Given you know all this, why the hell did you vote Leave? Should have listened to your father.
As I have written many times, I do not believe the United Kingdom is a good fit for the EU political project. Ultimately, the EU will either collapse, or end up as a state. (Or most likely, some subset of the EU will end up as a state.)
We have never been happy with the political project of the EU. Attempting to force the UK to become a part of a federal country called Europe was never going to end well.
If I made a mistake, it was an assumption that the Conservative government would act rationally and would recognise that exiting the EU was a multi-year journey, and not something best achieved by a stiff upper lip and a 20 month "negotiation".
My fear, currently, is that the government will come up with a deal that satisfies nobody in 18 months. That this fails to pass the Commons, and that we crash out to Hard Brexit, with no agreements with other countries in place. I suspect this will lead to a substantial drop in investment in the UK, and to the prime London property market being hammered. Given that we already live beyond our means, this will likely lead to a long and serious recession, that will result in Corbyn being elected (Syriza-like) with a large majority to destroy the country further.
Basically, I'm petrified by the stupidity of our politicians.
They will surely come up with a deal. It won't be Nirvana on a plate, but it will be something. It will pass the Commons, because most MPs are still sane, and know that No Deal would be even nastier.
So I don't think your worst case scenario is likely. It's possible, but not likely.
Incidentally and relatedly it occurred to me today that TMay's disastrous election actually and paradoxically strengthens the British hand. The EU is aware that a shit deal would be difficult for an enfeebled Tory party to sell, and could lead to Crash Brexit. They REALLY don't want that, they would get zero cash from us, and trade would collapse.
Nor do they particularly want Britain run by Trots and Stalinists.
And as for punishing Britain, they already feel we've been punished enough, I suspect, by our looking so crazy.
So we might get a reasonable compromise, BECAUSE our government is weak.
It won't be a great deal, they'll say it won't be a great deal, plenty of people here will say it's not a great deal, because by definition Leaving increases non-tarriff barriers.
But, it's a necessary step to break political union, and chart our own course.
Wasn't the EU's position originally that there would be absolutely no talks on a future relationship until the exit deal was signed?
The EU has always been very clear about the need for a sequence, without being clear on what constituted passing item one.
The UK position has been, and will always be, that anything agreed at stage one (exit terms) is contingent on a satisfactory trade deal. ("Nothing is agreed, until everything is agreed.")
So, the truth is that both sides have moved a little here. The EU has no guarantee of any exit goodies. The UK has had to agree broad terms of exit before talking of trade. It probably ensures that the exit terms discussion will probably happen more quickly than might otherwise be the case.
Having just watched Rees Mogg on skt news he believes leaving the EU is easy and not at all complicated so there's no need toworry or be concerned. I must have missed something along the way or he just has a superior intellect to my meagre brain.
Yes
ed international boundaries a dozen times, as copper was mined, refined, spun, put into a part, that was made into a component, that was sent to final assembly, before heading to a distribution centre, and finally arriving in the UK. Tariffs cannot simply be "made up" by devaluation, as devaluation makes importing components more expensive. If something went from Germany to the UK to France then it might be cheaper (given the possibility of tariffs upon tariffs) for it to stay inside the EU. (And even if the tariffs are eliminated, remember that firms like to run with essentially zero inventory. If there's one supplier where things sit waiting for a customs inspection for two days, that will negatively impact it.)
Now, I'm not saying this makes a deal between the EU and the UK unlikely. It's in everyone's interests (most importantly politicians who wish to be re-elected) to make a deal. But do not underestimate the potential damage to the UK economy from a disorderly exit.
Given you know all this, why the hell did you vote Leave? Should have listened to your father.
Because it is not all about trade and economics. Economically we would be far better off as the 51st state of the US or as a vassal of China. I don't see too many people pushing for those options.
The fatal flaw in the Remainers' argument has always been to assert that EU membership is about trade and nothing else. That just insults peoples' intelligence.
We wanted it to be about trade, and increasing Britain's influence within Europe to leverage off to amplify our global influence.
The Euro was the the rather heavy straw that broke that rather soft camel's back.
Talking of the yoof vote, I was with my girlfriend last night, and she told me a very interesting and personal political story.
Apparently, whas no idea what it is like now.
So three cheers for Sadiq Khan. It has made me warm to him.
Hasn't done much for my opinion of Islam, tho.
Is that the vibrancy which comes with living in a world city ?
No... it is just the misogynistic sh*t that many women have to put up on a regular basis.
Reading SeanT's anecdote did not shock me in the least. Unwelcome, insulting and aggressive attention towards women happens all too frequently and not always in streets in Tooting. Being told to "Show us yer tits" or "Get 'em out for the lads" is practically a Rite of Passage for women as is physical assault.
How would any of you lot feel if some stranger sexually molested you in the street while his mates cheered him on? I mean, actually physically molested you, running their hand over your body or genitals?
Sean's anecdote is all too believable. Ask your wives, daughters, sisters, etc.
But not restricted to one particular section of society. I was at a football match where the ref was female and sections of the crowd chanted "get your t*** out for the lads"
Stop being blind. Yes, men have behaved like halfwits towards women since Time Began.
But there is a definite *edge* to Muslim misogyny which puts it in a different league. It is simultaneously aggressive, entitled, racist and contemptuous. The white girl or kaffir woman is by definition a slut - walking the street alone, in a skirt, makes her a whore, and fair game. Hence Rochdale, Rotherham and a hundred other towns.
We need to accept these attitudes are out there. My GF was quite specific. She only got the really unpleasant, frightening abuse from Muslim men.
I always think it's the natural consequence of having lots of things that are Taboo. It'll surface in some way, and it won't be pretty.
9.20pm and my flat is still 29C inside, as against 27C outside.
Jeez.
My yearly advice is to cover your large windows with AL foil, shiny side out (if you can get that past the council tattle-tattles) and, less imposing, strip down to your nine pack.
As I have written many times, I do not believe the United Kingdom is a good fit for the EU political project. Ultimately, the EU will either collapse, or end up as a state. (Or most likely, some subset of the EU will end up as a state.)
We have never been happy with the political project of the EU. Attempting to force the UK to become a part of a federal country called Europe was never going to end well.
If I made a mistake, it was an assumption that the Conservative government would act rationally and would recognise that exiting the EU was a multi-year journey, and not something best achieved by a stiff upper lip and a 20 month "negotiation".
My fear, currently, is that the government will come up with a deal that satisfies nobody in 18 months. That this fails to pass the Commons, and that we crash out to Hard Brexit, with no agreements with other countries in place. I suspect this will lead to a substantial drop in investment in the UK, and to the prime London property market being hammered. Given that we already live beyond our means, this will likely lead to a long and serious recession, that will result in Corbyn being elected (Syriza-like) with a large majority to destroy the country further.
Basically, I'm petrified by the stupidity of our politicians.
They will surely come up with a deal. It won't be Nirvana on a plate, but it will be something. It will pass the Commons, because most MPs are still sane, and know that No Deal would be even nastier.
So I don't think your worst case scenario is likely. It's possible, but not likely.
Incidentally and relatedly it occurred to me today that TMay's disastrous election actually and paradoxically strengthens the British hand. The EU is aware that a shit deal would be difficult for an enfeebled Tory party to sell, and could lead to Crash Brexit. They REALLY don't want that, they would get zero cash from us, and trade would collapse.
Nor do they particularly want Britain run by Trots and Stalinists.
And as for punishing Britain, they already feel we've been punished enough, I suspect, by our looking so crazy.
So we might get a reasonable compromise, BECAUSE our government is weak.
It won't be a great deal, they'll say it won't be a great deal, plenty of people here will say it's not a great deal, because by definition Leaving increases non-tarriff barriers.
But, it's a necessary step to break political union, and chart our own course.
The question is: will we hold our nerve?
I'm less concerned with us holding our nerve (or not) than politicians refusing to take responsibility for ratifying the final deal, because they will be accused of betrayal or failure in some way.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Perhaps one of your alter egos might know how to respond to the question?
It is a serious one.
