty unhelpful to TM. Massively raises expectations. So it is slightly amusing if a little strange that it's Brexiteers setting her up to fail.
this site is becoming very attractive to the alt right I'm afraid, will have to come here less often, Sad.
Who is alt right on here? Also, WHAT is alt right?
It's one of those voguish phrases which, on analysis, breaks down into meaninglessness, in my experience. But maybe you can enlighten.
This place, which seems about as balanced as any on the internet with one big Rule 1, would not be politicalbetting without posters sayings its become more right wing and flouncing.
I presume they merely change username.
Rule 1 - most people on here actually *think about* politics, rather than *feel for* it.
It seems that we have a four way split on topic between Leavers:
1) Leavers don't really support Marine Le Pen and the fact that nearly 9 out of 10 of those who expressed a preference named her is neither here nor there 2) Thinking that Marine Le Pen is best for Britain isn't the same as thinking that Marine Le Pen is the more desirable outcome 3) Marine Le Pen isn't really a fascist and is sadly misunderstood 4) Hurrah for the blackshirts!
Most of us think she's far too liberal.
Be sensible, Alastair.
Le Pen's election is much the more likely to throw the EU into disarray and could conceivably lead to its demise, the only circumstance which might in retrospect make Brexit appear to have been a wise policy.
That .
What
More than 8 out of 10 leavers who expressed a preference deciding to root for the fascist is quite a monolithic bloc.
At least they haven't happily bought houses in countries run by actual Fascists, as you have, in Orban's Hungary, which you now apparently consider your "spiritual home".
Two grotesque factual errors in a single sentence.
You're improving.
Thank you. I should also say that if you ever feel like fucking off to your beloved quasi-fucking-Nazi Hungary and not ever fucking coming back, all of us here will be sincerely rooting for you. Go for it. Make the break. Be bold!
All of us ? In your own words, 'fuck off'.
You don't want Mr Meeks to be happy? I know he can be pompous and annoying, but we surely all wish him well, ultimately., in his new Nazi homeland, where he feels so comfortable.
It's interesting just how many of the most vociferous Remainers are happy to pronounce judgement on the moral turpitude of the UK, from places like France (where 40% are about to vote for an actual fascist candidate) or Viktor Orban's Hungary.
In the UK, UKIP looks like Mary Poppins next to those. And even that has now been effectively killed off by our oldest establishment mainstream centre-right party.
I made a similar comment earlier today. I'd take Nigel Farage over MLP, Trump or Orban every day of the week.
I think that probably correct. Any significant bill will be a political suicide pill for the MPs backing paying it. It could well be why May wants a big majority. It is the Leave Fundamentalists ratber than the Remainers who pose the biggest threat to her.
May has so little interest in the Brexit negotiations and is approaching them so incompetently, I do wonder if she has some plan where the outcome becomes irrelevant. I hardly think she can spring another of her surprises and will declare Brexit cancelled. Slightly more likely, she doesn't mind a Brexit crash if she can blame it on the EU. Most likely, however, she can't cope. So her main effort goes on preventing anyone discussing Brexit or challenging her on it.
What proof hav you for such a statement?
You don't need proof here!
Why change habits, Tories just fib and make it up all the time
Most likely, however, she can't cope. So her main effort goes on preventing anyone discussing Brexit or challenging her on it.
We have all seen how badly she handles PMQs, even up against Corbyn, is frightened of TV debates or even real voters.
The slightest thing completely knocks her off her game.
Just imagine how she will handle the real negotiations once they start...
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator - which is an entirely different skill from debating or interacting with voters.
May managed to make one pro-eu (sort of) speech during the referendum campaign and then for the rest of the campaign did nothing in particular - and did it very well.
And if you think Mrs May is going to be literally sitting at one side of a table with the other 27 leaders at the other then you are hopelessly naive. The negotiations will be done by the civil service, mainly, in dotting i's, crossing t's and advising the politicians.
It seems that we have a four way split on topic between Leavers:
1) Leavers don't really support Marine Le Pen and the fact that nearly 9 out of 10 of those who expressed a preference named her is neither here nor there 2) Thinking that Marine Le Pen is best for Britain isn't the same as thinking that Marine Le Pen is the more desirable outcome 3) Marine Le Pen isn't really a fascist and is sadly misunderstood 4) Hurrah for the blackshirts!
Most of us think she's far too liberal.
Be sensible, Alastair.
Le Pen's election is much the more likely to throw the EU into disarray and could conceivably lead to its demise, the only circumstance which might in retrospect make Brexit appear to have been a wise policy.
That , if that sacrifice might assist in some minor way Britain leaving the EU.
The world can burn, so long as among the embers is a Britain that has left the EU.
As the EU27 have clearly and consistently stated, Brexit means Brexit.
Hardline leavers should be very happy with the EU position, they are clear that there is no halfway house soft Brexit. The only thing that needs discussing is the process of hard Brexit and the final bill.
As suchhardline Leavers should support Macron.
You were right up to the final sentence. If we want to secure the largest possible payment and the smoothest possible clean WTO exit it surely assists us to have an EU in turmoil rather than Macron parroting German lines?
Yep, makes sense for us to want economic turmoil visited on our biggest export market.
The US? How did they come into this thread?
We don't send 40%+ of our exports to the US. We send them to the member states of the European Union.
The largest country for UK goods exported is the US.
Yes, I know. But we still send over 40% of all our exports to EU member states. I remain to be convinced that seeing them cope with the economic turmoil caused by a Le Pen win would do us much good.
I stopped reading after "Yes, I know" as soon as it became apparent that the next word wasn't "Sorry"
Sorry for what? I was talking about a market, you were talking about a country. They are not the same thing.
Considering that she called the election over Brexit, she is very reluctant to explain what her Brexit policy is. The vacuous "Best possible deal for Britain" is a meaningless soundbite, as anyone from the fluffiest softie to the titanium tipped hard case imagines that their version of Brexit is best.
It is quite unclear what she expects to propose to a Commons and Lords that passed A50 with barely any delay or dispute that they will rise up against. It would have to be something epically unpopular to get them to vote it down.
There are some very interesting discussions about exactly what proportion of EU assets (EUR140bn) we are entitled - should it be based on percentage of gross contributions since year dot, or population, etc etc. You can make a case for it being as low as 7%, or as high as 20-25%.
Ultimately, the bill stuff is rubbish though. We will take responsibility for paying British MEPs and Eurocrats' pensions (because we'd likely lose that one in court if it came to it), we'll agree a transitional period with a reduced fee (which will count against the total), and the share of assets will be offset.
Mrs May will be able to declare that not a penny will go to Brussels. Various EU functionaries will claim that we paid €50bn. Everyone has a little victory. What's not to like?
All that makes perfect sense, but it does require the EU27 to back down ignominiously on their (completely bonkers) insistence that we agree the outlines of an exit bill before knowing what we're exiting to. OK, they might be able to fudge it with some flim-flam about agreeing principles, but they've made that politically hard for themselves. (And we'll start with the perfectly reasonable: "The British principle is that we pay what we are legally obliged to, not a centime more, unless you're gonna make it worth our while to pay more").
What is incomprehensible to me, and worrying, is that the EU27 have boxed themselves in on their bonkers position. It looks suspiciously like groupthink from a meeting where they couldn't actually agree on much, except that everyone wants the Brits to pay as much as possible. But it's a negotiating dead-end.
It seems that we have a four way split on topic between Leavers:
1) Leavers don't really support Marine Le Pen and the fact that nearly 9 out of 10 of those who expressed a preference named her is neither here nor there 2) Thinking that Marine Le Pen is best for Britain isn't the same as thinking that Marine Le Pen is the more desirable outcome 3) Marine Le Pen isn't really a fascist and is sadly misunderstood 4) Hurrah for the blackshirts!
Most of us think she's far too liberal.
Be sensible, Alastair.
Le Pen's election is much the more likely to throw the EU into disarray and could conceivably lead to its demise, the only circumstance which might in retrospect make Brexit appear to have been a wise policy.
That .
What
More than 8 out of 10 leavers who expressed a preference deciding to root for the fascist is quite a monolithic bloc.
At least they haven't happily bought houses in countries run by actual Fascists, as you have, in Orban's Hungary, which you now apparently consider your "spiritual home".
Two grotesque factual errors in a single sentence.
You're improving.
Thank you. I should also say that if you ever feel like fucking off to your beloved quasi-fucking-Nazi Hungary and not ever fucking coming back, all of us here will be sincerely rooting for you. Go for it. Make the break. Be bold!
All of us ? In your own words, 'fuck off'.
You don't want Mr Meeks to be happy? I know he can be pompous and annoying, but we surely all wish him well, ultimately., in his new Nazi homeland, where he feels so comfortable.
It's interesting just how many of the most vociferous Remainers are happy to pronounce judgement on the moral turpitude of the UK, from places like France (where 40% are about to vote for an actual fascist candidate) or Viktor Orban's Hungary.
In the UK, UKIP looks like Mary Poppins next to those. And even that has now been effectively killed off by our oldest establishment mainstream centre-right party.
Whereas the PB Leaver Expat community keeps schtum on all matters Brexit, right?
This week, Sturgeon attempted to change tack after two polls at the weekend showed a surge of support for the Scottish Tories, with one putting their rating at 33pc.
As a result, on Monday, the First Minister backtracked on her previous comments as she claimed the election would not ‘decide whether or not Scotland becomes independent’ — instead it was now about standing up to the Tories. Then on Tuesday, Sturgeon cancelled a statement she was due to make to the Scottish parliament to set out her next steps towards getting a second referendum on independence.
