And the UK threatening to walk out lets Merkel off the hook completely. If we want a deal, the UK government must be seen as completely transparent, constructive and amicable by the populations of the EU27 countries. The Tories have to stop chasing positive headlines in the right wing English press and start looking for them in newspapers across Europe. We have to show European voters that it is not us who are saying No, it is the EU27. Unilateral action on the rights of EU citizens here would be an excellent start.
That's actually rather good advice.
Unfortunately British negotiating strategy has for many years consisted of posturing beforehand, surrendering in the negotiations and then lying afterwards.
Wage at £10 per hour for say a full time 40 hours per week is just shy of £24k once you add in NI and min pension contributions. I guess under Corbyn they would gain all rights instantly and so become relatively hard to get rid of if it goes wrong. So huge barriers being put in the way of 18 year olds getting experience as their ability to offset lack of experience by price so to speak would have been hobbled by Govt.
I think you'll find that youth unemployment will rise somewhat shall we say.
The 'bastards' who brought down Thatcher were indeed obsessed with the EU - Howe, Heseltine, Clarke, Major.
Its ironic that it was their obsession with membership of the ERM which brought down the Conservative government and let Labour in.
They subsequently undermined the following Conservative leaders with their support for joining the Euro.
So when William Hague toured the country screaming "Save the Pound", you're attributing his failure to the pro-Europeans who had been completely marginalised by that point?
Major's government was brought down because of 'Tory sleaze' and nasty-party stuff like Peter Lilley's infamous 'little list'. Even with the recession and the subsequent ERM debacle, plus Blair abandoning Clause 4, Labour did not lead on economic competence. Those events only neutralised the Conservatives' advantage, but it was their tiredness in office that did them in, not the actions of the few remaining sane figures in government like Major, Clarke and Hesteltine.
Wage at £10 per hour for say a full time 40 hours per week is just shy of £24k once you add in NI and min pension contributions. I guess under Corbyn they would gain all rights instantly and so become relatively hard to get rid of if it goes wrong. So huge barriers being put in the way of 18 year olds getting experience as their ability to offset lack of experience by price so to speak would have been hobbled by Govt.
I think you'll find that youth unemployment will rise somewhat shall we say.
I believe his intellectual argument is that 16 yo need to eat as much as older people....
I'm not so sure about the % of those who've left home at 16 vs in later years..............
I knew it myself, but Prof. Bogdanor's lecture shown on BBC Parliament yesterday confirmed it that Britain has virtually no leverage in its negotiations with the EU.
Twenty years of failure in EU negotiations by Blair, Brown and Cameron show that Britain has no leverage in its negotiations with the EU while it is a member of the EU.
What happens in the future is yet to be seen.
Thatcher succeeded because we were fully in the EEC at the time. The mistake was not joining the Euro which, as predicted by Clarke and others, led to a huge loss of political influence.
Maybe and maybe not.
Joining the Euro at a much higher exchange rate would likely have done crippling economic damage to Britain.
The last recession would certainly have been deeper and longer with perhaps the whole banking system crashing.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.
If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.
The present idea the EU is succeeding economically completely ignores their dreadful youth employment rates
You need to be slightly careful about comparing youth unemployment numbers between countries, as there is no standard. Spain, for instance, counts young people on vocational training courses as unemployed. We do not.
I knew it myself, but Prof. Bogdanor's lecture shown on BBC Parliament yesterday confirmed it that Britain has virtually no leverage in its negotiations with the EU.
Twenty years of failure in EU negotiations by Blair, Brown and Cameron show that Britain has no leverage in its negotiations with the EU while it is a member of the EU.
What happens in the future is yet to be seen.
Thatcher succeeded because we were fully in the EEC at the time. The mistake was not joining the Euro which, as predicted by Clarke and others, led to a huge loss of political influence.
Maybe and maybe not.
Joining the Euro at a much higher exchange rate would likely have done crippling economic damage to Britain.
The last recession would certainly have been deeper and longer with perhaps the whole banking system crashing.
Plus Euro interest rates were 2% for most of the pre 2007/8 period from memory, and ours hovered around 5%, which probably stopped us replicating Ireland with a huge (well even huger than ours), house price boom and earth shattering fall to earth, which may well have taken the Euro with it as we were far to big to bail out as Ireland was.
I knew it myself, but Prof. Bogdanor's lecture shown on BBC Parliament yesterday confirmed it that Britain has virtually no leverage in its negotiations with the EU.
Twenty years of failure in EU negotiations by Blair, Brown and Cameron show that Britain has no leverage in its negotiations with the EU while it is a member of the EU.
What happens in the future is yet to be seen.
Thatcher succeeded because we were fully in the EEC at the time. The mistake was not joining the Euro which, as predicted by Clarke and others, led to a huge loss of political influence.
Maybe and maybe not.
Joining the Euro at a much higher exchange rate would likely have done crippling economic damage to Britain.
The last recession would certainly have been deeper and longer with perhaps the whole banking system crashing.
Plus Euro interest rates were 2% for most of the pre 2007/8 period from memory, and ours hovered around 5%, which probably stopped us replicating Ireland with a huge (well even huger than ours), house price boom and earth shattering fall to earth, which may well have taken the Euro with it as we were far to big to bail out as Ireland was.
I'm perplexed by arguments which basically amount to saying, "We're incapable of sound government and would have screwed it up disastrously." The fact that they come from people who don't think UK politicians have enough power makes them all the stranger.
If we'd joined the Euro at a relatively high exchange rate we'd have faced the same choices as Germany and would probably have reached the same conclusions much sooner about how to ensure sustainably high wage levels in a globalising world.