How would you square the democratic circle of not implmenting Brexit...?
I know you are obsessed with this but I haven't had an alter ego for years unless you count a slightly different login of Bobajob which is clearly me (not that it matters in any way, who cares if one anonymous poster comes back as another poster? nunu and nunuone have been talking each other, TissuePrice/AaronBell stood as an MP!)
Regarding Brexit, I'd have a referendum on the deal, in which the public were allowed to say: No deal, Remain. That strikes me as too sensible a solution for the zombie Maydup government.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Perhaps one of your alter egos might know how to respond to the question?
It is a serious one.
How would you square the democratic circle of not implmenting Brexit...?
I know you are obsessed with this but I haven't had an alter ego for years unless you count a slightly different login of Bobajob which is clearly me (not that it matters in any way, who cares if one anonymous poster comes back as another poster? nunu and nunuone have been talking each other, TissuePrice/AaronBell stood as an MP!)
Regarding Brexit, I'd have a referendum on the deal, in which the public were allowed to say: No deal, Remain. That strikes me as too sensible a solution for the zombie Maydup government.
In which case the EU offers "One trillion pounds per year, and no free trade" as the deal. Now what?
Wasn't the EU's position originally that there would be absolutely no talks on a future relationship until the exit deal was signed?
The EU has always been very clear about the need for a sequence, without being clear on what constituted passing item one.
The UK position has been, and will always be, that anything agreed at stage one (exit terms) is contingent on a satisfactory trade deal. ("Nothing is agreed, until everything is agreed.")
So, the truth is that both sides have moved a little here. The EU has no guarantee of any exit goodies. The UK has had to agree broad terms of exit before talking of trade. It probably ensures that the exit terms discussion will probably happen more quickly than might otherwise be the case.
Quite glad to read that - as it was exactly my impression, too.
It has confirmed one thing, mind. That Remainers are going to take the EU's slant on everything as gospel.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Perhaps one of your alter egos might know how to respond to the question?
It is a serious one.
How would you square the democratic circle of not implmenting Brexit...?
I know you are obsessed with this but I haven't had an alter ego for years unless you count a slightly different login of Bobajob which is clearly me (not that it matters in any way, who cares if one anonymous poster comes back as another poster? nunu and nunuone have been talking each other, TissuePrice/AaronBell stood as an MP!)
Regarding Brexit, I'd have a referendum on the deal, in which the public were allowed to say: No deal, Remain. That strikes me as too sensible a solution for the zombie Maydup government.
In which case the EU offers "One trillion pounds per year, and no free trade" as the deal. Now what?
As I have written many times, I do not believe the United Kingdom is a good fit for the EU political project. Ultimately, the EU will either collapse, or end up as a state. (Or most likely, some subset of the EU will end up as a state.)
We have never been happy with the political project of the EU. Attempting to force the UK to become a part of a federal country called Europe was never going to end well.
If I made a mistake, it was an assumption that the Conservative government would act rationally and would recognise that exiting the EU was a multi-year journey, and not something best achieved by a stiff upper lip and a 20 month "negotiation".
My fear, currently, is that the government will come up with a deal that satisfies nobody in 18 months. That this fails to pass the Commons, and that we crash out to Hard Brexit, with no agreements with other countries in place. I suspect this will lead to a substantial drop in investment in the UK, and to the prime London property market being hammered. Given that we already live beyond our means, this will likely lead to a long and serious recession, that will result in Corbyn being elected (Syriza-like) with a large majority to destroy the country further.
Basically, I'm petrified by the stupidity of our politicians.
I think a crash out is about 70% probable now. The EU is going to make unreasonable demands for the divorce bill and the UK will not be able to agree.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
If May was fantasy land to think Labour could form any sort of government on the June result.
It can only happen if sufficient tory MP's felt so stongly that their reasons for defecting or voting againstthe QS outwieghed thier party loyalty. I cant envisage any circumstaces short of a "Suez" type debaclewhich could bring it about, it makes a thread like this good for entertainment but off the scale in probability. Evan if Rees Mogg and co dont get they want they wont let corbyn in.
Quite. The maddest of Hard Tory Brexiteers wouldn't bring down this government and risk Corbyn as prime minister.
Paradoxically, Corbyn's good showing in the GE will have united the Tories: in outright dread of a Marxist Labour victory.
There's a very good chance this government will last to 2020 or beyond.
You may be right. But its fundamental illegitimacy will be the final undoing of the Conservatives at next GE.
There is no comparison with the 2010 deal, two parties forming a coalition from opposition with the smaller being a national party with 50+ seats and nearly a quarter of the GB vote, and the 2017 position with ten of the least moderate unionists from the back end of the kingdom with not even 1% of the UK vote propping up a newly defeated government.
The government is hardly illegitimate, unless one assumes it is illegitimate for Northern Ireland to be represented in the Commons.
Ultimately it will be the UK electorate that gets the final say on that.
One thing to note: Corbyn is 68. Will the British people really elect him as PM in 2021, say, when he will be 72? A doddery old Trotskyite?
At some point the weird shine will go off him. Tories just need to hold their nerve, and get a better leader.
All three main party leaders at the next GE will probably be new.
Nah, the third main party, UKIP, will have Farage back at the helm.
The SNP is the third party and that raises the interesting question, who replaces Sturgeon.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Perhaps one of your alter egos might know how to respond to the question?
It is a serious one.
How would you square the democratic circle of not implmenting Brexit...?
I know you are obsessed with this but I haven't had an alter ego for years unless you count a slightly different login of Bobajob which is clearly me (not that it matters in any way, who cares if one anonymous poster comes back as another poster? nunu and nunuone have been talking each other, TissuePrice/AaronBell stood as an MP!)
Regarding Brexit, I'd have a referendum on the deal, in which the public were allowed to say: No deal, Remain. That strikes me as too sensible a solution for the zombie Maydup government.
Good grief man, it's a joke. I know it is hot, but jokes are the consequence of foolishness like continually forgetting your password, or, in my case, goading the posh boy fan club
You realise that another referendum in such circumstances, given the hostage to fortune that it would provide the Eu, would just be boycotted, right?
According to the Sunday Times, Julian Brazier spent about a third of the election campaign in the Eltham constituency which the Tories were hoping to win from Labour. The Labour majority went up massively there, and he also lost his own seat in Canterbury by a tiny margin.
Then I don't think Jim Messina's alleged final prediction of c. 300 seats was taken very seriously, if it indeed existed.
That Standard article was a transparent attempt to dump all the blame on the two who got fired (resigned). There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone at CCHQ expected not to win.
Exactly, and early in the evening Michael Fallon was openly disbelieving the exit poll. If he was acting he was a very good actor, and even then what would be the point of brazening it out for a couple of hours if he knew the truth?
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
I don't think anyone should be talking them up
There is a difference between talking about them and talking them up.
As I have written many times, I do not believe the United Kingdom is a good fit for the EU political project. Ultimately, the EU will either collapse, or end up as a state. (Or most likely, some subset of the EU will end up as a state.)
We have never been happy with the political project of the EU. Attempting to force the UK to become a part of a federal country called Europe was never going to end well.
If I made a mistake, it was an assumption that the Conservative government would act rationally and would recognise that exiting the EU was a multi-year journey, and not something best achieved by a stiff upper lip and a 20 month "negotiation".
My fear, currently, is that the government will come up with a deal that satisfies nobody in 18 months. That this fails to pass the Commons, and that we crash out to Hard Brexit, with no agreements with other countries in place. I suspect this will lead to a substantial drop in investment in the UK, and to the prime London property market being hammered. Given that we already live beyond our means, this will likely lead to a long and serious recession, that will result in Corbyn being elected (Syriza-like) with a large majority to destroy the country further.
Basically, I'm petrified by the stupidity of our politicians.
I think a crash out is about 70% probable now. The EU is going to make unreasonable demands for the divorce bill and the UK will not be able to agree.
It could all be over by Autumn...
Given that we are a net contributor to EU coffers, why do we need to pay the EU to Brexit?