Now her spokesman says this will only be delayed until after the election. But the fact Sturgeon has changed tack at all shows the party knows that it is losing momentum on independence; and since 2014 the SNP have relied on a sense that independence was the future.
It seems that we have a four way split on topic between Leavers:
Most of us think she's far too liberal.
Be sensible, Alastair.
Le Pen's election is much the more likely to throw the EU into disarray and could conceivably lead to its demise, the only circumstance which might in retrospect make Brexit appear to have been a wise policy.
That , if that sacrifice might assist in some minor way Britain leaving the EU.
The world can burn, so long as among the embers is a Britain that has left the EU.
As the EU27 have clearly and consistently stated, Brexit means Brexit.
Hardline leavers should be very happy with the EU position, they are clear that there is no halfway house soft Brexit. The only thing that needs discussing is the process of hard Brexit and the final bill.
As suchhardline Leavers should support Macron.
You were right up to the final sentence. If we want to secure the largest possible payment and the smoothest possible clean WTO exit it surely assists us to have an EU in turmoil rather than Macron parroting German lines?
Yep, makes sense for us to want economic turmoil visited on our biggest export market.
The US? How did they come into this thread?
We don't send 40%+ of our exports to the US. We send them to the member states of the European Union.
The largest country for UK goods exported is the US.
Yes, I know. But we still send over 40% of all our exports to EU member states. I remain to be convinced that seeing them cope with the economic turmoil caused by a Le Pen win would do us much good.
I stopped reading after "Yes, I know" as soon as it became apparent that the next word wasn't "Sorry"
Sorry for what? I was talking about a market, you were talking about a country. They are not the same thing.
Ah, well done. It's taken a long and tedious exchange but you've finally worked it out.
Most likely, however, she can't cope. So her main effort goes on preventing anyone discussing Brexit or challenging her on it.
We have all seen how badly she handles PMQs, even up against Corbyn, is frightened of TV debates or even real voters.
The slightest thing completely knocks her off her game.
Just imagine how she will handle the real negotiations once they start...
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator - which is an entirely different skill from debating or interacting with voters.
May managed to make one pro-eu (sort of) speech during the referendum campaign and then for the rest of the campaign did nothing in particular - and did it very well.
And if you think Mrs May is going to be literally sitting at one side of a table with the other 27 leaders at the other then you are hopelessly naive. The negotiations will be done by the civil service, mainly, in dotting i's, crossing t's and advising the politicians.
I have seen photos of Mrs May dressed in a remain shirt campaigning for Remain in her constituency. Accompanied by other remain campaigners from other parties. Including Lib Dems.
Always worth a repost. Tessy looks like she's approaching her campaigning there with her usual relaxed brio and enthusiasm.
It seems that we have a four way split on topic between Leavers:
Most of us think she's far too liberal.
Be sensible, Alastair.
Le Pen's election is much the more likely to throw the EU into disarray and could conceivably lead to its demise, the only circumstance which might in retrospect make Brexit appear to have been a wise policy.
That , if that sacrifice might assist in some minor way Britain leaving the EU.
The world can burn, so long as among the embers is a Britain that has left the EU.
As the EU27 have clearly and consistently stated, Brexit means Brexit.
Hardline leavers should be very happy with the EU position, they are clear that there is no halfway house soft Brexit. The only thing that needs discussing is the process of hard Brexit and the final bill.
As suchhardline Leavers should support Macron.
You were right up to the final sentence. If we want to secure the largest possible payment and the smoothest possible clean WTO exit it surely assists us to have an EU in turmoil rather than Macron parroting German lines?
Yep, makes sense for us to want economic turmoil visited on our biggest export market.
The US? How did they come into this thread?
We don't send 40%+ of our exports to the US. We send them to the member states of the European Union.
The largest country for UK goods exported is the US.
Yes, I know. But we still send over 40% of all our exports to EU member states. I remain to be convinced that seeing them cope with the economic turmoil caused by a Le Pen win would do us much good.
I stopped reading after "Yes, I know" as soon as it became apparent that the next word wasn't "Sorry"
Sorry for what? I was talking about a market, you were talking about a country. They are not the same thing.
Ah, well done. It's taken a long and tedious exchange but you've finally worked it out.
Congratulations. Have a lollipop.
Ha, ha - you did not understand my original post, did you? Bless.
Mrs FattyBolger, not a right winger by any means, still harbours some deepseated lefty student days attitudes to Tories etc spontaneously piped up "i like Thersa May" during the 10pm news last night. When Tezza was laying into the EU27 Just anecdotage
It seems that we have a four way split on topic between Leavers:
1) Leavers don't really support Marine Le Pen and the fact that nearly 9 out of 10 of those who expressed a preference named her is neither here nor there 2) Thinking that Marine Le Pen is best for Britain isn't the same as thinking that Marine Le Pen is the more desirable outcome 3) Marine Le Pen isn't really a fascist and is sadly misunderstood 4) Hurrah for the blackshirts!
Most of us think she's far too liberal.
Be sensible, Alastair.
Le Pen's election is much the more likely to throw the EU into disarray and could conceivably lead to its demise, the only circumstance which might in retrospect make Brexit appear to have been a wise policy.
That is the basic point. There is nothing that Leavers are not prepared to sacrifice, whether it be independence of the judiciary, Parliamentary accountability of government or the democracy of one of our closest neighbours, if that sacrifice might assist in some minor way Britain leaving the EU.
The world can burn, so long as among the embers is a Britain that has left the EU.
As the EU27 have clearly and consistently stated, Brexit means Brexit.
Hardline leavers should be very happy with the EU position, they are clear that there is no halfway house soft Brexit. The only thing that needs discussing is the process of hard Brexit and the final bill.
As suchhardline Leavers should support Macron.
You were right up to the final sentence. If we want to secure the largest possible payment and the smoothest possible clean WTO exit it surely assists us to have an EU in turmoil rather than Macron parroting German lines?
Yep, makes sense for us to want economic turmoil visited on our biggest export market.
The alt right have a visceral hatred of the EU. They are prepared to see it damaged even if it means our own prospects get more damaged.
The number of times over the years I have heard that the EU or the Euro will collapse, I have lost count.
Yet it is the pound which keeps falling relative to the Euro !
You don't want Mr Meeks to be happy? I know he can be pompous and annoying, but we surely all wish him well, ultimately., in his new Nazi homeland, where he feels so comfortable.
It's interesting just how many of the most vociferous Remainers are happy to pronounce judgement on the moral turpitude of the UK, from places like France (where 40% are about to vote for an actual fascist candidate) or Viktor Orban's Hungary.
In the UK, UKIP looks like Mary Poppins next to those. And even that has now been effectively killed off by our oldest establishment mainstream centre-right party.
There's nothing centre right about a party that stands by when the independence of the judiciary is attacked or when citizens with different views are labelled saboteurs. I've seen how a Prime Minister with no real opposition has mutated into an authoritarian. It looks set to happen again with Theresa May.
This weird idea has taken root on political betting that I see Hungary as some kind of nirvana. Politically it stands as an awful warning to Britain. It is not a warning that is being taken heed of, as Leavers cheer on Ms Le Pen.
There are some very interesting discussions about exactly what proportion of EU assets (EUR140bn) we are entitled - should it be based on percentage of gross contributions since year dot, or population, etc etc. You can make a case for it being as low as 7%, or as high as 20-25%.
Ultimately, the bill stuff is rubbish though. We will take responsibility for paying British MEPs and Eurocrats' pensions (because we'd likely lose that one in court if it came to it), we'll agree a transitional period with a reduced fee (which will count against the total), and the share of assets will be offset.
Mrs May will be able to declare that not a penny will go to Brussels. Various EU functionaries will claim that we paid €50bn. Everyone has a little victory. What's not to like?
All that makes perfect sense, but it does require the EU27 to back down ignominiously on their (completely bonkers) insistence that we agree the outlines of an exit bill before knowing what we're exiting to. OK, they might be able to fudge it with some flim-flam about agreeing principles. (And we'll start with the perfectly reasonable: "The British principle is that we pay what we are legally obliged to, not a centime more, unless you're gonna make it worth our while to pay more").
What is incomprehensible to me, and worrying, is that the EU27 have boxed themselves in on their bonkers position. It looks suspiciously like groupthink from a meeting where they couldn't actually agree on much, except that everyone wants the Brits to pay as much as possible. But it's a negotiating dead-end.
I think partly it's grandstanding ahead of elections in France and Germany. Partly its a preemptive play against the British demanding that they get paid to leave (anchoring). But mostly it's a realisation that they can (justifiably) say we paid €50bn, when we in fact did nothing other than honour a few pension commitments.
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator
Not really
What evidence there is suggests she folded cards she didn't have to and caved in to the headbangers without a fight.
If that's pretty good, we really are screwed.
Who would you want conducting these negotiations? In preference to Mrs May?
David "I'll never campaign to leave the EU" Cameron? Or David "I'm going to win this referendum 70/30" Cameron?
Forget the EU. May has a track record with Gary McKinnon (telling the US to fuck off) and Abu Qatada (agreeing with Jordan for him to fuck back).
And she is brave: she told the Tory Party to stop being nasty, and the Police to get a grip and grow up.
Putting aside the question of whether you agree with Brexit or not (something several regulars on here are incapable of doing) can you think of anyone else you'd rather have leading these negotiations for Blighty?
I think that probably correct. Any significant bill will be a political suicide pill for the MPs backing paying it. It could well be why May wants a big majority. It is the Leave Fundamentalists ratber than the Remainers who pose the biggest threat to her.