Wage at £10 per hour for say a full time 40 hours per week is just shy of £24k once you add in NI and min pension contributions. I guess under Corbyn they would gain all rights instantly and so become relatively hard to get rid of if it goes wrong. So huge barriers being put in the way of 18 year olds getting experience as their ability to offset lack of experience by price so to speak would have been hobbled by Govt.
I think you'll find that youth unemployment will rise somewhat shall we say.
I believe his intellectual argument is that 16 yo need to eat as much as older people....
I'm not so sure about the % of those who've left home at 16 vs in later years..............
Ten quid an hour for a job probably sounds great to an 18 year old keen on Corbyn. Sadly the reality will remain that if crusty old sods like me doing the employing don't think that's a good deal then I don't have to offer the job in the first place to them.
And the UK threatening to walk out lets Merkel off the hook completely. If we want a deal, the UK government must be seen as completely transparent, constructive and amicable by the populations of the EU27 countries. The Tories have to stop chasing positive headlines in the right wing English press and start looking for them in newspapers across Europe. We have to show European voters that it is not us who are saying No, it is the EU27. Unilateral action on the rights of EU citizens here would be an excellent start.
Our entire negotiating strategy is based on the premise that "THEY are out to screw us" and for the far right press to bang on about it. What purpose it actually serves the country in the long run, I am not sure.
This idea that BMW will convince the entire EU to go soft [ remember, it is Britain who is leaving the EU ] is laughable. I drive a BMW and if it is 10% dearer , I will still buy a new BMW. I have very little choice. In any case, I will only drive a BMW.
The 'bastards' who brought down Thatcher were indeed obsessed with the EU - Howe, Heseltine, Clarke, Major.
Its ironic that it was their obsession with membership of the ERM which brought down the Conservative government and let Labour in.
They subsequently undermined the following Conservative leaders with their support for joining the Euro.
So when William Hague toured the country screaming "Save the Pound", you're attributing his failure to the pro-Europeans who had been completely marginalised by that point?
Major's government was brought down because of 'Tory sleaze' and nasty-party stuff like Peter Lilley's infamous 'little list'. Even with the recession and the subsequent ERM debacle, plus Blair abandoning Clause 4, Labour did not lead on economic competence. Those events only neutralised the Conservatives' advantage, but it was their tiredness in office that did them in, not the actions of the few remaining sane figures in government like Major, Clarke and Hesteltine.
You're right about the multiple problems the Conservatives had in the 1990s but the ERM debacle certainly shattered their claims to economic competence.
It was ironic that the strong economic performance from 1993 onwards was a result of the government implementing an EU-sceptic economic policy, against their will and despite all their previous predictions of disaster if it was tried. It was not surprising that they reaped little electoral support as a consequence.
As to Hague, he had no chance of electoral victory as a result of the strong economy Labour had inherited and their initial competence and moderation in government. Still his campaign did ensure that Britain couldn't be bounced into the Euro without a referendum - something the likes of Clarke and Heseltine wanted.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.
If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.
The present idea the EU is succeeding economically completely ignores their dreadful youth employment rates
You need to be slightly careful about comparing youth unemployment numbers between countries, as there is no standard. Spain, for instance, counts young people on vocational training courses as unemployed. We do not.
And the UK threatening to walk out lets Merkel off the hook completely. If we want a deal, the UK government must be seen as completely transparent, constructive and amicable by the populations of the EU27 countries. The Tories have to stop chasing positive headlines in the right wing English press and start looking for them in newspapers across Europe. We have to show European voters that it is not us who are saying No, it is the EU27. Unilateral action on the rights of EU citizens here would be an excellent start.
That's actually rather good advice.
Unfortunately British negotiating strategy has for many years consisted of posturing beforehand, surrendering in the negotiations and then lying afterwards.
I don't have much confidence.
Put it this way, it would not just be British voters who would think it ridiculous that the ECJ alone should have jurisdiction over EU citizens' rights in the UK post-Brexit. Most voters in most countries would understand that it is not something any country would agree to. Now, we could walk out over that and shout No Deal to great acclaim from the Daily Mail, or we could just say we do not accept that and here's why - let's try another solution. If the EU27 say no, it's this or no deal, then the governments of those countries then have to explain why taking that stance and inflicting harm on domestic industries is worth the pain. They would not want to do that. Thus, we start to have a bit of leverage. We have a poor hand, but we do have one - and it could net some gains if we think a lot more creatively about the Brexit talks and stop thinking of them as a battle between adversaries.
The 'bastards' who brought down Thatcher were indeed obsessed with the EU - Howe, Heseltine, Clarke, Major.
Its ironic that it was their obsession with membership of the ERM which brought down the Conservative government and let Labour in.
They subsequently undermined the following Conservative leaders with their support for joining the Euro.
So when William Hague toured the country screaming "Save the Pound", you're attributing his failure to the pro-Europeans who had been completely marginalised by that point?
Major's government was brought down because of 'Tory sleaze' and nasty-party stuff like Peter Lilley's infamous 'little list'. Even with the recession and the subsequent ERM debacle, plus Blair abandoning Clause 4, Labour did not lead on economic competence. Those events only neutralised the Conservatives' advantage, but it was their tiredness in office that did them in, not the actions of the few remaining sane figures in government like Major, Clarke and Hesteltine.
You're right about the multiple problems the Conservatives had in the 1990s but the ERM debacle certainly shattered their claims to economic competence.
It was ironic that the strong economic performance from 1993 onwards was a result of the government implementing an EU-sceptic economic policy, against their will and despite all their previous predictions of disaster if it was tried. It was not surprising that they reaped little electoral support as a consequence.
As to Hague, he had no chance of electoral victory as a result of the strong economy Labour had inherited and their initial competence and moderation in government. Still his campaign did ensure that Britain couldn't be bounced into the Euro without a referendum - something the likes of Clarke and Heseltine wanted.