According to the Sunday Times, Julian Brazier spent about a third of the election campaign in the Eltham constituency which the Tories were hoping to win from Labour. The Labour majority went up massively there, and he also lost his own seat in Canterbury by a tiny margin.
Then I don't think Jim Messina's alleged final prediction of c. 300 seats was taken very seriously, if it indeed existed.
That Standard article was a transparent attempt to dump all the blame on the two who got fired (resigned). There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone at CCHQ expected not to win.
Exactly, and early in the evening Michael Fallon was openly disbelieving the exit poll. If he was acting he was a very good actor, and even then what would be the point of brazening it out for a couple of hours if he knew the truth?
It's known as "doing an Ashdown". Disappointingly, Fallon didn't offer to consume headgear, so maybe something was learnt from 2015.
As I have written many times, I do not believe the United Kingdom is a good fit for the EU political project. Ultimately, the EU will either collapse, or end up as a state. (Or most likely, some subset of the EU will end up as a state.)
We have never been happy with the political project of the EU. Attempting to force the UK to become a part of a federal country called Europe was never going to end well.
If I made a mistake, it was an assumption that the Conservative government would act rationally and would recognise that exiting the EU was a multi-year journey, and not something best achieved by a stiff upper lip and a 20 month "negotiation".
My fear, currently, is that the government will come up with a deal that satisfies nobody in 18 months. That this fails to pass the Commons, and that we crash out to Hard Brexit, with no agreements with other countries in place. I suspect this will lead to a substantial drop in investment in the UK, and to the prime London property market being hammered. Given that we already live beyond our means, this will likely lead to a long and serious recession, that will result in Corbyn being elected (Syriza-like) with a large majority to destroy the country further.
Basically, I'm petrified by the stupidity of our politicians.
I think a crash out is about 70% probable now. The EU is going to make unreasonable demands for the divorce bill and the UK will not be able to agree.
It could all be over by Autumn...
The divorce bill is an irrelevancy. If you read the FT piece at the weekend the €100bn is a gross number and is made up (roughly) of:
€15bn of contingent liabilities (which are highly unlikely to occur and can be largely ignored) €15bn of unfunded pension (that we'll just take responsibility for) €40bn of commitments re 2020/2021 that we agreed to in the last last budget round (that can be settled by us paying something during the transition period) €30bn of long-term commitments that the EU has little likelihood of getting netted off against €20bn of EU assets
Their best guess is that we agree €60bn gross, €40bn net, and that we pay €10bn/year during a four year transition. Problem solved.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Perhaps one of your alter egos might know how to respond to the question?
It is a serious one.
How would you square the democratic circle of not implmenting Brexit...?
I know you are obsessed with this but I haven't had an alter ego for years unless you count a slightly different login of Bobajob which is clearly me (not that it matters in any way, who cares if one anonymous poster comes back as another poster? nunu and nunuone have been talking each other, TissuePrice/AaronBell stood as an MP!)
Regarding Brexit, I'd have a referendum on the deal, in which the public were allowed to say: No deal, Remain. That strikes me as too sensible a solution for the zombie Maydup government.
Good grief man, it's a joke. I know it is hot, but jokes are the consequence of foolishness like continually forgetting your password, or, in my case, goading the posh boy fan club
You realise that another referendum in such circumstances, given the hostage to fortune that it would provide the Eu, would just be boycotted, right?
On the first point: fair enough. There was one other poster for whom it became a weird obsession, hence my touchiness. Apologies.
On the second point: Perhaps, then I guess Remain would win...
As I have written many times, I do not believe the United Kingdom is a good fit for the EU political project. Ultimately, the EU will either collapse, or end up as a state. (Or most likely, some subset of the EU will end up as a state.)
We have neveed (Syriza-like) with a large majority to destroy the country further.
Basically, I'm petrified by the stupidity of our politicians.
They will surely come up with a deal. It won't be Nirvana on a plate, but it will be something. It will pass the Commons, because most MPs are still sane, and know that No Deal would be even nastier.
So I don't think your worst case scenario is likely. It's possible, but not likely.
Incidentally and relatedly it occurred to me today that TMay's disastrous election actually and paradoxically strengthens the British hand. The EU is aware that a shit deal would be difficult for an enfeebled Tory party to sell, and could lead to Crash Brexit. They REALLY don't want that, they would get zero cash from us, and trade would collapse.
Nor do they particularly want Britain run by Trots and Stalinists.
And as for punishing Britain, they already feel we've been punished enough, I suspect, by our looking so crazy.
So we might get a reasonable compromise, BECAUSE our government is weak.
It won't be a great deal, they'll say it won't be a great deal, plenty of people here will say it's not a great deal, because by definition Leaving increases non-tarriff barriers.
But, it's a necessary step to break political union, and chart our own course.
The question is: will we hold our nerve?
I'm less concerned with us holding our nerve (or not) than politicians refusing to take responsibility for ratifying the final deal, because they will be accused of betrayal or failure in some way.
I think the surging crisis over Islam and migration is likely to make Brexit seem a bit of a sideshow. There were FOUR individual terror "attacks" in western Europe today, by my counting (three in the UK).
In a couple of years we could be facing something like the Ulster Troubles, from Berlin to Brixton.
I read about today's Paris attack and the AK-47 recovered. I haven't seen coverage of the other two. Are we *really* that used to terrorism that it doesn't make the news any more?
I've just looked on the bbc (for the first time in months) and it's all wall to wall Finsbury because it suits their agenda. Plus an anti GOP story too. Will look elsewhere for real news.
The Dilbert person - Scott somebody - simply installed an extractor fan in his loft space. Minimal cost and effective in California temperatures apparently.
The Dilbert person - Scott somebody - simply installed an extractor fan in his loft space. Minimal cost and effective in California temperatures apparently.
I fitted one of those for my boss in Philly. Thermostat controlled, only runs when it gets stupid hot.
As I have written many times, I do not believe the United Kingdom is a good fit for the EU political project. Ultimately, the EU will either collapse, or end up as a state. (Or most likely, some subset of the EU will end up as a state.)
We have never been happy with the political project of the EU. Attempting to force the UK to become a part of a federal country called Europe was never going to end well.
If I made a mistake, it was an assumption that the Conservative government would act rationally and would recognise that exiting the EU was a multi-year journey, and not something best achieved by a stiff upper lip and a 20 month "negotiation".
My fear, currently, is that the government will come up with a deal that satisfies nobody in 18 months. That this fails to pass the Commons, and that we crash out to Hard Brexit, with no agreements with other countries in place. I suspect this will lead to a substantial drop in investment in the UK, and to the prime London property market being hammered. Given that we already live beyond our means, this will likely lead to a long and serious recession, that will result in Corbyn being elected (Syriza-like) with a large majority to destroy the country further.
Basically, I'm petrified by the stupidity of our politicians.
I think a crash out is about 70% probable now. The EU is going to make unreasonable demands for the divorce bill and the UK will not be able to agree.
It could all be over by Autumn...
The divorce bill is an irrelevancy. If you read the FT piece at the weekend the €100bn is a gross number and is made up (roughly) of:
€15bn of contingent liabilities (which are highly unlikely to occur and can be largely ignored) €15bn of unfunded pension (that we'll just take responsibility for) €40bn of commitments re 2020/2021 that we agreed to in the last last budget round (that can be settled by us paying something during the transition period) €30bn of long-term commitments that the EU has little likelihood of getting netted off against €20bn of EU assets
Their best guess is that we agree €60bn gross, €40bn net, and that we pay €10bn/year during a four year transition. Problem solved.
The Dilbert person - Scott somebody - simply installed an extractor fan in his loft space. Minimal cost and effective in California temperatures apparently.
Scott Adams. Really interesting bloke, politically.
As I have written many times, I do not believe the United Kingdom is a good fit for the EU political project. Ultimately, the EU will either collapse, or end up as a state. (Or most likely, some subset of the EU will end up as a state.)
We have never been happy with the political project of the EU. Attempting to force the UK to become a part of a federal country called Europe was never going to end well.
If I made a mistake, it was an assumption that the Conservative government would act rationally and would recognise that exiting the EU was a multi-year journey, and not something best achieved by a stiff upper lip and a 20 month "negotiation".