May has so little interest in the Brexit negotiations and is approaching them so incompetently, I do wonder if she has some plan where the outcome becomes irrelevant. I hardly think she can spring another of her surprises and will declare Brexit cancelled. Slightly more likely, she doesn't mind a Brexit crash if she can blame it on the EU. Most likely, however, she can't cope. So her main effort goes on preventing anyone discussing Brexit or challenging her on it.
What proof hav you for such a statement?
You don't need proof here!
Why change habits, Tories just fib and make it up all the time
There are some very interesting discussions about exactly what proportion of EU assets (EUR140bn) we are entitled - should it be based on percentage of gross contributions since year dot, or population, etc etc. You can make a case for it being as low as 7%, or as high as 20-25%.
Ultimately, the bill stuff is rubbish though. We will take responsibility for paying British MEPs and Eurocrats' pensions (because we'd likely lose that one in court if it came to it), we'll agree a transitional period with a reduced fee (which will count against the total), and the share of assets will be offset.
Mrs May will be able to declare that not a penny will go to Brussels. Various EU functionaries will claim that we paid €50bn. Everyone has a little victory. What's not to like?
All that makes perfect sense, but it does require the EU27 to back down ignominiously on their (completely bonkers) insistence that we agree the outlines of an exit bill before knowing what we're exiting to. OK, they might be able to fudge it with some flim-flam about agreeing principles, but they've made that politically hard for themselves. (And we'll start with the perfectly reasonable: "The British principle is that we pay what we are legally obliged to, not a centime more, unless you're gonna make it worth our while to pay more").
What is incomprehensible to me, and worrying, is that the EU27 have boxed themselves in on their bonkers position. It looks suspiciously like groupthink from a meeting where they couldn't actually agree on much, except that everyone wants the Brits to pay as much as possible. But it's a negotiating dead-end.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
I listened to what I thought was the same version as a kid, turns it although it sounds very similar there are a number of little scenes in the original that were cut out when I heard it.
Anyway, I hung on for 20 minutes and then gave up. Will try again later.
I think partly it's grandstanding ahead of elections in France and Germany. Partly its a preemptive play against the British demanding that they get paid to leave (anchoring). But mostly it's a realisation that they can (justifiably) say we paid €50bn, when we in fact did nothing other than honour a few pension commitments.
But there's absolutely no way they can dress the pension commitments up as anything remotely like that figure.
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator
Not really
What evidence there is suggests she folded cards she didn't have to and caved in to the headbangers without a fight.
If that's pretty good, we really are screwed.
Who would you want conducting these negotiations? In preference to Mrs May?
David "I'll never campaign to leave the EU" Cameron? Or David "I'm going to win this referendum 70/30" Cameron?
Forget the EU. May has a track record with Gary McKinnon (telling the US to fuck off) and Abu Qatada (agreeing with Jordan for him to fuck back).
And she is brave: she told the Tory Party to stop being nasty, and the Police to get a grip and grow up.
Putting aside the question of whether you agree with Brexit or not (something several regulars on here are incapable of doing) can you think of anyone else you'd rather have leading these negotiations for Blighty?
I can't.
Michael Fallon.
He'd scare the bejesus out of everyone as he does in the UK. They would all come away from the negotiating table feeling slightly unnerved and then wake up the next day to find the head of their favourite pet in their bed.
Most likely, however, she can't cope. So her main effort goes on preventing anyone discussing Brexit or challenging her on it.
We have all seen how badly she handles PMQs, even up against Corbyn, is frightened of TV debates or even real voters.
The slightest thing completely knocks her off her game.
Just imagine how she will handle the real negotiations once they start...
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator - which is an entirely different skill from debating or interacting with voters.
May managed to make one pro-eu (sort of) speech during the referendum campaign and then for the rest of the campaign did nothing in particular - and did it very well.
And if you think Mrs May is going to be literally sitting at one side of a table with the other 27 leaders at the other then you are hopelessly naive. The negotiations will be done by the civil service, mainly, in dotting i's, crossing t's and advising the politicians.
I have seen photos of Mrs May dressed in a remain shirt campaigning for Remain in her constituency. Accompanied by other remain campaigners from other parties. Including Lib Dems.
Always worth a repost. Tessy looks like she's approaching her campaigning there with her usual relaxed brio and enthusiasm.
Most likely, however, she can't cope. So her main effort goes on preventing anyone discussing Brexit or challenging her on it.
We have all seen how badly she handles PMQs, even up against Corbyn, is frightened of TV debates or even real voters.
The slightest thing completely knocks her off her game.
Just imagine how she will handle the real negotiations once they start...
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator - which is an entirely different skill from debating or interacting with voters.
May managed to make one pro-eu (sort of) speech during the referendum campaign and then for the rest of the campaign did nothing in particular - and did it very well.
And if you think Mrs May is going to be literally sitting at one side of a table with the other 27 leaders at the other then you are hopelessly naive. The negotiations will be done by the civil service, mainly, in dotting i's, crossing t's and advising the politicians.
I have seen photos of Mrs May dressed in a remain shirt campaigning for Remain in her constituency. Accompanied by other remain campaigners from other parties. Including Lib Dems.
So what? She makes no bones of having supported and voted for Remain in the EU referendum. She has now accepted and is working for the majority who voted Leave ..... good for her ...... it's called democracy.
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator
Not really
What evidence there is suggests she folded cards she didn't have to and caved in to the headbangers without a fight.
If that's pretty good, we really are screwed.
Who would you want conducting these negotiations? In preference to Mrs May?
David "I'll never campaign to leave the EU" Cameron? Or David "I'm going to win this referendum 70/30" Cameron?
Forget the EU. May has a track record with Gary McKinnon (telling the US to fuck off) and Abu Qatada (agreeing with Jordan for him to fuck back).
And she is brave: she told the Tory Party to stop being nasty, and the Police to get a grip and grow up.
Putting aside the question of whether you agree with Brexit or not (something several regulars on here are incapable of doing) can you think of anyone else you'd rather have leading these negotiations for Blighty?
I can't.
Funnily enough, just before the election was called I was putting together a piece arguing that it was Britain's tragedy that Theresa May didn't conduct the pre-referendum negotiations and that David Cameron isn't conducting the current negotiations. Each called for the other's skills.
Is the NF under ,Let Pen fascist ? Umberto Eco lists 14 properties of fascism. By my reckoning, the NF ticks about 5 and a half out of 14 boxes. So however distasteful they may seem, not fascist on Eco's terms.
I don't think them Facist. Fellow travellers maybe, or possibly the useful idiots of Fascists.
Some years ago it was quite hard to appreciate why so many supported the Nazis, Facists, Falangists, Ustashe, Arrow Cross etc, but in recent years it has become easier to understand.
The Yesterday channel had a very interesting series on foreign collaborators of the Nazis:
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator
Not really
What evidence there is suggests she folded cards she didn't have to and caved in to the headbangers without a fight.
If that's pretty good, we really are screwed.
Who would you want conducting these negotiations? In preference to Mrs May?
David "I'll never campaign to leave the EU" Cameron? Or David "I'm going to win this referendum 70/30" Cameron?
Forget the EU. May has a track record with Gary McKinnon (telling the US to fuck off) and Abu Qatada (agreeing with Jordan for him to fuck back).
And she is brave: she told the Tory Party to stop being nasty, and the Police to get a grip and grow up.
Putting aside the question of whether you agree with Brexit or not (something several regulars on here are incapable of doing) can you think of anyone else you'd rather have leading these negotiations for Blighty?
I can't.
Funnily enough, just before the election was called I was putting together a piece arguing that it was Britain's tragedy that Theresa May didn't conduct the pre-referendum negotiations and that David Cameron isn't conducting the current negotiations. Each called for the other's skills.
There are some very interesting discussions about exactly what proportion of EU assets (EUR140bn) we are entitled - should it be based on percentage of gross contributions since year dot, or population, etc etc. You can make a case for it being as low as 7%, or as high as 20-25%.
Ultimately, the bill stuff is rubbish though. We will take responsibility for paying British MEPs and Eurocrats' pensions (because we'd likely lose that one in court if it came to it), we'll agree a transitional period with a reduced fee (which will count against the total), and the share of assets will be offset.
Mrs May will be able to declare that not a penny will go to Brussels. Various EU functionaries will claim that we paid €50bn. Everyone has a little victory. What's not to like?
All that makes perfect sense, but it does require the EU27 to back down ignominiously on their (completely bonkers) insistence that we agree the outlines of an exit bill before knowing what we're exiting to. OK, they might be able to fudge it with some flim-flam about agreeing principles, but they've made that politically hard for themselves. (And we'll start with the perfectly reasonable: "The British principle is that we pay what we are legally obliged to, not a centime more, unless you're gonna make it worth our while to pay more").
What is incomprehensible to me, and worrying, is that the EU27 have boxed themselves in on their bonkers position. It looks suspiciously like groupthink from a meeting where they couldn't actually agree on much, except that everyone wants the Brits to pay as much as possible. But it's a negotiating dead-end.
They have not. They don't want a trade deal agreed before 2019. Simples. They do not have much to lose, whatever our Brexiters think.
Ironically, the biggest sufferers of Brexit are predominantly Tory supporters. Finance and exporters to the EU. Ask the EEF what they think about Brexit.
You don't want Mr Meeks to be happy? I know he can be pompous and annoying, but we surely all wish him well, ultimately., in his new Nazi homeland, where he feels so comfortable.