I thought it was Ed Balls and his five tests which kept us out of the Euro.
And the UK threatening to walk out lets Merkel off the hook completely. If we want a deal, the UK government must be seen as completely transparent, constructive and amicable by the populations of the EU27 countries. The Tories have to stop chasing positive headlines in the right wing English press and start looking for them in newspapers across Europe. We have to show European voters that it is not us who are saying No, it is the EU27. Unilateral action on the rights of EU citizens here would be an excellent start.
Our entire negotiating strategy is based on the premise that "THEY are out to screw us" and for the far right press to bang on about it. What purpose it actually serves the country in the long run, I am not sure.
This idea that BMW will convince the entire EU to go soft [ remember, it is Britain who is leaving the EU ] is laughable. I drive a BMW and if it is 10% dearer , I will still buy a new BMW. I have very little choice. In any case, I will only drive a BMW.
I agree with the first sentiment. It isn't a zero sum game, both the EU to an extent and the UK to a bigger extent will lose if there is no deal and both will prosper more if there is one. As for BMWs, a lot seem to have non-working indicator lights!
I knew it myself, but Prof. Bogdanor's lecture shown on BBC Parliament yesterday confirmed it that Britain has virtually no leverage in its negotiations with the EU.
Twenty years of failure in EU negotiations by Blair, Brown and Cameron show that Britain has no leverage in its negotiations with the EU while it is a member of the EU.
What happens in the future is yet to be seen.
Thatcher succeeded because we were fully in the EEC at the time. The mistake was not joining the Euro which, as predicted by Clarke and others, led to a huge loss of political influence.
Maybe and maybe not.
Joining the Euro at a much higher exchange rate would likely have done crippling economic damage to Britain.
The last recession would certainly have been deeper and longer with perhaps the whole banking system crashing.
Plus Euro interest rates were 2% for most of the pre 2007/8 period from memory, and ours hovered around 5%, which probably stopped us replicating Ireland with a huge (well even huger than ours), house price boom and earth shattering fall to earth, which may well have taken the Euro with it as we were far to big to bail out as Ireland was.
I'm perplexed by arguments which basically amount to saying, "We're incapable of sound government and would have screwed it up disastrously." The fact that they come from people who don't think UK politicians have enough power makes them all the stranger.
If we'd joined the Euro at a relatively high exchange rate we'd have faced the same choices as Germany and would probably have reached the same conclusions much sooner about how to ensure sustainably high wage levels in a globalising world.
Well the Irish didn't. Neither did the Greeks for that matter, and chunks of the rest of Club Med.
They went off to party like they'd found the PIN code on Uncle Germany's credit card, only to find Uncle Germany wasn't paying for the fun after all.
I'm afraid we'd have done an Ireland only fifteen times or so bigger.
I knew it myself, but Prof. Bogdanor's lecture shown on BBC Parliament yesterday confirmed it that Britain has virtually no leverage in its negotiations with the EU.
Twenty years of failure in EU negotiations by Blair, Brown and Cameron show that Britain has no leverage in its negotiations with the EU while it is a member of the EU.
What happens in the future is yet to be seen.
Thatcher succeeded because we were fully in the EEC at the time. The mistake was not joining the Euro which, as predicted by Clarke and others, led to a huge loss of political influence.
Maybe and maybe not.
Joining the Euro at a much higher exchange rate would likely have done crippling economic damage to Britain.
The last recession would certainly have been deeper and longer with perhaps the whole banking system crashing.
Plus Euro interest rates were 2% for most of the pre 2007/8 period from memory, and ours hovered around 5%, which probably stopped us replicating Ireland with a huge (well even huger than ours), house price boom and earth shattering fall to earth, which may well have taken the Euro with it as we were far to big to bail out as Ireland was.
Indeed.
The UK housing bubble would have been even larger followed by an even larger bust.
And the UK threatening to walk out lets Merkel off the hook completely. If we want a deal, the UK government must be seen as completely transparent, constructive and amicable by the populations of the EU27 countries. The Tories have to stop chasing positive headlines in the right wing English press and start looking for them in newspapers across Europe. We have to show European voters that it is not us who are saying No, it is the EU27. Unilateral action on the rights of EU citizens here would be an excellent start.
Our entire negotiating strategy is based on the premise that "THEY are out to screw us" and for the far right press to bang on about it. What purpose it actually serves the country in the long run, I am not sure.
This idea that BMW will convince the entire EU to go soft [ remember, it is Britain who is leaving the EU ] is laughable. I drive a BMW and if it is 10% dearer , I will still buy a new BMW. I have very little choice. In any case, I will only drive a BMW.
BMW may well put pressure on the German government if it is the EU27 that is seen to be making unreasonable demands. But it has to be seen in the EU27. That means a complete change of tone and attitude on the British side - and no more willy-waving for domestic consumption. Right now, British public opinion is worthless for the UK in terms of leverage.
Mr. Owl, quite. It's like generous maternity pay and leave. Sounds great. But some employers simply don't hire women who might be of an age to have children. And because they can't ask if women are in a relationship (that'd be discrimination), they just don't employ younger women at all.
Anyway, I must be off. I dislike slightly off start times. It's 2pm for today's race.
I knew it myself, but Prof. Bogdanor's lecture shown on BBC Parliament yesterday confirmed it that Britain has virtually no leverage in its negotiations with the EU.
Twenty years of failure in EU negotiations by Blair, Brown and Cameron show that Britain has no leverage in its negotiations with the EU while it is a member of the EU.
What happens in the future is yet to be seen.
Thatcher succeeded because we were fully in the EEC at the time. The mistake was not joining the Euro which, as predicted by Clarke and others, led to a huge loss of political influence.
Maybe and maybe not.