My fear, currently, is that the government will come up with a deal that satisfies nobody in 18 months. That this fails to pass the Commons, and that we crash out to Hard Brexit, with no agreements with other countries in place. I suspect this will lead to a substantial drop in investment in the UK, and to the prime London property market being hammered. Given that we already live beyond our means, this will likely lead to a long and serious recession, that will result in Corbyn being elected (Syriza-like) with a large majority to destroy the country further.
Basically, I'm petrified by the stupidity of our politicians.
I think a crash out is about 70% probable now. The EU is going to make unreasonable demands for the divorce bill and the UK will not be able to agree.
It could all be over by Autumn...
Given that we are a net contributor to EU coffers, why do we need to pay the EU to Brexit?
Because we are a net contributor to EU coffers.
And the EU budget was finalised taking into account our commited contributions.
And we are not the type of nation that reneges on our commitments, unlike those nasty foreign folk.
As I have written many times, I do not believe the United Kingdom is a good fit for the EU political project. Ultimately, the EU will either collapse, or end up as a state. (Or most likely, some subset of the EU will end up as a state.)
We have never been happy with the political project of the EU. Attempting to force the UK to become a part of a federal country called Europe was never going to end well.
If I made a mistake, it was an assumption that the Conservative government would act rationally and would recognise that exiting the EU was a multi-year journey, and not something best achieved by a stiff upper lip and a 20 month "negotiation".
My fear, currently, is that the government will come up with a deal that satisfies nobody in 18 months. That this fails to pass the Commons, and that we crash out to Hard Brexit, with no agreements with other countries in place. I suspect this will lead to a substantial drop in investment in the UK, and to the prime London property market being hammered. Given that we already live beyond our means, this will likely lead to a long and serious recession, that will result in Corbyn being elected (Syriza-like) with a large majority to destroy the country further.
Basically, I'm petrified by the stupidity of our politicians.
I think a crash out is about 70% probable now. The EU is going to make unreasonable demands for the divorce bill and the UK will not be able to agree.
It could all be over by Autumn...
Given that we are a net contributor to EU coffers, why do we need to pay the EU to Brexit?
I think there are two precedents to bear in mind. If there is an international partnership, such as a law firm, accountant, or the like, and an individual country entity goes it alone, then it does not get to walk entirely away from the liabilities and obligations of the organisation of which it was a member. There are similar rules related to demergers or spin-outs from ordinary firms. If one bit "goes it alone" it still has residual obligations to its former parent, particularly in regards to pensions.
The second precedent is that the UK has - by signing the five year budget from 2015 to 2020 - implicitly agreed to those spending plans. The EU case, which has some merit, is that our signature on those budgets puts us on the hook whether we are members or not. The counter-argument (which is acknowledged in the EU Brexit briefing pack) is that such payments contain the expectation of benefits. I.e., if we were to continue to pay into the budget for that period, we would expect benefits from that.
As I have written many times, I do not believe the United Kingdom is a good fit for the EU political project. Ultimately, the EU will either collapse, or end up as a state. (Or most likely, some subset of the EU will end up as a state.)
We have never been happy with the political project of the EU. Attempting to force the UK to become a part of a federal country called Europe was never going to end well.
If I made a mistake, it was an assumption that the Conservative government would act rationally and would recognise that exiting the EU was a multi-year journey, and not something best achieved by a stiff upper lip and a 20 month "negotiation".
My fear, currently, is that the government will come up with a deal that satisfies nobody in 18 months. That this fails to pass the Commons, and that we crash out to Hard Brexit, with no agreements with other countries in place. I suspect this will lead to a substantial drop in investment in the UK, and to the prime London property market being hammered. Given that we already live beyond our means, this will likely lead to a long and serious recession, that will result in Corbyn being elected (Syriza-like) with a large majority to destroy the country further.
Basically, I'm petrified by the stupidity of our politicians.
I think a crash out is about 70% probable now. The EU is going to make unreasonable demands for the divorce bill and the UK will not be able to agree.
It could all be over by Autumn...
The divorce bill is an irrelevancy. If you read the FT piece at the weekend the €100bn is a gross number and is made up (roughly) of:
€15bn of contingent liabilities (which are highly unlikely to occur and can be largely ignored) €15bn of unfunded pension (that we'll just take responsibility for) €40bn of commitments re 2020/2021 that we agreed to in the last last budget round (that can be settled by us paying something during the transition period) €30bn of long-term commitments that the EU has little likelihood of getting netted off against €20bn of EU assets
Their best guess is that we agree €60bn gross, €40bn net, and that we pay €10bn/year during a four year transition. Problem solved.
We paid €60bn. And we paid nothing.
Agree with RobD, there's nothing in that list to go to a wall over.
Rather like some of the more dodgy bars in London, it's sometimes safer to pay the unexpected £1000 for the bottle of Tesco's cava just so you get back out to the alleyway with your teeth and ribs intact.
9.20pm and my flat is still 29C inside, as against 27C outside.
Jeez.
My yearly advice is to cover your large windows with AL foil, shiny side out (if you can get that past the council tattle-tattles) and, less imposing, strip down to your nine pack.
Unfortunately I have a 1-pack. A very large 1-pack
9.20pm and my flat is still 29C inside, as against 27C outside.
Jeez.
My yearly advice is to cover your large windows with AL foil, shiny side out (if you can get that past the council tattle-tattles) and, less imposing, strip down to your nine pack.
Unfortunately I have a 1-pack. A very large 1-pack
Once people realise the consequences of Brexit, they will change their minds. I think a second referendum is inevitable. The UK already trades with the world and being part of the EU has not been a hinderance. If you start signing many trade deals with different countries, they usually come with terms that not everyone will be happy with. China and India have already stated they will want increased UK visas for their citizens.
No
If it looks like we are going to crash out without a deal then the demand will for a second ref will become unstoppable. Either that or parliament asserts its authority and takes control.
Stunning start today by the way. After weeks of saying we wouldn't' do something we capitulate on day one. They are going to run rings round our Brexiteers.
I notice there has been much talk of "confidence motions" on this thread. Let's not forget that there is no longer any such thing except for a motion in the exact form of words defined in S.2(4) of the FTPA. The Queen's Speech vote is no longer a confidence motion, a supply vote is no longer a confidence motion. Only a motion "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government." is now a confidence motion.
This does lead me to ask what will happen if the government incidentally loses a supply vote (which is how Callaghan's government fell in 1979). It might feel bound to resign, but it will still require a FTPA vote (either of confidence or less likely a 2/3 vote for a dissolution) to trigger a dissolution and the outgoing government could quite conceivably win it. What happens then? Does the Queen have to commission the LOTO to try to form a government, wait for him to fail and summon back the Tory leader to have another go?
What if the government decides it isn't bound to resign any more through losing a supply vote, but only if it loses a FTPA vote? Would the Queen feel herself bound to dismiss the government and summon the LOTO who would fail to secure a majority himself? We could end up with no legitimate government and no way to force a new election.
It's inconceivable under FTPA that HMQ would invite LOTO to form a government unless there was an agreement (probably in writing and brokered by the Cabinet Secretary) that assured him of passing a confidence motion.
In the current Parliament, if the government lost a confidence vote and the DUP and Tories said they would vote against confidence in any alternative government, they'd be forced to wait out the 14 day clock before the election would be triggered.
Once people realise the consequences of Brexit, they will change their minds. I think a second referendum is inevitable. The UK already trades with the world and being part of the EU has not been a hinderance. If you start signing many trade deals with different countries, they usually come with terms that not everyone will be happy with. China and India have already stated they will want increased UK visas for their citizens.
No
If it looks like we are going to crash out without a deal then the demand will for a second ref will become unstoppable. Either that or parliament asserts its authority and takes control.
Stunning start today by the way. After weeks of saying we wouldn't' do something we capitulate on day one. They are going to run rings round our Brexiteers.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
Whatever, The riots confidently predicted here (with, in some cases, an element of excited anticipation) at the weekend have failed to materialise, as has Mrs May's resignation.