It's interesting just how many of the most vociferous Remainers are happy to pronounce judgement on the moral turpitude of the UK, from places like France (where 40% are about to vote for an actual fascist candidate) or Viktor Orban's Hungary.
In the UK, UKIP looks like Mary Poppins next to those. And even that has now been effectively killed off by our oldest establishment mainstream centre-right party.
There's nothing centre right about a party that stands by when the independence of the judiciary is attacked or when citizens with different views are labelled saboteurs. I've seen how a Prime Minister with no real opposition has mutated into an authoritarian. It looks set to happen again with Theresa May.
This weird idea has taken root on political betting that I see Hungary as some kind of nirvana. Politically it stands as an awful warning to Britain. It is not a warning that is being taken heed of, as Leavers cheer on Ms Le Pen.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Most likely, however, she can't cope. So her main effort goes on preventing anyone discussing Brexit or challenging her on it.
We have all seen how badly she handles PMQs, even up against Corbyn, is frightened of TV debates or even real voters.
The slightest thing completely knocks her off her game.
Just imagine how she will handle the real negotiations once they start...
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator - which is an entirely different skill from debating or interacting with voters.
May managed to make one pro-eu (sort of) speech during the referendum campaign and then for the rest of the campaign did nothing in particular - and did it very well.
And if you think Mrs May is going to be literally sitting at one side of a table with the other 27 leaders at the other then you are hopelessly naive. The negotiations will be done by the civil service, mainly, in dotting i's, crossing t's and advising the politicians.
I have seen photos of Mrs May dressed in a remain shirt campaigning for Remain in her constituency. Accompanied by other remain campaigners from other parties. Including Lib Dems.
So what? She makes no bones of having supported and voted for Remain in the EU referendum. She has now accepted and is working for the majority who voted Leave ..... good for her ...... it's called democracy.
Exactly. The job of the PM after a referendum is to respect the result and get on with making the best of it, not cry like a child who isn't used to having to share
Can't say I've ever found Fallon menacing, though.
Mr. Bolger, my uncle, who typically goes for Labour or the Lib Dems, despairs of Corbyn and surprised me a few months ago by saying he quite liked May.
I think partly it's grandstanding ahead of elections in France and Germany. Partly its a preemptive play against the British demanding that they get paid to leave (anchoring). But mostly it's a realisation that they can (justifiably) say we paid €50bn, when we in fact did nothing other than honour a few pension commitments.
But there's absolutely no way they can dress the pension commitments up as anything remotely like that figure.
Let's say the EU considers the UK needs to pay (and I'm slightly making these numbers up):
1. €20bn for pensions 2. €20bn for spending that we approved 3. €10bn for share of debt
What will happen is that we'll take the pensions, we'll make payments to the EU during the transitional period (that will be offset against 2), and then they'll decide assets and liabilities match to settle 3.
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator
Not really
What evidence there is suggests she folded cards she didn't have to and caved in to the headbangers without a fight.
If that's pretty good, we really are screwed.
Who would you want conducting these negotiations? In preference to Mrs May?
David "I'll never campaign to leave the EU" Cameron? Or David "I'm going to win this referendum 70/30" Cameron?
Forget the EU. May has a track record with Gary McKinnon (telling the US to fuck off) and Abu Qatada (agreeing with Jordan for him to fuck back).
And she is brave: she told the Tory Party to stop being nasty, and the Police to get a grip and grow up.
Putting aside the question of whether you agree with Brexit or not (something several regulars on here are incapable of doing) can you think of anyone else you'd rather have leading these negotiations for Blighty?
I can't.
Funnily enough, just before the election was called I was putting together a piece arguing that it was Britain's tragedy that Theresa May didn't conduct the pre-referendum negotiations and that David Cameron isn't conducting the current negotiations. Each called for the other's skills.
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator
Not really
What evidence there is suggests she folded cards she didn't have to and caved in to the headbangers without a fight.
If that's pretty good, we really are screwed.
Who would you want conducting these negotiations? In preference to Mrs May?
David "I'll never campaign to leave the EU" Cameron? Or David "I'm going to win this referendum 70/30" Cameron?
Forget the EU. May has a track record with Gary McKinnon (telling the US to fuck off) and Abu Qatada (agreeing with Jordan for him to fuck back).
And she is brave: she told the Tory Party to stop being nasty, and the Police to get a grip and grow up.
Putting aside the question of whether you agree with Brexit or not (something several regulars on here are incapable of doing) can you think of anyone else you'd rather have leading these negotiations for Blighty?
I can't.
The Nasty Party comments were the ones that brought May to prominence. The right wing press leapt all over her after she delivered them. She learned then never to cross it, but to pander to it instead. See, most recently, her incredibly brave decision to back down at the first sign of turmoil over NI rates for the self-employed.
I think partly it's grandstanding ahead of elections in France and Germany. Partly its a preemptive play against the British demanding that they get paid to leave (anchoring). But mostly it's a realisation that they can (justifiably) say we paid €50bn, when we in fact did nothing other than honour a few pension commitments.
But there's absolutely no way they can dress the pension commitments up as anything remotely like that figure.
Let's say the EU considers the UK needs to pay (and I'm slightly making these numbers up):
1. €20bn for pensions 2. €20bn for spending that we approved 3. €10bn for share of debt
What will happen is that we'll take the pensions, we'll make payments to the EU during the transitional period (that will be offset against 2), and then they'll decide assets and liabilities match to settle 3.
Well, let's hope it can be fudged in some way like that, but we shall see. Either way, though, it can't be agreed before we know what the final trade deal is. So they are going to have back on that.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
According to the report linked earlier it's unpaid budget appropriations + spending commitments already agreed + pensions costs. It does feel very high - you'd assume it would get negotiated down... But enough for Mays own party to swallow? Not sure...
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
The Treaty is not very heavy on what happens when countries leave. That's why it all needs to be sorted out before anything else can happen. It's not bonkers, it's common sense.
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator
Not really
What evidence there is suggests she folded cards she didn't have to and caved in to the headbangers without a fight.
If that's pretty good, we really are screwed.
Who would you want conducting these negotiations? In preference to Mrs May?
David "I'll never campaign to leave the EU" Cameron? Or David "I'm going to win this referendum 70/30" Cameron?
Forget the EU. May has a track record with Gary McKinnon (telling the US to fuck off) and Abu Qatada (agreeing with Jordan for him to fuck back).
And she is brave: she told the Tory Party to stop being nasty, and the Police to get a grip and grow up.
Putting aside the question of whether you agree with Brexit or not (something several regulars on here are incapable of doing) can you think of anyone else you'd rather have leading these negotiations for Blighty?
I can't.
The Nasty Party comments were the ones that brought May to prominence. The right wing press leapt all over her after she delivered them. She learned then never to cross it, but to pander to it instead. See, most recently, her incredibly brave decision to back down at the first sign of turmoil over tax rates for the self-employed.
The Conservatives tbf have a shocking record of reversing budget decisions the instant they are questioned with a raised eyebrow in the media.
I think partly it's grandstanding ahead of elections in France and Germany. Partly its a preemptive play against the British demanding that they get paid to leave (anchoring). But mostly it's a realisation that they can (justifiably) say we paid €50bn, when we in fact did nothing other than honour a few pension commitments.
But there's absolutely no way they can dress the pension commitments up as anything remotely like that figure.
Let's say the EU considers the UK needs to pay (and I'm slightly making these numbers up):
1. €20bn for pensions 2. €20bn for spending that we approved 3. €10bn for share of debt
What will happen is that we'll take the pensions, we'll make payments to the EU during the transitional period (that will be offset against 2), and then they'll decide assets and liabilities match to settle 3.
Well, let's hope it can be fudged in some way like that, but we shall see. Either way, though, it can't be agreed before we know what the final trade deal is. So they are going to have back on that.
Why are they going to have to? If there is stalemate the UK will crack first.
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator
Not really
What evidence there is suggests she folded cards she didn't have to and caved in to the headbangers without a fight.
If that's pretty good, we really are screwed.
Who would you want conducting these negotiations? In preference to Mrs May?
David "I'll never campaign to leave the EU" Cameron? Or David "I'm going to win this referendum 70/30" Cameron?
Forget the EU. May has a track record with Gary McKinnon (telling the US to fuck off) and Abu Qatada (agreeing with Jordan for him to fuck back).
And she is brave: she told the Tory Party to stop being nasty, and the Police to get a grip and grow up.
Putting aside the question of whether you agree with Brexit or not (something several regulars on here are incapable of doing) can you think of anyone else you'd rather have leading these negotiations for Blighty?
I can't.
Funnily enough, just before the election was called I was putting together a piece arguing that it was Britain's tragedy that Theresa May didn't conduct the pre-referendum negotiations and that David Cameron isn't conducting the current negotiations. Each called for the other's skills.
That's a shame, I'd have enjoyed reading that article.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
But if you wanted to have a cosy dinner with them, they are apparently available and willing.
Is that from personal experience Surbiton, or did Jeremy Corbyn tell you that was the price of his inability to fill in a simple form correctly?
"Dave Hartnett, the out-going HMRC chief executive, was wined and dined 107 times by big firms' tax lawyers and advisors between 2007 and 2009, the report revealed."
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
First report from the stump, delivering a generic Theresa May leaflet to the good people of Torbay. Unusually, no-one told me to "fvck off", nobody chased my back down the street with the leaflet to throw it back in my face. Several "good luck" messages.
You may recall, in 2015 I brought you the startling news that the garden gnome had been largely evicted from Torbay by - the horror - garden meerkats. Well, the big news was the almost total absence of said meerkats now, just two years later. Only one sighting in fact. However, the gnomes haven't returned. This time, the fad seems to be for owls.