Joining the Euro at a much higher exchange rate would likely have done crippling economic damage to Britain.
The last recession would certainly have been deeper and longer with perhaps the whole banking system crashing.
Plus Euro interest rates were 2% for most of the pre 2007/8 period from memory, and ours hovered around 5%, which probably stopped us replicating Ireland with a huge (well even huger than ours), house price boom and earth shattering fall to earth, which may well have taken the Euro with it as we were far to big to bail out as Ireland was.
Indeed.
The UK housing bubble would have been even larger followed by an even larger bust.
As it will repeat soon, this time with Sterling. There are 1/2 trillion worth of QE sloshing around in the economy.
I knew it myself, but Prof. Bogdanor's lecture shown on BBC Parliament yesterday confirmed it that Britain has virtually no leverage in its negotiations with the EU.
Twenty years of failure in EU negotiations by Blair, Brown and Cameron show that Britain has no leverage in its negotiations with the EU while it is a member of the EU.
What happens in the future is yet to be seen.
Thatcher succeeded because we were fully in the EEC at the time. The mistake was not joining the Euro which, as predicted by Clarke and others, led to a huge loss of political influence.
Maybe and maybe not.
Joining the Euro at a much higher exchange rate would likely have done crippling economic damage to Britain.
The last recession would certainly have been deeper and longer with perhaps the whole banking system crashing.
Plus Euro interest rates were 2% for most of the pre 2007/8 period from memory, and ours hovered around 5%, which probably stopped us replicating Ireland with a huge (well even huger than ours), house price boom and earth shattering fall to earth, which may well have taken the Euro with it as we were far to big to bail out as Ireland was.
Indeed.
The UK housing bubble would have been even larger followed by an even larger bust.
You're assuming all things would have been equal, which they wouldn't have been. Remember that Brown came into office promising not to allow another house price boom. The events that followed had multiple causes, but the impact of his positioning to take over from Blair cannot be eliminated. If we had been in the Euro he would have been operating within different parameters.
The 'bastards' who brought down Thatcher were indeed obsessed with the EU - Howe, Heseltine, Clarke, Major.
Its ironic that it was their obsession with membership of the ERM which brought down the Conservative government and let Labour in.
They subsequently undermined the following Conservative leaders with their support for joining the Euro.
So when William Hague toured the country screaming "Save the Pound", you're attributing his failure to the pro-Europeans who had been completely marginalised by that point?
Major's government was brought down because of 'Tory sleaze' and nasty-party stuff like Peter Lilley's infamous 'little list'. Even with the recession and the subsequent ERM debacle, plus Blair abandoning Clause 4, Labour did not lead on economic competence. Those events only neutralised the Conservatives' advantage, but it was their tiredness in office that did them in, not the actions of the few remaining sane figures in government like Major, Clarke and Hesteltine.
You're right about the multiple problems the Conservatives had in the 1990s but the ERM debacle certainly shattered their claims to economic competence.
It was ironic that the strong economic performance from 1993 onwards was a result of the government implementing an EU-sceptic economic policy, against their will and despite all their previous predictions of disaster if it was tried. It was not surprising that they reaped little electoral support as a consequence.
As to Hague, he had no chance of electoral victory as a result of the strong economy Labour had inherited and their initial competence and moderation in government. Still his campaign did ensure that Britain couldn't be bounced into the Euro without a referendum - something the likes of Clarke and Heseltine wanted.
I thought it was Ed Balls and his five tests which kept us out of the Euro.
There's a few people who can claim partial credit.
It probably needed a combination of Brown's personal hostility to Blair, Balls putting an intellectual spin on it and the Conservatives being hostile to the Euro.
The 'bastards' who brought down Thatcher were indeed obsessed with the EU - Howe, Heseltine, Clarke, Major.
Its ironic that it was their obsession with membership of the ERM which brought down the Conservative government and let Labour in.
They subsequently undermined the following Conservative leaders with their support for joining the Euro.
So when William Hague toured the country screaming "Save the Pound", you're attributing his failure to the pro-Europeans who had been completely marginalised by that point?
Major's government was brought down because of 'Tory sleaze' and nasty-party stuff like Peter Lilley's infamous 'little list'. Even with the recession and the subsequent ERM debacle, plus Blair abandoning Clause 4, Labour did not lead on economic competence. Those events only neutralised the Conservatives' advantage, but it was their tiredness in office that did them in, not the actions of the few remaining sane figures in government like Major, Clarke and Hesteltine.
You're right about the multiple problems the Conservatives had in the 1990s but the ERM debacle certainly shattered their claims to economic competence.
It was ironic that the strong economic performance from 1993 onwards was a result of the government implementing an EU-sceptic economic policy, against their will and despite all their previous predictions of disaster if it was tried. It was not surprising that they reaped little electoral support as a consequence.
As to Hague, he had no chance of electoral victory as a result of the strong economy Labour had inherited and their initial competence and moderation in government. Still his campaign did ensure that Britain couldn't be bounced into the Euro without a referendum - something the likes of Clarke and Heseltine wanted.
I thought it was Ed Balls and his five tests which kept us out of the Euro.
There's a few people who can claim partial credit.
It probably needed a combination of Brown's personal hostility to Blair, Balls putting an intellectual spin on it and the Conservatives being hostile to the Euro.
What if we had foreseen that the rigorous intellectual treasury spin would later be "gangnam style"?
I knew it myself, but Prof. Bogdanor's lecture shown on BBC Parliament yesterday confirmed it that Britain has virtually no leverage in its negotiations with the EU.
Twenty years of failure in EU negotiations by Blair, Brown and Cameron show that Britain has no leverage in its negotiations with the EU while it is a member of the EU.
What happens in the future is yet to be seen.