As I said then, generally assuming that unusual stuff won't happen tends to be a good guide to betting. People try to muddle through for a very long time before they try anything else.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
Whatever, The riots confidently predicted here (with, in some cases, an element of excited anticipation) at the weekend have failed to materialise, as has Mrs May's resignation.
As I said then, generally assuming that unusual stuff won't happen tends to be a good guide to betting. People try to muddle through for a very long time before they try anything else.
I thought I read today about a guy at Kensington Town Hall being beaten up by a mob because he had a suit on and they thought he was a Conservative Councillor? In reality he'd been a volunteer at the site.
[opens up another tab to look for Lefty rioting link]
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
Whatever, The riots confidently predicted here (with, in some cases, an element of excited anticipation) at the weekend have failed to materialise, as has Mrs May's resignation.
As I said then, generally assuming that unusual stuff won't happen tends to be a good guide to betting. People try to muddle through for a very long time before they try anything else.
Intellectually I agree with you, but as my one odds-on bet for this GE was on May as PM after the election, and that remains unsettled with prices drifting out past their 7 June level, I'm feeling a bit too sore to wholly agree.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
The vote would only be reversed by another referendum.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
Whatever, The riots confidently predicted here (with, in some cases, an element of excited anticipation) at the weekend have failed to materialise, as has Mrs May's resignation.
As I said then, generally assuming that unusual stuff won't happen tends to be a good guide to betting. People try to muddle through for a very long time before they try anything else.
Intellectually I agree with you, but as my one odds-on bet for this GE was on May as PM after the election, and that remains unsettled with prices drifting out past their 7 June level, I'm feeling a bit too sore to wholly agree.
Who gave you the idea to drive a rented truck at the people you see as the enemy in your demented little 'war' between the West and Islam?
(a) all those other people who drove rented trucks at the people they saw as the enemy in their demented little 'war' between the West and Islam (b) Katie off of Twitter and the Apprentice 2006.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
Intersting what a Muslim said today on the new about looking over his shoulder every time he went to the Mosque. I reckon statistically he has more chance of being killed by another Muslim than he has of any other demographic.
I notice there has been much talk of "confidence motions" on this thread. Let's not forget that there is no longer any such thing except for a motion in the exact form of words defined in S.2(4) of the FTPA. The Queen's Speech vote is no longer a confidence motion, a supply vote is no longer a confidence motion. Only a motion "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government." is now a confidence motion.
This does lead me to ask what will happen if the government incidentally loses a supply vote (which is how Callaghan's government fell in 1979). It might feel bound to resign, but it will still require a FTPA vote (either of confidence or less likely a 2/3 vote for a dissolution) to trigger a dissolution and the outgoing government could quite conceivably win it. What happens then? Does the Queen have to commission the LOTO to try to form a government, wait for him to fail and summon back the Tory leader to have another go?
What if the government decides it isn't bound to resign any more through losing a supply vote, but only if it loses a FTPA vote? Would the Queen feel herself bound to dismiss the government and summon the LOTO who would fail to secure a majority himself? We could end up with no legitimate government and no way to force a new election.
It's inconceivable under FTPA that HMQ would invite LOTO to form a government unless there was an agreement (probably in writing and brokered by the Cabinet Secretary) that assured him of passing a confidence motion.
In the current Parliament, if the government lost a confidence vote and the DUP and Tories said they would vote against confidence in any alternative government, they'd be forced to wait out the 14 day clock before the election would be triggered.
That's probably correct. It would be appropriate for the Queen to ask the leader of the next-largest party in a hung parliament if he/she could form a government, but if a majority of MPs (in this case Con/DUP) had already declared an intention to vote no confidence, it would be a short conversation.
Of course, it would only require a few conservative rebels to decide that they didn't want to be held accountable for another unwanted GE and the maths changes. How confident would you be that a Tory party unable to pass its legislation would remain disciplined enough to vote no confidence if ordered by the (lame duck) leader?
As I have written many times, I do not believe the United Kingdom is a good fit for the EU political project. Ultimately, the EU will either collapse, or end up as a state. (Or most likely, some subset of the EU will end up as a state.)
We have never been happy with the political project of the EU. Attempting to force the UK to become a part of a federal country called Europe was never going to end well.
If I made a mistake, it was an assumption that the Conservative government would act rationally and would recognise that exiting the EU was a multi-year journey, and not something best achieved by a stiff upper lip and a 20 month "negotiation".
My fear, currently, is that the government will come up with a deal that satisfies nobody in 18 months. That this fails to pass the Commons, and that we crash out to Hard Brexit, with no agreements with other countries in place. I suspect this will lead to a substantial drop in investment in the UK, and to the prime London property market being hammered. Given that we already live beyond our means, this will likely lead to a long and serious recession, that will result in Corbyn being elected (Syriza-like) with a large majority to destroy the country further.
Basically, I'm petrified by the stupidity of our politicians.
I think a crash out is about 70% probable now. The EU is going to make unreasonable demands for the divorce bill and the UK will not be able to agree.
It could all be over by Autumn...
The divorce bill is an irrelevancy. If you read the FT piece at the weekend the €100bn is a gross number and is made up (roughly) of:
€15bn of contingent liabilities (which are highly unlikely to occur and can be largely ignored) €15bn of unfunded pension (that we'll just take responsibility for) €40bn of commitments re 2020/2021 that we agreed to in the last last budget round (that can be settled by us paying something during the transition period) €30bn of long-term commitments that the EU has little likelihood of getting netted off against €20bn of EU assets
Their best guess is that we agree €60bn gross, €40bn net, and that we pay €10bn/year during a four year transition. Problem solved.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
Whatever, The riots confidently predicted here (with, in some cases, an element of excited anticipation) at the weekend have failed to materialise, as has Mrs May's resignation.
As I said then, generally assuming that unusual stuff won't happen tends to be a good guide to betting. People try to muddle through for a very long time before they try anything else.
Intellectually I agree with you, but as my one odds-on bet for this GE was on May as PM after the election, and that remains unsettled with prices drifting out past their 7 June level, I'm feeling a bit too sore to wholly agree.
What are they waiting for? Passing the QS?
Yeah, that's what's defined as "forming a government" I think. I don't think Gove is trchnical a member of the government until the QS passes, for example.
I notice there has been much talk of "confidence motions" on this thread. Let's not forget that there is no longer any such thing except for a motion in the exact form of words defined in S.2(4) of the FTPA. The Queen's Speech vote is no longer a confidence motion, a supply vote is no longer a confidence motion. Only a motion "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government." is now a confidence motion.
This does lead me to ask what will happen if the government incidentally loses a supply vote (which is how Callaghan's government fell in 1979). It might feel bound to resign, but it will still require a FTPA vote (either of confidence or less likely a 2/3 vote for a dissolution) to trigger a dissolution and the outgoing government could quite conceivably win it. What happens then? Does the Queen have to commission the LOTO to try to form a government, wait for him to fail and summon back the Tory leader to have another go?
What if the government decides it isn't bound to resign any more through losing a supply vote, but only if it loses a FTPA vote? Would the Queen feel herself bound to dismiss the government and summon the LOTO who would fail to secure a majority himself? We could end up with no legitimate government and no way to force a new election.
It's inconceivable under FTPA that HMQ would invite LOTO to form a government unless there was an agreement (probably in writing and brokered by the Cabinet Secretary) that assured him of passing a confidence motion.
In the current Parliament, if the government lost a confidence vote and the DUP and Tories said they would vote against confidence in any alternative government, they'd be forced to wait out the 14 day clock before the election would be triggered.
Right, but what happens if the government loses a vote that was previously considered a confidence vote (QS or supply)? Only a vote for the motion "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government." starts the 14-day clock. Note that not even losing a vote for the motion "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government." triggers the 14-day clock!
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
Whatever, The riots confidently predicted here (with, in some cases, an element of excited anticipation) at the weekend have failed to materialise, as has Mrs May's resignation.
As I said then, generally assuming that unusual stuff won't happen tends to be a good guide to betting. People try to muddle through for a very long time before they try anything else.