Whisper it, but Labour might have been on to something with their free owls....
Why are they going to have to? If there is stalemate the UK will crack first.
The UK can't crack first. It is simply impossible to discuss exit terms, except perhaps in the vaguest of terms about principle, if we don't know what we're exiting to. This is obvious, surely. What's more it's explicit in Article 50.
Talking of fascists has OGH given his views on the LibDem-Green alliance.
I recall him telling us previously that he regarded the Greens as nasty, authoritarian fascists against whom he would vote for either Labour or the Conservatives.
Why are they going to have to? If there is stalemate the UK will crack first.
The UK can't crack first. It is simply impossible to discuss exit terms, except perhaps in the vaguest of terms about principle, if we don't know what we're exiting to. This is obvious, surely. What's more it's explicit in Article 50.
I see what the imperative is in the UK cracking first, but I don't see it for the EU. Wait, WTO, ok so it's a hit, but per individual country not so much. For the UK, much.
That said, my money's on a boring deal which will neither please nor outrage anyone too much but which will be workable.
I have absolutely no doubt that we will be poorer as a result, as per the Evening Standard article I linked to earlier, but no one really will notice unless they are at the very bottom of the income or wealth ladder.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
Are you nuts Sean? If it ends up like this we're screwed. They have all the cards, we have none, we play ball. It's that simple. Was chatting to a senior Indian diplomat over Easter and he reckoned the UK would take any deal (however bad it is) from the EU. All this posturing from May is just sabre rattling nonsense.
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator
Not really
What evidence there is suggests she folded cards she didn't have to and caved in to the headbangers without a fight.
If that's pretty good, we really are screwed.
Who would you want conducting these negotiations? In preference to Mrs May?
David "I'll never campaign to leave the EU" Cameron? Or David "I'm going to win this referendum 70/30" Cameron?
Forget the EU. May has a track record with Gary McKinnon (telling the US to fuck off) and Abu Qatada (agreeing with Jordan for him to fuck back).
And she is brave: she told the Tory Party to stop being nasty, and the Police to get a grip and grow up.
Putting aside the question of whether you agree with Brexit or not (something several regulars on here are incapable of doing) can you think of anyone else you'd rather have leading these negotiations for Blighty?
I can't.
The Nasty Party comments were the ones that brought May to prominence. The right wing press leapt all over her after she delivered them. She learned then never to cross it, but to pander to it instead.
I raged at her back then for washing dirty Party linen in public but I was wrong and she was right. In private would have achieved nothing, but her courage and principled action paved the way for the Dave detox which has resulted in what looks like total recovery from near death, and the prospect of landslide support from the public.
Landslide support from the public, lefties. Howd'yer like them apples?
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
I don't think it has anything to do with the Treaty. It is to do with Contract Law. If you sign up to something, then you are liable for your share of the cost.
Just like the EU are liable apparently to some long tern rental agreement they have in a building in the City. I cannot confirm that.
Talking of fascists has OGH given his views on the LibDem-Green alliance.
I recall him telling us previously that he regarded the Greens as nasty, authoritarian fascists against whom he would vote for either Labour or the Conservatives.
You fool!! Guilt by association only exists when it's UKIP, or sometimes the Conservatives, having to make up the numbers in the European Parliament with someone from a party containing someone once did something un PC
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
What would we do? We'd be absolutely buggered.
No. We wouldn't
True - the wealthy would generally be fine, as would ex-pats in Gibraltar. I would not want to be working for Nissan or any other car company though. Or for British Aerospace. Or any manufacturing outfit that deals with Europe.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
What would we do? We'd be absolutely buggered.
Yep. We'd be looking at a 5-10% drop in GDP. But politically if it became Us V Them I think we'd accept it. You can surely see the emotional dynamic which would kick in.
The EU seems to think we would be too scared of No Deal. I think they are wrong.
5-10% drop in GDP and you reckon that we would spend our last fivers going out to buy Union Jack flags and Don't Panic mugs?
There speaks one truly who will be untouched by whatever Brexit brings and thus can treat it as an academic curiosity.
Talking of fascists has OGH given his views on the LibDem-Green alliance.
I recall him telling us previously that he regarded the Greens as nasty, authoritarian fascists against whom he would vote for either Labour or the Conservatives.
I think it was me that said that rather than my father.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
What would we do? We'd be absolutely buggered.
Yep. We'd be looking at a 5-10% drop in GDP. But politically if it became Us V Them I think we'd accept it. You can surely see the emotional dynamic which would kick in.
The EU seems to think we would be too scared of No Deal. I think they are wrong.
I think the emotional dynamic becomes much less compelling when you lose your job, can no longer pay your mortgage or take your family on holiday; when prices and taxes go up; and public services are cut even further.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
The EU27 are completely open and serious in their position on this. They have agreed it and stand as one behind it as a precursor to opening negotiations on other issues. It is not some opening gambit like in a Bedouin market.
There are two options:
1) We agree to pay, and try to offset it financially by some sort of transition deal involving continued Single Market until the end of the budget period (2022?)
2) We refuse to pay, negotiations end, hard Brexit on WTO terms without a transition period. Car crash Brexit.
I think May wants to try for 1), but will not get a transitional deal that is acceptable to Britain (because it will consist of defacto membership including free movement of people), so 2) will happen. .
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
What would we do? We'd be absolutely buggered.
Yep. We'd be looking at a 5-10% drop in GDP. But politically if it became Us V Them I think we'd accept it. You can surely see the emotional dynamic which would kick in.
The EU seems to think we would be too scared of No Deal. I think they are wrong.
On this point, Sean, you are correct. For many Brexiters, it is like a country going into war. Costs do not matter. They will accept 5 - 10% cuts in GDP.
Where many of your Brexiter friends , either deliberately or otherwise , believe or used to say, that Brexit will be pain-free or that "they" will suffer more than we will, are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Anyone seen Dan Hannan lately ? Our single market and EEA guarantor.
Talking of fascists has OGH given his views on the LibDem-Green alliance.
I recall him telling us previously that he regarded the Greens as nasty, authoritarian fascists against whom he would vote for either Labour or the Conservatives.
I think it was me that said that rather than my father.
Well you might have the same view of the Green party but whoever said it said it was the ONLY reason they would vote Conservative.
And I've never got the vibe that you were that hostile towards the Conservatives.
But if you wanted to have a cosy dinner with them, they are apparently available and willing.
Is that from personal experience Surbiton, or did Jeremy Corbyn tell you that was the price of his inability to fill in a simple form correctly?
"Dave Hartnett, the out-going HMRC chief executive, was wined and dined 107 times by big firms' tax lawyers and advisors between 2007 and 2009, the report revealed."
I am sure you will believe every word from the Daily Mail.
You can choose from hundreds of articles.
Unlike the Jezziah, I am not a fascist nutcase and I do not believe everything I read in the Mail. Indeed, having studied it in some depth, I have trouble believing anything I read in the Daily Mail. Unless you can come up with a better source than that I will have to assume it's personal experience or entirely invented.
I think that probably correct. Any significant bill will be a political suicide pill for the MPs backing paying it. It could well be why May wants a big majority. It is the Leave Fundamentalists ratber than the Remainers who pose the biggest threat to her.
May has so little interest in the Brexit negotiations and is approaching them so incompetently, I do wonder if she has some plan where the outcome becomes irrelevant. I hardly think she can spring another of her surprises and will declare Brexit cancelled. Slightly more likely, she doesn't mind a Brexit crash if she can blame it on the EU. Most likely, however, she can't cope. So her main effort goes on preventing anyone discussing Brexit or challenging her on it.
Considering that she called the election over Brexit, she is very reluctant to explain what her Brexit policy is. The vacuous "Best possible deal for Britain" is a meaningless soundbite, as anyone from the fluffiest softie to the titanium tipped hard case imagines that their version of Brexit is best.
It is quite unclear what she expects to propose to a Commons and Lords that passed A50 with barely any delay or dispute that they will rise up against. It would have to be something epically unpopular to get them to vote it down.
May is selling a Brexit pig in a poke.
You are confused. May is not selling brexit. That was voted on last year. Remember? The country, yes the little people, voted to leave. Now according to Smithson Snr and his cheerleaders they are all a bunch of facists. May is enacting the voters will. As for plans perhaps you should ask your friends in the EU first to disclose theirs.
Me? I voted remain. But I got over it. To even try to go back now would really be to buy a pig in a poke. We would have no credibility at all and be royally fecked by an EU laughing all the way to the bank with our euros (because the pound would be long gone). And of couse we would be dragged into ever closer union.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
The EU27 are completely open and serious in their position on this. They have agreed it and stand as one behind it as a precursor to opening negotiations on other issues. It is not some opening gambit like in a Bedouin market.
There are two options:
1) We agree to pay, and try to offset it financially by some sort of transition deal involving continued Single Market until the end of the budget period (2022?)
2) We refuse to pay, negotiations end, hard Brexit on WTO terms without a transition period. Car crash Brexit.
I think May wants to try for 1), but will not get a transitional deal that is acceptable to Britain (because it will consist of defacto membership including free movement of people), so 2) will happen. .
May definitely wants no.1 . That is why we have the election. She has seen Treasury projections of Brexit. That is why she needs a bigger majority to make deals including the divorce bill.
The election will give her approximately 4 years to conclude things. She also knows that once the details come out, many Brexiters will start accusing her of betrayal but, equally, many soft-Brexiters or, indeed, many Remainers will come over to her side.