Thatcher succeeded because we were fully in the EEC at the time. The mistake was not joining the Euro which, as predicted by Clarke and others, led to a huge loss of political influence.
Maybe and maybe not.
Joining the Euro at a much higher exchange rate would likely have done crippling economic damage to Britain.
The last recession would certainly have been deeper and longer with perhaps the whole banking system crashing.
Plus Euro interest rates were 2% for most of the pre 2007/8 period from memory, and ours hovered around 5%, which probably stopped us replicating Ireland with a huge (well even huger than ours), house price boom and earth shattering fall to earth, which may well have taken the Euro with it as we were far to big to bail out as Ireland was.
Indeed.
The UK housing bubble would have been even larger followed by an even larger bust.
As it will repeat soon, this time with Sterling. There are 1/2 trillion worth of QE sloshing around in the economy.
We're certainly at some stage of a housing bubble.
I even heard a dinner party conversation recently of the "you'll never guess how much X sold their house for" kind.
And the UK threatening to walk out lets Merkel off the hook completely. If we want a deal, the UK government must be seen as completely transparent, constructive and amicable by the populations of the EU27 countries. The Tories have to stop chasing positive headlines in the right wing English press and start looking for them in newspapers across Europe. We have to show European voters that it is not us who are saying No, it is the EU27. Unilateral action on the rights of EU citizens here would be an excellent start.
Our entire negotiating strategy is based on the premise that "THEY are out to screw us" and for the far right press to bang on about it. What purpose it actually serves the country in the long run, I am not sure.
This idea that BMW will convince the entire EU to go soft [ remember, it is Britain who is leaving the EU ] is laughable. I drive a BMW and if it is 10% dearer , I will still buy a new BMW. I have very little choice. In any case, I will only drive a BMW.
BMW may well put pressure on the German government if it is the EU27 that is seen to be making unreasonable demands. But it has to be seen in the EU27. That means a complete change of tone and attitude on the British side - and no more willy-waving for domestic consumption. Right now, British public opinion is worthless for the UK in terms of leverage.
I think that's fair and your earlier post was correct as well. We can't walk away without having a really good fist at negotiation and in good faith. Though I do think the £100bn demand is going to look unreasonable to everyone so if we do walk away because they don't reduce the figure to something that passes a sniff test then I think they will come off worse. If they reduce the figure to say £35bn and we walk away because we refuse to pay anything, even stuff we've agreed to in the current spending round them we will come off worse. If both sides are reasonable then we have a good chance of getting a deal done.
And the UK threatening to walk out lets Merkel off the hook completely. If we want a deal, the UK government must be seen as completely transparent, constructive and amicable by the populations of the EU27 countries. The Tories have to stop chasing positive headlines in the right wing English press and start looking for them in newspapers across Europe. We have to show European voters that it is not us who are saying No, it is the EU27. Unilateral action on the rights of EU citizens here would be an excellent start.
Our entire negotiating strategy is based on the premise that "THEY are out to screw us" and for the far right press to bang on about it. What purpose it actually serves the country in the long run, I am not sure.
This idea that BMW will convince the entire EU to go soft [ remember, it is Britain who is leaving the EU ] is laughable. I drive a BMW and if it is 10% dearer , I will still buy a new BMW. I have very little choice. In any case, I will only drive a BMW.
I'm starting to see why people weren't scared of voting for Corbyn. Those that did can afford a socialist government!
I'm fairly sure it makes youth unemployment look worse than it is Spain, and better than it is in Germany. Remember, Spanish youth unemployment has never been lower than 19%, even during the peak of their Eurozone boom, when labour markets were so tight that incomes were rising 6% per year.
Fundamentally my issue is a philosophical one: I hate it when people compare numbers that are not strictly comparable.
Ideally, I would like to see a split like this:
Employed (full time) Employed (part time/ZHC) Self employed Aprenticeship/training Education Not claiming benefits or looking for work Unemployed
We could then also see if some countries suppressed their youth unemployment rate by making benefits hard to collect, or if young people struggled to find full time jobs.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
And the UK threatening to walk out lets Merkel off the hook completely. If we want a deal, the UK government must be seen as completely transparent, constructive and amicable by the populations of the EU27 countries. The Tories have to stop chasing positive headlines in the right wing English press and start looking for them in newspapers across Europe. We have to show European voters that it is not us who are saying No, it is the EU27. Unilateral action on the rights of EU citizens here would be an excellent start.
Our entire negotiating strategy is based on the premise that "THEY are out to screw us" and for the far right press to bang on about it. What purpose it actually serves the country in the long run, I am not sure.
This idea that BMW will convince the entire EU to go soft [ remember, it is Britain who is leaving the EU ] is laughable. I drive a BMW and if it is 10% dearer , I will still buy a new BMW. I have very little choice. In any case, I will only drive a BMW.
BMW may well put pressure on the German government if it is the EU27 that is seen to be making unreasonable demands. But it has to be seen in the EU27. That means a complete change of tone and attitude on the British side - and no more willy-waving for domestic consumption. Right now, British public opinion is worthless for the UK in terms of leverage.
You were advising Blair when he cut our rebate for nothing weren't you?
I'm fairly sure it makes youth unemployment look worse than it is Spain, and better than it is in Germany. Remember, Spanish youth unemployment has never been lower than 19%, even during the peak of their Eurozone boom, when labour markets were so tight that incomes were rising 6% per year.
Fundamentally my issue is a philosophical one: I hate it when people compare numbers that are not strictly comparable.
Ideally, I would like to see a split like this:
Employed (full time) Employed (part time/ZHC) Self employed Aprenticeship/training Education Not claiming benefits or looking for work Unemployed
We could then also see if some countries suppressed their youth unemployment rate by making benefits hard to collect, or if young people struggled to find full time jobs.