The media and political betting bubble didn't take into account that the other 65 million people were just getting on with their lives as normal and - brutally frank but fair - could not give much of a fuck about, May's reaction to this or that incident, Brexit, or any other politics this beautifully sunny weekend just gone.
Utter bollocks. Tommy Robinson is defending the white working classes of Britain (as he sees it). He's an articulate, but mixed up man, who can see what is happening to his tribe. Sometimes he oversteps, and gets over-wrought, and goes too far - other times he says the absolute truth, which no one else has the bollocks to do.
Choudary and Hamza and the rest are part of a worldwide Islamofascist movement, involving - literally - millions of fighters and supporters, who seek to confront the West, who want to slaughter us infidels, who want sharia law and the whole damn Koranic caboodle. They even have their own state. The Islamic State. Which burns people alive, takes sex slaves, and beheads children.
Does Tommy Robinson have a "state"?
Get a grip.
I agree, Sean, but I could not articulate it the way you have. It's the same with that demented phrase 'Islamophobia', a construct designed by the Left to quash legitimate criticsim of an ideology firmly rooted in the 7th century.
I mean come on, who knows anyone who has an irrational fear of Islam?
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
Who gave you the idea to drive a rented truck at the people you see as the enemy in your demented little 'war' between the West and Islam?
(a) all those other people who drove rented trucks at the people they saw as the enemy in their demented little 'war' between the West and Islam (b) Katie off of Twitter and the Apprentice 2006.
Intersting what a Muslim said today on the new about looking over his shoulder every time he went to the Mosque. I reckon statistically he has more chance of being killed by another Muslim than he has of any other demographic.
If an arsonist sets fire to a mosque and accidentally detonates the explosives stored inside, who is actually responsible for the deaths from the blast?
Utter bollocks. Tommy Robinson is defending the white working classes of Britain (as he sees it). He's an articulate, but mixed up man, who can see what is happening to his tribe. Sometimes he oversteps, and gets over-wrought, and goes too far - other times he says the absolute truth, which no one else has the bollocks to do.
Choudary and Hamza and the rest are part of a worldwide Islamofascist movement, involving - literally - millions of fighters and supporters, who seek to confront the West, who want to slaughter us infidels, who want sharia law and the whole damn Koranic caboodle. They even have their own state. The Islamic State. Which burns people alive, takes sex slaves, and beheads children.
Does Tommy Robinson have a "state"?
Get a grip.
I agree, Sean, but I could not articulate it the way you have. It's the same with that demented phrase 'Islamophobia', a construct designed by the Left to quash legitimate criticsim of an ideology firmly rooted in the 7th century.
I mean come on, who knows anyone who has an irrational fear of Islam?
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
Whatever, The riots confidently predicted here (with, in some cases, an element of excited anticipation) at the weekend have failed to materialise, as has Mrs May's resignation.
As I said then, generally assuming that unusual stuff won't happen tends to be a good guide to betting. People try to muddle through for a very long time before they try anything else.
Intellectually I agree with you, but as my one odds-on bet for this GE was on May as PM after the election, and that remains unsettled with prices drifting out past their 7 June level, I'm feeling a bit too sore to wholly agree.
May went as long as 1.20 yesterday, but she is now back in to 1.10.
PM after GE is defined as:
"the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when the first government is formed after the next UK general election"
So comes down to definition of government being "formed".
Presumably that means Queens Speech being passed by vote in Commons.
Once people realise the consequences of Brexit, they will change their minds. I think a second referendum is inevitable.
And do you think that the British people will vote in that to join the euro and Schengen?
It's funny how different countries have different priorities. Switzerland, which has avoided EEA, voted in a referendum to join Schengen. And it wasn't like they had to. They just decided they'd rather be in it.
Its a strangr bet the rules seem vague . I guess theyre waiting for queens speech nbut i cant see where it says thst. What i think is weird is people still willing to lay theresa may as pm
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
Whatever, The riots confidently predicted here (with, in some cases, an element of excited anticipation) at the weekend have failed to materialise, as has Mrs May's resignation.
As I said then, generally assuming that unusual stuff won't happen tends to be a good guide to betting. People try to muddle through for a very long time before they try anything else.
Intellectually I agree with you, but as my one odds-on bet for this GE was on May as PM after the election, and that remains unsettled with prices drifting out past their 7 June level, I'm feeling a bit too sore to wholly agree.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
Well of course it's an irregular political verb. I use my right to free speech and assembly, you demonstrate, she mobs.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
latest revelations on fire safety are not looking at all good for the conservatives.
Things haven't been looking good for the Tories since the election. I doubt this will have any more impact than all the other shit that has hit the fan.
After a bruise has gone black, you can keep hitting it - it won't get any worse.
Once people realise the consequences of Brexit, they will change their minds. I think a second referendum is inevitable.
And do you think that the British people will vote in that to join the euro and Schengen?
It's funny how different countries have different priorities. Switzerland, which has avoided EEA, voted in a referendum to join Schengen. And it wasn't like they had to. They just decided they'd rather be in it.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Countryside March. Over 1/3 of the estimated rural population turned up. They had people appointed to stay behind and pick up litter
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
Whatever, The riots confidently predicted here (with, in some cases, an element of excited anticipation) at the weekend have failed to materialise, as has Mrs May's resignation.
As I said then, generally assuming that unusual stuff won't happen tends to be a good guide to betting. People try to muddle through for a very long time before they try anything else.
Intellectually I agree with you, but as my one odds-on bet for this GE was on May as PM after the election, and that remains unsettled with prices drifting out past their 7 June level, I'm feeling a bit too sore to wholly agree.
May went as long as 1.20 yesterday, but she is now back in to 1.10.
PM after GE is defined as:
"the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when the first government is formed after the next UK general election"
So comes down to definition of government being "formed".
Presumably that means Queens Speech being passed by vote in Commons.
Yes, traditionally. I was going to ask Betfair to confirm that was their interpretation but in the end I got bored and traded it out instead.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
Good point. Riots should stay purely Lefty territory, eh?
Whatever, The riots confidently predicted here (with, in some cases, an element of excited anticipation) at the weekend have failed to materialise, as has Mrs May's resignation.
As I said then, generally assuming that unusual stuff won't happen tends to be a good guide to betting. People try to muddle through for a very long time before they try anything else.
The media and political betting bubble didn't take into account that the other 65 million people were just getting on with their lives as normal and - brutally frank but fair - could not give much of a fuck about, May's reaction to this or that incident, Brexit, or any other politics this beautifully sunny weekend just gone.
I was surprised that Survation only had Lab 3% ahead after the media barrage May has faced over the last few days.
Maybe this suggests that wherever people are on the political spectrum they vote on tangible matters - whether the economy, jobs, taxes, public spending, tuition fees, crime, Brexit etc etc.
But they don't vote on whether or not the PM bursts into tears etc.
If the above is correct then I think that's good news all round.
Blair was famous for his acting, almost bursting into tears after Diana died etc. And after that everyone said they didn't want a PM who did that sort of thing. But now May is criticised for not doing all that kind of stuff.
Seems ironic - I guess the media just want a story. But the Survation poll suggests the public doesn't actually have a great desire for this kind of stuff.
I notice there has been much talk of "confidence motions" on this thread. Let's not forget that there is no longer any such thing except for a motion in the exact form of words defined in S.2(4) of the FTPA. The Queen's Speech vote is no longer a confidence motion, a supply vote is no longer a confidence motion. Only a motion "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government." is now a confidence motion.
This does lead me to ask what will happen if the government incidentally loses a supply vote (which is how Callaghan's government fell in 1979). It might feel bound to resign, but it will still require a FTPA vote (either of confidence or less likely a 2/3 vote for a dissolution) to trigger a dissolution and the outgoing government could quite conceivably win it. What happens then? Does the Queen have to commission the LOTO to try to form a government, wait for him to fail and summon back the Tory leader to have another go?
What if the government decides it isn't bound to resign any more through losing a supply vote, but only if it loses a FTPA vote? Would the Queen feel herself bound to dismiss the government and summon the LOTO who would fail to secure a majority himself? We could end up with no legitimate government and no way to force a new election.