You will hear the word "Betrayal" a lot in the next 2 / 3 years.
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator
Not really
What evidence there is suggests she folded cards she didn't have to and caved in to the headbangers without a fight.
If that's pretty good, we really are screwed.
Who would you want conducting these negotiations? In preference to Mrs May?
David "I'll never campaign to leave the EU" Cameron? Or David "I'm going to win this referendum 70/30" Cameron?
Forget the EU. May has a track record with Gary McKinnon (telling the US to fuck off) and Abu Qatada (agreeing with Jordan for him to fuck back).
And she is brave: she told the Tory Party to stop being nasty, and the Police to get a grip and grow up.
Putting aside the question of whether you agree with Brexit or not (something several regulars on here are incapable of doing) can you think of anyone else you'd rather have leading these negotiations for Blighty?
I can't.
The Nasty Party comments were the ones that brought May to prominence. The right wing press leapt all over her after she delivered them. She learned then never to cross it, but to pander to it instead. See, most recently, her incredibly brave decision to back down at the first sign of turmoil over NI rates for the self-employed.
I think you're in your hyper-partisan mode now because of the election.
I think that probably correct. Any significant bill will be a political suicide pill for the MPs backing paying it. It could well be why May wants a big majority. It is the Leave Fundamentalists ratber than the Remainers who pose the biggest threat to her.
May has so little interest in the Brexit negotiations and is approaching them so incompetently, I do wonder if she has some plan where the outcome becomes irrelevant. I hardly think she can spring another of her surprises and will declare Brexit cancelled. Slightly more likely, she doesn't mind a Brexit crash if she can blame it on the EU. Most likely, however, she can't cope. So her main effort goes on preventing anyone discussing Brexit or challenging her on it.
Considering that she called the election over Brexit, she is very reluctant to explain what her Brexit policy is. The vacuous "Best possible deal for Britain" is a meaningless soundbite, as anyone from the fluffiest softie to the titanium tipped hard case imagines that their version of Brexit is best.
It is quite unclear what she expects to propose to a Commons and Lords that passed A50 with barely any delay or dispute that they will rise up against. It would have to be something epically unpopular to get them to vote it down.
May is selling a Brexit pig in a poke.
You are confused. May is not selling brexit. That was voted on last year. Remember? The country, yes the little people, voted to leave. Now according to Smithson Snr and his cheerleaders they are all a bunch of facists. May is enacting the voters will. As for plans perhaps you should ask your friends in the EU first to disclose theirs.
Me? I voted remain. But I got over it. To even try to go back now would really be to buy a pig in a poke. We would have no credibility at all and be royally fecked by an EU laughing all the way to the bank with our euros (because the pound would be long gone). And of couse we would be dragged into ever closer union.
The EU27 have made their position clear. They want to sort out our departure terms. Once that is done, they will listen to what we have to say about a trade deal and decide whether they will agree to it.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
The EU27 are completely open and serious in their position on this. They have agreed it and stand as one behind it as a precursor to opening negotiations on other issues. It is not some opening gambit like in a Bedouin market.
There are two options:
1) We agree to pay, and try to offset it financially by some sort of transition deal involving continued Single Market until the end of the budget period (2022?)
2) We refuse to pay, negotiations end, hard Brexit on WTO terms without a transition period. Car crash Brexit.
I think May wants to try for 1), but will not get a transitional deal that is acceptable to Britain (because it will consist of defacto membership including free movement of people), so 2) will happen. .
And all this shows is that we're better off out of the EU.
Being in EverCloserUnion within an organisation that doesn't like this country and is always willing to change the rules to suit its own purposes isn't a healthy place to be.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
The EU27 are completely open and serious in their position on this. They have agreed it and stand as one behind it as a precursor to opening negotiations on other issues. It is not some opening gambit like in a Bedouin market.
There are two options:
1) We agree to pay, and try to offset it financially by some sort of transition deal involving continued Single Market until the end of the budget period (2022?)
2) We refuse to pay, negotiations end, hard Brexit on WTO terms without a transition period. Car crash Brexit.
I think May wants to try for 1), but will not get a transitional deal that is acceptable to Britain (because it will consist of defacto membership including free movement of people), so 2) will happen. .
1st rule of negotiation.
They ask for 10. They want 8 And would be happy with 6 So it's worth 4 And you offer 2.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
What would we do? We'd be absolutely buggered.
Yep. We'd be looking at a 5-10% drop in GDP. But politically if it became Us V Them I think we'd accept it. You can surely see the emotional dynamic which would kick in.
The EU seems to think we would be too scared of No Deal. I think they are wrong.
I think the emotional dynamic becomes much less compelling when you lose your job, can no longer pay your mortgage or take your family on holiday; when prices and taxes go up; and public services are cut even further.
You're wrong. As Hitler said, you only have to promise your people blood, sweat and tears, and they will follow you anywhere.
If the EU follows through on their rhetoric of trying to hurt us, and dismember the UK, we will unite (most of us) and tell them to Do One. Fuck them. They will be seen as an enemy, we don't yield meekly to enemies. We fight.
What are they going to do? Intern the SNP and the unrepentant Remainers?
What evidence there is suggests that she is a pretty good negotiator
Not really
What evidence there is suggests she folded cards she didn't have to and caved in to the headbangers without a fight.
If that's pretty good, we really are screwed.
Who would you want conducting these negotiations? In preference to Mrs May?
David "I'll never campaign to leave the EU" Cameron? Or David "I'm going to win this referendum 70/30" Cameron?
Forget the EU. May has a track record with Gary McKinnon (telling the US to fuck off) and Abu Qatada (agreeing with Jordan for him to fuck back).
And she is brave: she told the Tory Party to stop being nasty, and the Police to get a grip and grow up.
Putting aside the question of whether you agree with Brexit or not (something several regulars on here are incapable of doing) can you think of anyone else you'd rather have leading these negotiations for Blighty?
I can't.
Michael Fallon.
He'd scare the bejesus out of everyone as he does in the UK. They would all come away from the negotiating table feeling slightly unnerved and then wake up the next day to find the head of their favourite pet in their bed.
Not a bad shout, actually, Topping, but i'd want to see some evidence of some negotiating wins from him first.
But if you wanted to have a cosy dinner with them, they are apparently available and willing.
Is that from personal experience Surbiton, or did Jeremy Corbyn tell you that was the price of his inability to fill in a simple form correctly?
"Dave Hartnett, the out-going HMRC chief executive, was wined and dined 107 times by big firms' tax lawyers and advisors between 2007 and 2009, the report revealed."
I am sure you will believe every word from the Daily Mail.
You can choose from hundreds of articles.
Unlike the Jezziah, I am not a fascist nutcase and I do not believe everything I read in the Mail. Indeed, having studied it in some depth, I have trouble believing anything I read in the Daily Mail. Unless you can come up with a better source than that I will have to assume it's personal experience or entirely invented.
This was in a parliamentary select committee report. The HMRC did not deny it except the usual clap trap that every HMRC official behaved correctly.
The EU27 are completely open and serious in their position on this. They have agreed it and stand as one behind it as a precursor to opening negotiations on other issues. It is not some opening gambit like in a Bedouin market.
There are two options:
1) We agree to pay, and try to offset it financially by some sort of transition deal involving continued Single Market until the end of the budget period (2022?)
2) We refuse to pay, negotiations end, hard Brexit on WTO terms without a transition period. Car crash Brexit.
I think May wants to try for 1), but will not get a transitional deal that is acceptable to Britain (because it will consist of defacto membership including free movement of people), so 2) will happen. .
No, that doesn't work. Suppose we give in on the first point in the hope of a favourable final deal, and say, OK, we'll pay the whole lot, or we haggle over the figure and end up saying we'll pay €30bn. What then? Are they still in a position to say, 'Thank you very much, that settles the exit bill. Now, if you want a trade deal, then you're also going to have to contribute annually to the cost of running the Single Market, otherwise it's WTO terms'.
You only need to look at this for ten seconds to see that it is literally impossible to do it as the EU27 insist (with zero legal justification) that it should be done.
Our position will be: If there's no trade deal, we pay nothing. Why should we pay anything for nothing in return? OK, they can (possibly) threaten to take us the International Court of Justice, but if they did that we'd be able to stall it for years, if not decades, and the likelihood is that they'd be awarded tuppence ha'penny. It's not even legally clear that the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction. And in the meantime they'd get zero. It's an empty threat.
The only sensible way to do this is to run the two negotiations together. As any fule no, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that applies here.
I think that probably correct. Any significant bill will be a political suicide pill for the MPs backing paying it. It could well be why May wants a big majority. It is the Leave Fundamentalists ratber than the Remainers who pose the biggest threat to her.
May has so little interest in the Brexit negotiations and is approaching them so incompetently, I do wonder if she has some plan where the outcome becomes irrelevant. I hardly think she can spring another of her surprises and will declare Brexit cancelled. Slightly more likely, she doesn't mind a Brexit crash if she can blame it on the EU. Most likely, however, she can't cope. So her main effort goes on preventing anyone discussing Brexit or challenging her on it.
Considering that she called the election over Brexit, she is very reluctant to explain what her Brexit policy is. The vacuous "Best possible deal for Britain" is a meaningless soundbite, as anyone from the fluffiest softie to the titanium tipped hard case imagines that their version of Brexit is best.
It is quite unclear what she expects to propose to a Commons and Lords that passed A50 with barely any delay or dispute that they will rise up against. It would have to be something epically unpopular to get them to vote it down.
May is selling a Brexit pig in a poke.