Isn't there equivalent definitions of this:
' The level and rate of UK unemployment measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) using a definition of unemployment specified by the International Labour Organisation. Unemployed people as those without a job who have been actively seeking work in the past 4 weeks and are available to start work in the next 2 weeks. It also includes those who are out of work but have found a job and are waiting to start it in the next 2 weeks. '
Mr. Glenn, I'm not convinced that giving away monetary policy to an external organisation counts as gaining influence.
Thatcher succeeded because she dug her heels in. Blair failed because he threw away half the rebate for a promise that never happened.
The EU is only external if we leave it. That is perhaps the central contradiction of Brexit.
We cannot escape its influence; we can only remove ourselves from having influence within it.
As the sainted Margaret pointed out.
Spot on.
Leavers often seem to assume that the EU will collapse, as if the UK will somehow be the first domino. The reality is that our departure has already strengthened the EU and our mistake will ensure that the rest of it sticks more successfully together. All we are achieving is to destroy much of remaining influence that our country still has on the world stage. Sadly, life on the edge of the EU will prove a long way from the illusory vision of our taking back control.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
That doesn't yet apply to Britain.
But after a Corbyn government it might.
From a Conservative perspective that's what you should hope for, because if a British Macron arrives before then, it's the Conservatives who will face the fate of the French Socialist party.
A credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
And the UK threatening to walk out lets Merkel off the hook completely. If we want a deal, the UK government must be seen as completely transparent, constructive and amicable by the populations of the EU27 countries. The Tories have to stop chasing positive headlines in the right wing English press and start looking for them in newspapers across Europe. We have to show European voters that it is not us who are saying No, it is the EU27. Unilateral action on the rights of EU citizens here would be an excellent start.
Our entire negotiating strategy is based on the premise that "THEY are out to screw us" and for the far right press to bang on about it. What purpose it actually serves the country in the long run, I am not sure.
This idea that BMW will convince the entire EU to go soft [ remember, it is Britain who is leaving the EU ] is laughable. I drive a BMW and if it is 10% dearer , I will still buy a new BMW. I have very little choice. In any case, I will only drive a BMW.
BMW may well put pressure on the German government if it is the EU27 that is seen to be making unreasonable demands. But it has to be seen in the EU27. That means a complete change of tone and attitude on the British side - and no more willy-waving for domestic consumption. Right now, British public opinion is worthless for the UK in terms of leverage.
Even yesterday it was being banded about that we buy £290bn from them and they buy £230bn from us - therefore, they have "more to lose".
Really ? 290bn / 27 = £11bn per nation. So, £11bn vs £230bn.
In terms of GDP, the ratio is almost the same. We have far more to lose than they have including the large countries. Only Germany, France, the Netherlands, Ireland are relatively big exporters to us. The East Europeans are more interested in FoM.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
That doesn't yet apply to Britain.
But after a Corbyn government it might.
From a Conservative perspective that's what you should hope for, because if a British Macron arrives before then, it's the Conservatives who will face the fate of the French Socialist party.
A credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
And the UK threatening to walk out lets Merkel off the hook completely. If we want a deal, the UK government must be seen as completely transparent, constructive and amicable by the populations of the EU27 countries. The Tories have to stop chasing positive headlines in the right wing English press and start looking for them in newspapers across Europe. We have to show European voters that it is not us who are saying No, it is the EU27. Unilateral action on the rights of EU citizens here would be an excellent start.
Our entire negotiating strategy is based on the premise that "THEY are out to screw us" and for the far right press to bang on about it. What purpose it actually serves the country in the long run, I am not sure.
This idea that BMW will convince the entire EU to go soft [ remember, it is Britain who is leaving the EU ] is laughable. I drive a BMW and if it is 10% dearer , I will still buy a new BMW. I have very little choice. In any case, I will only drive a BMW.
BMW may well put pressure on the German government if it is the EU27 that is seen to be making unreasonable demands. But it has to be seen in the EU27. That means a complete change of tone and attitude on the British side - and no more willy-waving for domestic consumption. Right now, British public opinion is worthless for the UK in terms of leverage.
Even yesterday it was being banded about that we buy £290bn from them and they buy £230bn from us - therefore, they have "more to lose".
Really ? 290bn / 27 = £11bn per nation. So, £11bn vs £230bn.
In terms of GDP, the ratio is almost the same. We have far more to lose than they have including the large countries. Only Germany, France, the Netherlands, Ireland are relatively big exporters to us. The East Europeans are more interested in FoM.
That's not how it works, our trade with around 18 nations is close to nothing, but our trade with northern Europe is massive.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
That doesn't yet apply to Britain.
But after a Corbyn government it might.
From a Conservative perspective that's what you should hope for, because if a British Macron arrives before then, it's the Conservatives who will face the fate of the French Socialist party.
A credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
That doesn't yet apply to Britain.
But after a Corbyn government it might.
From a Conservative perspective that's what you should hope for, because if a British Macron arrives before then, it's the Conservatives who will face the fate of the French Socialist party.
A credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
I knew it myself, but Prof. Bogdanor's lecture shown on BBC Parliament yesterday confirmed it that Britain has virtually no leverage in its negotiations with the EU.
Twenty years of failure in EU negotiations by Blair, Brown and Cameron show that Britain has no leverage in its negotiations with the EU while it is a member of the EU.
What happens in the future is yet to be seen.
Thatcher succeeded because we were fully in the EEC at the time. The mistake was not joining the Euro which, as predicted by Clarke and others, led to a huge loss of political influence.
Maybe and maybe not.
Joining the Euro at a much higher exchange rate would likely have done crippling economic damage to Britain.
The last recession would certainly have been deeper and longer with perhaps the whole banking system crashing.