It's inconceivable under FTPA that HMQ would invite LOTO to form a government unless there was an agreement (probably in writing and brokered by the Cabinet Secretary) that assured him of passing a confidence motion.
In the current Parliament, if the government lost a confidence vote and the DUP and Tories said they would vote against confidence in any alternative government, they'd be forced to wait out the 14 day clock before the election would be triggered.
Right, but what happens if the government loses a vote that was previously considered a confidence vote (QS or supply)?
Legally, nothing. Politically, a no confidence motion would have to follow PDQ.
Intersting what a Muslim said today on the new about looking over his shoulder every time he went to the Mosque. I reckon statistically he has more chance of being killed by another Muslim than he has of any other demographic.
It would be such a disaster if they left. I mean, if Britain's Muslim community decided, en masse, to up sticks and go back to wherever-istan, we would lose, inter alia, and this is just off the top of my head:
1. The constant threat of being blown up 2. Or run over with a truck 3. Or knifed to death in a frenzied attack 4. Mass racialised gang rape 5. Sharia law in our cities 6. The burqa 7. The niqab 8. Most Female Genital Mutilation 9. Cousin marriages 10. Honour Killings 11. Forced marriages 12. The need for armed police with submachine guns everywhere 13. More racialised gang rape, plus general street level misogyny aimed at "white whores" 14. The reintroduction of Blasphemy Law, meaning the End of the Enlightenment 15. Some interesting Bangladeshi versions of Indian cuisine
Like I said. Catastrophe. How would we cope?
Do you still believe we should think about sending all British Muslims to concentration camps if they don't leave to some country they probably don't have citizenship of?
latest revelations on fire safety are not looking at all good for the conservatives.
Extremely partial reporting there by the BBC.
If you listened to WaO today on Radio 4 you would have heard Martha Carney interviewing Nick Ross of Crimewatch fame.
The reason he was on is because since 2004 he has been involved with a campaign run by Fire Chiefs to get sprinklers fitted in all social housing.
He points out that successive ministers with responsibility for this have, since 2004, chosen not to follow the recommendations. This includes Sadiq Khan back in 2009. He also points out however that this is because the explicit advice they were getting from their own civil servants was that this would not be an effective way to deal with the problem.
His was a far more balanced response than the BBC hatchet job which tries to make it seem like this has only been an issue since Labour lost power.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Countryside March. Over 1/3 of the estimated rural population turned up. They had people appointed to stay behind and pick up litter
I went on that march. Not out of a great passion for fox-hunting (I am ambivalent) but sheer curiosity.
What struck me was how good looking and healthy they were. Lots of really hot blond young women, lots of handsome young men. Dudes in waistcoats blowing hunting horns.
They put the obese urban Brits to shame. And I speak as an urban Brit.
Middle class country and suburban types are very well groomed. Much more so than inner city types, at least in my experience. Most of the people who work and socialise in inner London don't live there.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Countryside March. Over 1/3 of the estimated rural population turned up. They had people appointed to stay behind and pick up litter
I went on that march. Not out of a great passion for fox-hunting (I am ambivalent) but sheer curiosity.
What struck me was how good looking and healthy they were. Lots of really hot blond young women, lots of handsome young men. Dudes in waistcoats blowing hunting horns.
They put the obese urban Brits to shame. And I speak as an urban Brit.
Once people realise the consequences of Brexit, they will change their minds. I think a second referendum is inevitable.
And do you think that the British people will vote in that to join the euro and Schengen?
It's funny how different countries have different priorities. Switzerland, which has avoided EEA, voted in a referendum to join Schengen. And it wasn't like they had to. They just decided they'd rather be in it.
Given that they're surrounded by other members, it's not too surprising.
I notice there has been much talk of "confidence motions" on this thread. Let's not forget that there is no longer any such thing except for a motion in the exact form of words defined in S.2(4) of the FTPA. The Queen's Speech vote is no longer a confidence motion, a supply vote is no longer a confidence motion. Only a motion "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government." is now a confidence motion.
This does lead me to ask what will happen if the government incidentally loses a supply vote (which is how Callaghan's government fell in 1979). It might feel bound to resign, but it will still require a FTPA vote (either of confidence or less likely a 2/3 vote for a dissolution) to trigger a dissolution and the outgoing government could quite conceivably win it. What happens then? Does the Queen have to commission the LOTO to try to form a government, wait for him to fail and summon back the Tory leader to have another go?
What if the government decides it isn't bound to resign any more through losing a supply vote, but only if it loses a FTPA vote? Would the Queen feel herself bound to dismiss the government and summon the LOTO who would fail to secure a majority himself? We could end up with no legitimate government and no way to force a new election.
It's inconceivable under FTPA that HMQ would invite LOTO to form a government unless there was an agreement (probably in writing and brokered by the Cabinet Secretary) that assured him of passing a confidence motion.
In the current Parliament, if the government lost a confidence vote and the DUP and Tories said they would vote against confidence in any alternative government, they'd be forced to wait out the 14 day clock before the election would be triggered.
Right, but what happens if the government loses a vote that was previously considered a confidence vote (QS or supply)?
Legally, nothing. Politically, a no confidence motion would have to follow PDQ.
I've not read the FTPA for a while but seem to remember it's a bit flaky. Does anyone remember what happens if a money bill is voted down - is a separate NC motion required? The theoretical possibility of a government unable to pass finance bills being left in office (for example if rebels object to fiscal policy but aren't prepared to trigger an election) would be a concerning constitutional change.
Thanks to Robert for his repeated message about why he voted Leave.
Could those who think Brexit dead please explain how they'd explain to the population who voted to Leave that we're not in fact going to leave. And how they expect to avoid the civil strife that would likely erupt following the erosion of democracy?
Right winger talking up riots? Who'd a thunk it?
But it would be the right sort of riot, gentille and orderly, mobility scooters forming the first onslaught, zimmer frames at the rear in reserve.
You joke, but the only time the centre right has ever marched in modern British history they were hardly the rent a mob we often see...
When the hell was that?
Countryside March. Over 1/3 of the estimated rural population turned up. They had people appointed to stay behind and pick up litter
I went on that march. Not out of a great passion for fox-hunting (I am ambivalent) but sheer curiosity.
What struck me was how good looking and healthy they were. Lots of really hot blond young women, lots of handsome young men. Dudes in waistcoats blowing hunting horns.
They put the obese urban Brits to shame. And I speak as an urban Brit.
You'd like Wormwood Scrubs playing fields in the spring. It's where the American moms go to play tee-ball
Once people realise the consequences of Brexit, they will change their minds. I think a second referendum is inevitable.
And do you think that the British people will vote in that to join the euro and Schengen?
It's funny how different countries have different priorities. Switzerland, which has avoided EEA, voted in a referendum to join Schengen. And it wasn't like they had to. They just decided they'd rather be in it.
Given that they're surrounded by other members, it's not too surprising.
They'll survive despite that. Even in the 1940's their borders weren't under serious threat..
Just a few plucky Brits escaping a united europe on a home run to freedom.
Intersting what a Muslim said today on the new about looking over his shoulder every time he went to the Mosque. I reckon statistically he has more chance of being killed by another Muslim than he has of any other demographic.
It would be such a disaster if they left. I mean, if Britain's Muslim community decided, en masse, to up sticks and go back to wherever-istan, we would lose, inter alia, and this is just off the top of my head:
1. The constant threat of being blown up 2. Or run over with a truck 3. Or knifed to death in a frenzied attack 4. Mass racialised gang rape 5. Sharia law in our cities 6. The burqa 7. The niqab 8. Most Female Genital Mutilation 9. Cousin marriages 10. Honour Killings 11. Forced marriages 12. The need for armed police with submachine guns everywhere 13. More racialised gang rape, plus general street level misogyny aimed at "white whores" 14. The reintroduction of Blasphemy Law, meaning the End of the Enlightenment 15. Some interesting Bangladeshi versions of Indian cuisine
Like I said. Catastrophe. How would we cope?