You are confused. May is not selling brexit. That was voted on last year. Remember? The country, yes the little people, voted to leave. Now according to Smithson Snr and his cheerleaders they are all a bunch of facists. May is enacting the voters will. As for plans perhaps you should ask your friends in the EU first to disclose theirs.
Me? I voted remain. But I got over it. To even try to go back now would really be to buy a pig in a poke. We would have no credibility at all and be royally fecked by an EU laughing all the way to the bank with our euros (because the pound would be long gone). And of couse we would be dragged into ever closer union.
No, I am not confused at all. May specificslly cited Brexit as the reason for the snap election.
It is the type of Brexit that the election is about, not a reversal. As such May needs to let us know what her plans are, for example will she refuse to pay the Brexit bill?
So to save me reading endless posts have there been:
1) Any new polls or are any expected soon ?
2) Any interesting betting discussion ?
The circular arguments re Brexit have been ongoing.. I wonder in which Quarter of which year "Acceptance Day" will fall? Maybe a bookie would price it up?!
Bettingwise I'd like to know if anyone here got 5/1 on the Tories to win Stoke on Trent Central, and what people think the value is now ?
I wonder if this MP will be replaced? I mean retired or forced to step down? Maybe he will defect to the Lib Dems as he would find his views similar to Tim Farron!
That's a very odd article. What's the Mail got against Andrew Turner?
Did Dacre fall out with him at a drinks party, or something?
I think the Tories on the isle of White have some beef with him about his relationship with his wife. Maybe someone wants to prise him out of the seat? From what I remember of the "scandal" I was puzzled as he looked to be the victim rather than the perpetrator of anything but my memory may be playing tricks! Politics can be very harsh.
Private Eye's had stories for years on what voters on the IoW have to put up with in their MP. It gives the impression that if it wasn't 'pig with a blue rosette' territory he'd lose the seat or be deselected.
The Eye hasn't bothered to cover the IoW since 2015. Judging by its contents, it has many other stories to cover.
This is what some voters have to put up with in safe seats, I'm afraid. I think MPs in marginals are possibly chosen more carefully.
Are you sure? Peter Brand, the LibDem certainly held it in my political lifetime.
In that period of my life I was mostly in Hampshire I went across to campaign against him/them a few times.
I should have checked more carefully; as looking on Wikipedia it's had some very close elections and some Lib Dem MPs. Sorry. I don't know it well; that shows.
Ludlow had a one-term LibDem MP but soon reverted to type. What I meant is that an MP can be fairly poor at his job and rather unpopular but if this only brings his vote down from 55-60% to 40-50%, such an MP could survive in a safe seat for a lifetime, assuming the opposition is divided say into Lib.Dems 25-35% and at most elections lesser amounts for Labour, UKIP and the RLP.
But if you wanted to have a cosy dinner with them, they are apparently available and willing.
Is that from personal experience Surbiton, or did Jeremy Corbyn tell you that was the price of his inability to fill in a simple form correctly?
"Dave Hartnett, the out-going HMRC chief executive, was wined and dined 107 times by big firms' tax lawyers and advisors between 2007 and 2009, the report revealed."
I am sure you will believe every word from the Daily Mail.
You can choose from hundreds of articles.
Unlike the Jezziah, I am not a fascist nutcase and I do not believe everything I read in the Mail. Indeed, having studied it in some depth, I have trouble believing anything I read in the Daily Mail. Unless you can come up with a better source than that I will have to assume it's personal experience or entirely invented.
This was in a parliamentary select committee report. The HMRC did not deny it except the usual clap trap that every HMRC official behaved correctly.
Then perhaps quote the report rather than the dodgy news articles? I mean, I know you are one of only two men living who thinks Diane Abbott is intelligent but surely it isn't beyond even your wit to google a parliamentary report instead of relying on articles from a newspaper with antecedents that even John McDonnell would blench at, an organisation owned by a dubious old git whose own wives can't stand him and run by a son with the intellectual capacity of a roast potato (I do hope that any hope roast potatoes will forgive me that slur on their intelligence) and a media organisation that a few weeks ago quite brilliantly accused somebody who was doing jail time of an act of mass killing?
It's almost as though you want me to believe you're making it up.
My thoughts exactly. The EU want to insist on the hardest of Brexits, then they are saying goodbye to any payments of any kind.
There can be no settlement on the final bill until the future relationship is understood. The most I'd offer, is to agree in principle what items could fall under a Brexit bill if, and only if, there is a satisfactory agreement for going forward, and that the amounts involved will be related to the attractiveness of that future agreement.
No deal, no payments, period.
On the 29 March 2019, the treaties that govern almost everything we do will lapse, unless we agree replacements. It won't just be a question of whether we have to pay duties on goods. There won't be the systems or staff in place to process them. There will be issues about aircraft certification, nuclear waste processing, financial settlements and much more. The chaos won't start at that date but will project forward as people suspect what's in store.
Genuine questions. Do you think all that is worth it, just to avoid a payment of €50 billion? Do you think Mrs May will think it's worth it, given the buck stops with her?
So to save me reading endless posts have there been:
1) Any new polls or are any expected soon ?
2) Any interesting betting discussion ?
The circular arguments re Brexit have been ongoing.. I wonder in which Quarter of which year "Acceptance Day" will fall? Maybe a bookie would price it up?!
Bettingwise I'd like to know if anyone here got 5/1 on the Tories to win Stoke on Trent Central, and what people think the value is now ?
4/7 Lab 2/1 Con 6/1 UKIP
I'd say the value is Labour there.
The Conservatives will be concentrating on Stokes North and South.
There is a bill upon leaving. What happens after this is sorted out makes no difference to that. When you leave a club to which you have had obligations you work out what it is you owe (or are owed). It is, indeed, the legal obligation that needs to be ascertained. Both sides will have their views.
Where in the Treaty does it say there's a bill on leaving? It's a fiction.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Agreed. They're massively overplaying their hand. And all this Gibraltar/United Ireland chit-chat is stupidly dangerous and provocative. Of course senior UK politicians have said dumb, inflammatory things, and our press is always lurid, but these remarks are coming from the EU Commission, the EU Parliament, and EU leaders. They're politicking, but they are pushing us to the Hardest of Brexits. The Fuck You Too Brexit. In the end, we would walk out. What would they do then?
What would we do? We'd be absolutely buggered.
Yep. We'd be looking at a 5-10% drop in GDP. But politically if it became Us V Them I think we'd accept it. You can surely see the emotional dynamic which would kick in.
The EU seems to think we would be too scared of No Deal. I think they are wrong.
I think the emotional dynamic becomes much less compelling when you lose your job, can no longer pay your mortgage or take your family on holiday; when prices and taxes go up; and public services are cut even further.
You're wrong. As Hitler said, you only have to promise your people blood, sweat and tears, and they will follow you anywhere.
If the EU follows through on their rhetoric of trying to hurt us, and dismember the UK, we will unite (most of us) and tell them to Do One. Fuck them. They will be seen as an enemy, we don't yield meekly to enemies. We fight.
I sincerely hope this doesn't happen. But I have no doubts that it could.
Yes, I think that this is the wealthy Brexiteer fantasy.
The EU27 are completely open and serious in their position on this. They have agreed it and stand as one behind it as a precursor to opening negotiations on other issues. It is not some opening gambit like in a Bedouin market.
There are two options:
1) We agree to pay, and try to offset it financially by some sort of transition deal involving continued Single Market until the end of the budget period (2022?)
2) We refuse to pay, negotiations end, hard Brexit on WTO terms without a transition period. Car crash Brexit.
I think May wants to try for 1), but will not get a transitional deal that is acceptable to Britain (because it will consist of defacto membership including free movement of people), so 2) will happen. .
No, that doesn't work. Suppose we give in on the first point in the hope of a favourable final deal, and say, OK, we'll pay the whole lot, or we haggle over the figure and end up saying we'll pay €30bn. What then? Are they still in a position to say, 'Thank you very much, that settles the exit bill. Now, if you want a trade deal, then you're also going to have to contribute annually to the cost of running the Single Market, otherwise it's WTO terms'.
You only need to look at this for ten seconds to see that it is literally impossible to do it as the EU27 insist (with zero legal justification) that it should be done.
Our position will be: If there's no trade deal, we pay nothing. Why should we pay anything for nothing in return? OK, they can (possibly) threaten to take us the International Court of Justice, but if they did that we'd be able to stall it for years, if not decades, and the likelihood is that they'd be awarded tuppence ha'penny. It's not even legally clear that the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction. And in the meantime they'd get zero. It's an empty threat.
The only sensible way to do this is to run the two negotiations together. As any fule no, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that applies here.
You may think that sensible, but the EU27 are clear that the Brexit bill has to be settled before trade talks begin. This has been stated many times, and will be reconfirmed this weekend:
The EU27 are completely open and serious in their position on this. They have agreed it and stand as one behind it as a precursor to opening negotiations on other issues. It is not some opening gambit like in a Bedouin market.
There are two options:
1) We agree to pay, and try to offset it financially by some sort of transition deal involving continued Single Market until the end of the budget period (2022?)
2) We refuse to pay, negotiations end, hard Brexit on WTO terms without a transition period. Car crash Brexit.
I think May wants to try for 1), but will not get a transitional deal that is acceptable to Britain (because it will consist of defacto membership including free movement of people), so 2) will happen. .
No, that doesn't work. Suppose we give in on the first point in the hope of a favourable final deal, and say, OK, we'll pay the whole lot, or we haggle over the figure and end up saying we'll pay €30bn. What then? Are they still in a position to say, 'Thank you very much, that settles the exit bill. Now, if you want a trade deal, then you're also going to have to contribute annually to the cost of running the Single Market, otherwise it's WTO terms'.