Plus Euro interest rates were 2% for most of the pre 2007/8 period from memory, and ours hovered around 5%, which probably stopped us replicating Ireland with a huge (well even huger than ours), house price boom and earth shattering fall to earth, which may well have taken the Euro with it as we were far to big to bail out as Ireland was.
Indeed.
The UK housing bubble would have been even larger followed by an even larger bust.
As it will repeat soon, this time with Sterling. There are 1/2 trillion worth of QE sloshing around in the economy.
We're certainly at some stage of a housing bubble.
I even heard a dinner party conversation recently of the "you'll never guess how much X sold their house for" kind.
It was worryingly reminiscent of the mid 2000s.
In some parts of London, it is 11 x average income.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
That doesn't yet apply to Britain.
But after a Corbyn government it might.
From a Conservative perspective that's what you should hope for, because if a British Macron arrives before then, it's the Conservatives who will face the fate of the French Socialist party.
A credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
That doesn't yet apply to Britain.
But after a Corbyn government it might.
From a Conservative perspective that's what you should hope for, because if a British Macron arrives before then, it's the Conservatives who will face the fate of the French Socialist party.
A credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
That was before the Tory party became indelibly linked with the biggest political failure in our history.
I agree the Tory party were for far too long linked to the EU - by far the biggest political failure in our history. Hopefully they will now put that right with Brexit.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
That doesn't yet apply to Britain.
But after a Corbyn government it might.
From a Conservative perspective that's what you should hope for, because if a British Macron arrives before then, it's the Conservatives who will face the fate of the French Socialist party.
A credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
Today, 52/48 in favour of leave. We are leaving.
Can you imagine what a shambles a second Leave campaign would be? TMay's spectacular fall from grace would be nothing compared to that.
I knew it myself, but Prof. Bogdanor's lecture shown on BBC Parliament yesterday confirmed it that Britain has virtually no leverage in its negotiations with the EU.
Twenty years of failure in EU negotiations by Blair, Brown and Cameron show that Britain has no leverage in its negotiations with the EU while it is a member of the EU.
What happens in the future is yet to be seen.
Thatcher succeeded because we were fully in the EEC at the time. The mistake was not joining the Euro which, as predicted by Clarke and others, led to a huge loss of political influence.
Maybe and maybe not.
Joining the Euro at a much higher exchange rate would likely have done crippling economic damage to Britain.
The last recession would certainly have been deeper and longer with perhaps the whole banking system crashing.
Plus Euro interest rates were 2% for most of the pre 2007/8 period from memory, and ours hovered around 5%, which probably stopped us replicating Ireland with a huge (well even huger than ours), house price boom and earth shattering fall to earth, which may well have taken the Euro with it as we were far to big to bail out as Ireland was.
Indeed.
The UK housing bubble would have been even larger followed by an even larger bust.
As it will repeat soon, this time with Sterling. There are 1/2 trillion worth of QE sloshing around in the economy.
We're certainly at some stage of a housing bubble.
I even heard a dinner party conversation recently of the "you'll never guess how much X sold their house for" kind.
It was worryingly reminiscent of the mid 2000s.
In some parts of London, it is 11 x average income.
Yes, it's ridiculous. One can see why younger people in London and the South East votes for Corbyn. I don't begrudge it either, we have turned into the party of landlords and buy to let. Corbyn isn't the answer but at least he's not supporting the parasite landlords.
Mr. Glenn, I'm not convinced that giving away monetary policy to an external organisation counts as gaining influence.
Thatcher succeeded because she dug her heels in. Blair failed because he threw away half the rebate for a promise that never happened.
The EU is only external if we leave it. That is perhaps the central contradiction of Brexit.
We cannot escape its influence; we can only remove ourselves from having influence within it.
As the sainted Margaret pointed out.
Spot on.
Leavers often seem to assume that the EU will collapse, as if the UK will somehow be the first domino. The reality is that our departure has already strengthened the EU and our mistake will ensure that the rest of it sticks more successfully together. All we are achieving is to destroy much of remaining influence that our country still has on the world stage. Sadly, life on the edge of the EU will prove a long way from the illusory vision of our taking back control.
Actually it is the EU that pushes the idea that Brexit could lead to the collapse of the EU. It is the reason they give for 'punishing' us for our decision.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
That doesn't yet apply to Britain.
But after a Corbyn government it might.
From a Conservative perspective that's what you should hope for, because if a British Macron arrives before then, it's the Conservatives who will face the fate of the French Socialist party.
A credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
Today, 52/48 in favour of leave. We are leaving.
Can you imagine what a shambles a second Leave campaign would be? TMay's spectacular fall from grace would be nothing compared to that.
Can you imagine how terrible a remain campaign would be, joining the Euro and Schengen would be a requirement of remain now, it's a non-starter. Only among deluded people like you will the UK ever vote for joining the Euro.
And the UK threatening to walk out lets Merkel off the hook completely. If we want a deal, the UK government must be seen as completely transparent, constructive and amicable by the populations of the EU27 countries. The Tories have to stop chasing positive headlines in the right wing English press and start looking for them in newspapers across Europe. We have to show European voters that it is not us who are saying No, it is the EU27. Unilateral action on the rights of EU citizens here would be an excellent start.
Our entire negotiating strategy is based on the premise that "THEY are out to screw us" and for the far right press to bang on about it. What purpose it actually serves the country in the long run, I am not sure.
This idea that BMW will convince the entire EU to go soft [ remember, it is Britain who is leaving the EU ] is laughable. I drive a BMW and if it is 10% dearer , I will still buy a new BMW. I have very little choice. In any case, I will only drive a BMW.
BMW may well put pressure on the German government if it is the EU27 that is seen to be making unreasonable demands. But it has to be seen in the EU27. That means a complete change of tone and attitude on the British side - and no more willy-waving for domestic consumption. Right now, British public opinion is worthless for the UK in terms of leverage.