Even the architects of multiculturalism admitted they had got it hopelessly wrong. Roy Jenkins, Lord Lester, Trevor Phillips etc
As your list shows, I just can't see how Islamic immigration can be seen as a net positive for England in anyway. A crazy experiment that's impossible to reverse
I notice there has been much talk of "confidence motions" on this thread. Let's not forget that there is no longer any such thing except for a motion in the exact form of words defined in S.2(4) of the FTPA. The Queen's Speech vote is no longer a confidence motion, a supply vote is no longer a confidence motion. Only a motion "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government." is now a confidence motion.
This does lead me to ask what will happen if the government incidentally loses a supply vote (which is how Callaghan's government fell in 1979). It might feel bound to resign, but it will still require a FTPA vote (either of confidence or less likely a 2/3 vote for a dissolution) to trigger a dissolution and the outgoing government could quite conceivably win it. What happens then? Does the Queen have to commission the LOTO to try to form a government, wait for him to fail and summon back the Tory leader to have another go?
What if the government decides it isn't bound to resign any more through losing a supply vote, but only if it loses a FTPA vote? Would the Queen feel herself bound to dismiss the government and summon the LOTO who would fail to secure a majority himself? We could end up with no legitimate government and no way to force a new election.
It's inconceivable under FTPA that HMQ would invite LOTO to form a government unless there was an agreement (probably in writing and brokered by the Cabinet Secretary) that assured him of passing a confidence motion.
In the current Parliament, if the government lost a confidence vote and the DUP and Tories said they would vote against confidence in any alternative government, they'd be forced to wait out the 14 day clock before the election would be triggered.
Right, but what happens if the government loses a vote that was previously considered a confidence vote (QS or supply)?
Legally, nothing. Politically, a no confidence motion would have to follow PDQ.
I've not read the FTPA for a while but seem to remember it's a bit flaky. Does anyone remember what happens if a money bill is voted down - is a separate NC motion required?
Yes. As @rpjs said, "Only a motion "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government." is now a confidence motion."
In the event of the gridlock you suggest, I'd think it highly likely that there would be a two-thirds majority for an early election.
Comments
But, it's a necessary step to break political union, and chart our own course.
The question is: will we hold our nerve?
The UK position has been, and will always be, that anything agreed at stage one (exit terms) is contingent on a satisfactory trade deal. ("Nothing is agreed, until everything is agreed.")
So, the truth is that both sides have moved a little here. The EU has no guarantee of any exit goodies. The UK has had to agree broad terms of exit before talking of trade. It probably ensures that the exit terms discussion will probably happen more quickly than might otherwise be the case.
The Euro was the the rather heavy straw that broke that rather soft camel's back.
Regarding Brexit, I'd have a referendum on the deal, in which the public were allowed to say: No deal, Remain. That strikes me as too sensible a solution for the zombie Maydup government.
It has confirmed one thing, mind. That Remainers are going to take the EU's slant on everything as gospel.
It could all be over by Autumn...
Not as good as Zelda, but awesome nonetheless. I've got to buy a second controller so that I can play my friends head-to-head.
You realise that another referendum in such circumstances, given the hostage to fortune that it would provide the Eu, would just be boycotted, right?
As you well know.
€15bn of contingent liabilities (which are highly unlikely to occur and can be largely ignored)
€15bn of unfunded pension (that we'll just take responsibility for)
€40bn of commitments re 2020/2021 that we agreed to in the last last budget round (that can be settled by us paying something during the transition period)
€30bn of long-term commitments that the EU has little likelihood of getting
netted off against
€20bn of EU assets
Their best guess is that we agree €60bn gross, €40bn net, and that we pay €10bn/year during a four year transition. Problem solved.
We paid €60bn. And we paid nothing.
On the second point: Perhaps, then I guess Remain would win...
I've just looked on the bbc (for the first time in months) and it's all wall to wall Finsbury because it suits their agenda. Plus an anti GOP story too. Will look elsewhere for real news.
But it seems like negotiations are not going so well with May and the DUP - some leaked footage of the talks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxpYW_w5pgo
And the EU budget was finalised taking into account our commited contributions.
And we are not the type of nation that reneges on our commitments, unlike those nasty foreign folk.
The second precedent is that the UK has - by signing the five year budget from 2015 to 2020 - implicitly agreed to those spending plans. The EU case, which has some merit, is that our signature on those budgets puts us on the hook whether we are members or not. The counter-argument (which is acknowledged in the EU Brexit briefing pack) is that such payments contain the expectation of benefits. I.e., if we were to continue to pay into the budget for that period, we would expect benefits from that.
Rather like some of the more dodgy bars in London, it's sometimes safer to pay the unexpected £1000 for the bottle of Tesco's cava just so you get back out to the alleyway with your teeth and ribs intact.
Then we run, fast.
Time to play ARMS.
A crisp Ayrton says it's a Mike sock.
Stunning start today by the way. After weeks of saying we wouldn't' do something we capitulate on day one. They are going to run rings round our Brexiteers.
In the current Parliament, if the government lost a confidence vote and the DUP and Tories said they would vote against confidence in any alternative government, they'd be forced to wait out the 14 day clock before the election would be triggered.
As I said then, generally assuming that unusual stuff won't happen tends to be a good guide to betting. People try to muddle through for a very long time before they try anything else.
Not all preachers of hate wear a skullcap and robes. Some wear jeans. Some wear pearls. Some have radio shows. All of this is worth admitting.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/these-terrorists-are-just-murderous-losers-0kc5q5x02
[opens up another tab to look for Lefty rioting link]
https://order-order.com/2017/06/19/tommy-robinson-called-british-muslims-enemy-combatants/
The vote would only be reversed by another referendum.
(a) all those other people who drove rented trucks at the people they saw as the enemy in their demented little 'war' between the West and Islam
(b) Katie off of Twitter and the Apprentice 2006.
Not quite in the same league as Tezza's Mexican Wave last week though.
Of course, it would only require a few conservative rebels to decide that they didn't want to be held accountable for another unwanted GE and the maths changes. How confident would you be that a Tory party unable to pass its legislation would remain disciplined enough to vote no confidence if ordered by the (lame duck) leader?
latest revelations on fire safety are not looking at all good for the conservatives.
I mean come on, who knows anyone who has an irrational fear of Islam?
PM after GE is defined as:
"the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when the first government is formed after the next UK general election"
So comes down to definition of government being "formed".
Presumably that means Queens Speech being passed by vote in Commons.
https://twitter.com/GroomB/status/876916225938300928
After a bruise has gone black, you can keep hitting it - it won't get any worse.
Whereas the Brits...
Maybe this suggests that wherever people are on the political spectrum they vote on tangible matters - whether the economy, jobs, taxes, public spending, tuition fees, crime, Brexit etc etc.
But they don't vote on whether or not the PM bursts into tears etc.
If the above is correct then I think that's good news all round.
Blair was famous for his acting, almost bursting into tears after Diana died etc. And after that everyone said they didn't want a PM who did that sort of thing. But now May is criticised for not doing all that kind of stuff.
Seems ironic - I guess the media just want a story. But the Survation poll suggests the public doesn't actually have a great desire for this kind of stuff.
If you listened to WaO today on Radio 4 you would have heard Martha Carney interviewing Nick Ross of Crimewatch fame.
The reason he was on is because since 2004 he has been involved with a campaign run by Fire Chiefs to get sprinklers fitted in all social housing.
He points out that successive ministers with responsibility for this have, since 2004, chosen not to follow the recommendations. This includes Sadiq Khan back in 2009. He also points out however that this is because the explicit advice they were getting from their own civil servants was that this would not be an effective way to deal with the problem.
His was a far more balanced response than the BBC hatchet job which tries to make it seem like this has only been an issue since Labour lost power.
Just a few plucky Brits escaping a united europe on a home run to freedom.
As your list shows, I just can't see how Islamic immigration can be seen as a net positive for England in anyway. A crazy experiment that's impossible to reverse
In the event of the gridlock you suggest, I'd think it highly likely that there would be a two-thirds majority for an early election.