You only need to look at this for ten seconds to see that it is literally impossible to do it as the EU27 insist (with zero legal justification) that it should be done.
Our position will be: If there's no trade deal, we pay nothing. Why should we pay anything for nothing in return? OK, they can (possibly) threaten to take us the International Court of Justice, but if they did that we'd be able to stall it for years, if not decades, and the likelihood is that they'd be awarded tuppence ha'penny. It's not even legally clear that the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction. And in the meantime they'd get zero. It's an empty threat.
The only sensible way to do this is to run the two negotiations together. As any fule no, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that applies here.
"The only sensible way to do this is to run the two negotiations together. As any fule no, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that applies here."
The EU knows very well that is way Britain wants to play by playing one country against the other.
Comments
Massively raises expectations. So it is slightly amusing if a little strange that it's Brexiteers setting her up to fail.
All that happened in practice is that it acquired the nickname "The Shirley Bassey Arms" and a bit of a cult following.
I presume they merely change username.
Rule 1 - most people on here actually *think about* politics, rather than *feel for* it.
I'd take Nigel Farage over MLP, Trump or Orban every day of the week.
Here it is again.
What is incomprehensible to me, and worrying, is that the EU27 have boxed themselves in on their bonkers position. It looks suspiciously like groupthink from a meeting where they couldn't actually agree on much, except that everyone wants the Brits to pay as much as possible. But it's a negotiating dead-end.
As a result, on Monday, the First Minister backtracked on her previous comments as she claimed the election would not ‘decide whether or not Scotland becomes independent’ — instead it was now about standing up to the Tories. Then on Tuesday, Sturgeon cancelled a statement she was due to make to the Scottish parliament to set out her next steps towards getting a second referendum on independence.
Now her spokesman says this will only be delayed until after the election. But the fact Sturgeon has changed tack at all shows the party knows that it is losing momentum on independence; and since 2014 the SNP have relied on a sense that independence was the future.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/the-snp-have-lost-momentum-on-independence-and-nicola-sturgeon-knows-it/#
Congratulations. Have a lollipop.
Thaddeus White is quite often sarcastic.
https://twitter.com/PaulGivan4004BC/status/854282301798219776
Now asking me allll the same questions it's autorobot spent eight minutes asking me *before* I was even put on hold.
SIGH.
Just anecdotage
The number of times over the years I have heard that the EU or the Euro will collapse, I have lost count.
Yet it is the pound which keeps falling relative to the Euro !
This weird idea has taken root on political betting that I see Hungary as some kind of nirvana. Politically it stands as an awful warning to Britain. It is not a warning that is being taken heed of, as Leavers cheer on Ms Le Pen.
And she is brave: she told the Tory Party to stop being nasty, and the Police to get a grip and grow up.
Putting aside the question of whether you agree with Brexit or not (something several regulars on here are incapable of doing) can you think of anyone else you'd rather have leading these negotiations for Blighty?
I can't.
Gone
Anyway, I hung on for 20 minutes and then gave up. Will try again later.
He'd scare the bejesus out of everyone as he does in the UK. They would all come away from the negotiating table feeling slightly unnerved and then wake up the next day to find the head of their favourite pet in their bed.
The John O'Gaunt in Lancaster used to play George Formby
Some years ago it was quite hard to appreciate why so many supported the Nazis, Facists, Falangists, Ustashe, Arrow Cross etc, but in recent years it has become easier to understand.
The Yesterday channel had a very interesting series on foreign collaborators of the Nazis:
https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/nazi-collaborators/article/about-nazi-collaborators/
Ironically, the biggest sufferers of Brexit are predominantly Tory supporters. Finance and exporters to the EU. Ask the EEF what they think about Brexit.
In any case, you don't need to be an expert in anything to put the figure to a simple, commonsense test. It what conceivable world could it possibly cost us five times what we pay annually as a full member of the club to tidy up our bar bill on leaving? It's financial, legal, and above all political madness, it simply makes no sense.
My concern is that they might actually be serious. If so, there's no deal.
Can't say I've ever found Fallon menacing, though.
Mr. Bolger, my uncle, who typically goes for Labour or the Lib Dems, despairs of Corbyn and surprised me a few months ago by saying he quite liked May.
1. €20bn for pensions
2. €20bn for spending that we approved
3. €10bn for share of debt
What will happen is that we'll take the pensions, we'll make payments to the EU during the transitional period (that will be offset against 2), and then they'll decide assets and liabilities match to settle 3.
She's lucky she's playing on a flat pitch against 'lollipop' bowling, i.e. a flat track bully.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076358/HMRC-let-big-firms-25bn-taxes-As-families-chased-penny.html#ixzz4fZ8VgYmu
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I am sure you will believe every word from the Daily Mail.
You can choose from hundreds of articles.
You may recall, in 2015 I brought you the startling news that the garden gnome had been largely evicted from Torbay by - the horror - garden meerkats. Well, the big news was the almost total absence of said meerkats now, just two years later. Only one sighting in fact. However, the gnomes haven't returned. This time, the fad seems to be for owls.
Whisper it, but Labour might have been on to something with their free owls....
But he is awful.
I recall him telling us previously that he regarded the Greens as nasty, authoritarian fascists against whom he would vote for either Labour or the Conservatives.
That said, my money's on a boring deal which will neither please nor outrage anyone too much but which will be workable.
I have absolutely no doubt that we will be poorer as a result, as per the Evening Standard article I linked to earlier, but no one really will notice unless they are at the very bottom of the income or wealth ladder.
Landslide support from the public, lefties. Howd'yer like them apples?
Just like the EU are liable apparently to some long tern rental agreement they have in a building in the City. I cannot confirm that.
There speaks one truly who will be untouched by whatever Brexit brings and thus can treat it as an academic curiosity.
There are two options:
1) We agree to pay, and try to offset it financially by some sort of transition deal involving continued Single Market until the end of the budget period (2022?)
2) We refuse to pay, negotiations end, hard Brexit on WTO terms without a transition period. Car crash Brexit.
I think May wants to try for 1), but will not get a transitional deal that is acceptable to Britain (because it will consist of defacto membership including free movement of people), so 2) will happen. .
Where many of your Brexiter friends , either deliberately or otherwise , believe or used to say, that Brexit will be pain-free or that "they" will suffer more than we will, are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Anyone seen Dan Hannan lately ? Our single market and EEA guarantor.
And I've never got the vibe that you were that hostile towards the Conservatives.
May is not selling brexit. That was voted on last year. Remember? The country, yes the little people, voted to leave. Now according to Smithson Snr and his cheerleaders they are all a bunch of facists.
May is enacting the voters will. As for plans perhaps you should ask your friends in the EU first to disclose theirs.
Me? I voted remain. But I got over it. To even try to go back now would really be to buy a pig in a poke. We would have no credibility at all and be royally fecked by an EU laughing all the way to the bank with our euros (because the pound would be long gone). And of couse we would be dragged into ever closer union.
The election will give her approximately 4 years to conclude things. She also knows that once the details come out, many Brexiters will start accusing her of betrayal but, equally, many soft-Brexiters or, indeed, many Remainers will come over to her side.
You will hear the word "Betrayal" a lot in the next 2 / 3 years.
Shame.
Being in EverCloserUnion within an organisation that doesn't like this country and is always willing to change the rules to suit its own purposes isn't a healthy place to be.
They ask for 10.
They want 8
And would be happy with 6
So it's worth 4
And you offer 2.
http://news.sky.com/story/tax-bosses-slated-over-deals-10482753
https://www.channel4.com/news/hmrc-accused-of-bending-the-rules-for-big-firms
You want more ?
You only need to look at this for ten seconds to see that it is literally impossible to do it as the EU27 insist (with zero legal justification) that it should be done.
Our position will be: If there's no trade deal, we pay nothing. Why should we pay anything for nothing in return? OK, they can (possibly) threaten to take us the International Court of Justice, but if they did that we'd be able to stall it for years, if not decades, and the likelihood is that they'd be awarded tuppence ha'penny. It's not even legally clear that the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction. And in the meantime they'd get zero. It's an empty threat.
The only sensible way to do this is to run the two negotiations together. As any fule no, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that applies here.
It is the type of Brexit that the election is about, not a reversal. As such May needs to let us know what her plans are, for example will she refuse to pay the Brexit bill?
1) Any new polls or are any expected soon ?
2) Any interesting betting discussion ?
NEW THREAD
Bettingwise I'd like to know if anyone here got 5/1 on the Tories to win Stoke on Trent Central, and what people think the value is now ?
4/7 Lab
2/1 Con
6/1 UKIP
Ludlow had a one-term LibDem MP but soon reverted to type. What I meant is that an MP can be fairly poor at his job and rather unpopular but if this only brings his vote down from 55-60% to 40-50%, such an MP could survive in a safe seat for a lifetime, assuming the opposition is divided say into Lib.Dems 25-35% and at most elections lesser amounts for Labour, UKIP and the RLP.
It's almost as though you want me to believe you're making it up.
Genuine questions. Do you think all that is worth it, just to avoid a payment of €50 billion? Do you think Mrs May will think it's worth it, given the buck stops with her?
The Conservatives will be concentrating on Stokes North and South.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/28/eu-leaders-to-insist-uk-pays-its-brexit-bills-as-precursor-to-trade-talks
The EU knows very well that is way Britain wants to play by playing one country against the other.
That is why they ruled it out right at the start.