I think that's fair and your earlier post was correct as well. We can't walk away without having a really good fist at negotiation and in good faith. Though I do think the £100bn demand is going to look unreasonable to everyone so if we do walk away because they don't reduce the figure to something that passes a sniff test then I think they will come off worse. If they reduce the figure to say £35bn and we walk away because we refuse to pay anything, even stuff we've agreed to in the current spending round them we will come off worse. If both sides are reasonable then we have a good chance of getting a deal done.
Walking away under any circumstances is pointless. It makes much more sense just to say No, very publicly explain why and to urge further talks. Either way might led to no deal, but only walking away ensures it. Once you accept that, you can start to think much more creatively about how to leverage at least some beneficial concessions.
Mr. Glenn, I'm not convinced that giving away monetary policy to an external organisation counts as gaining influence.
Thatcher succeeded because she dug her heels in. Blair failed because he threw away half the rebate for a promise that never happened.
The EU is only external if we leave it. That is perhaps the central contradiction of Brexit.
We cannot escape its influence; we can only remove ourselves from having influence within it.
As the sainted Margaret pointed out.
Spot on.
Leavers often seem to assume that the EU will collapse, as if the UK will somehow be the first domino. The reality is that our departure has already strengthened the EU and our mistake will ensure that the rest of it sticks more successfully together. All we are achieving is to destroy much of remaining influence that our country still has on the world stage. Sadly, life on the edge of the EU will prove a long way from the illusory vision of our taking back control.
Actually it is the EU that pushes the idea that Brexit could lead to the collapse of the EU. It is the reason they give for 'punishing' us for our decision.
The biggest danger for the EU is that the UK succeeds after leaving and manages to form solid trade deals with loads of second tier nations as well as making progress with the US and other major players. If we do that then all bets are off for the non-Euro nations. It doesn't make sense for them, at least, to stay in the EU if not being in it doesn't make any difference or is a net gain.
Why should we? Unlike the EU they cannot change the rules without our agreement and we are happy with the current arrangement. Again the two are in no way comparable.
Mr. Glenn, I'm not convinced that giving away monetary policy to an external organisation counts as gaining influence.
Thatcher succeeded because she dug her heels in. Blair failed because he threw away half the rebate for a promise that never happened.
The EU is only external if we leave it. That is perhaps the central contradiction of Brexit.
We cannot escape its influence; we can only remove ourselves from having influence within it.
As the sainted Margaret pointed out.
Spot on.
Leavers often seem to assume that the EU will collapse, as if the UK will somehow be the first domino. The reality is that our departure has already strengthened the EU and our mistake will ensure that the rest of it sticks more successfully together. All we are achieving is to destroy much of remaining influence that our country still has on the world stage. Sadly, life on the edge of the EU will prove a long way from the illusory vision of our taking back control.
Actually it is the EU that pushes the idea that Brexit could lead to the collapse of the EU. It is the reason they give for 'punishing' us for our decision.
Trump, a string of electoral setbacks for right wing populists and Macron have reinvigorated the EU27. The world looks very different to them than it did a year ago. This is something else that the UK needs to come to grips with.
And the UK threatening to walk out lets Merkel off the hook completely. If we want a deal, the UK government must be seen as completely transparent, constructive and amicable by the populations of the EU27 countries. The Tories have to stop chasing positive headlines in the right wing English press and start looking for them in newspapers across Europe. We have to show European voters that it is not us who are saying No, it is the EU27. Unilateral action on the rights of EU citizens here would be an excellent start.
Our entire negotiating strategy is based on the premise that "THEY are out to screw us" and for the far right press to bang on about it. What purpose it actually serves the country in the long run, I am not sure.
This idea that BMW will convince the entire EU to go soft [ remember, it is Britain who is leaving the EU ] is laughable. I drive a BMW and if it is 10% dearer , I will still buy a new BMW. I have very little choice. In any case, I will only drive a BMW.
BMW may well put pressure on the German government if it is the EU27 that is seen to be making unreasonable demands. But it has to be seen in the EU27. That means a complete change of tone and attitude on the British side - and no more willy-waving for domestic consumption. Right now, British public opinion is worthless for the UK in terms of leverage.
If Brexit breaks down the likes of BMW will just live with it. Mini production could quite simple be transferred to Born in the Netherlands or Leipzig. As for dealing with the potential loss of sales they will merely focus on the emerging markets to more than make up for potential lost sales in the UK.
All UK car manufacturers if they so wished could move production in the blink of an eye. Peugeot moved 206 production from Ryton to Poissy quite freely 10 years ago. Nissan could move everything from Sunderland to an under used Renault plant such as Flins or Palencia in much the same way.
But we have the secondary suppliers in the UK! But supplier parts are interchangeable and international. Bosch, Valeo, Siemens, Continental, Ate, Brembo etc.etc. Let us face it the lights are almost out at the Ford Engine plant. Valencia beckons!
This potential catastrophe is not unique to the automotive sector. All manufacturing could be subject to similar moves. If shareholder revenues will be maximised by quitting the UK they quit!
Walking away under any circumstances is pointless. It makes much more sense just to say No, very publicly explain why and to urge further talks. Either way might led to no deal, but only walking away ensures it. Once you accept that, you can start to think much more creatively about how to leverage at least some beneficial concessions.
I think walking away still needs to be held in reserve as a final move if the EU does try and insist on £100bn and no free trade in goods or forcing ECJ jurisdiction etc... Those would be unreasonable demands to which we could (and should) say no to.
What isn't helpful is going into negotiations in bad faith or at least looking like we are, I think that's where the EU and Theresa have failed so far. Our rhetoric of "no deal" and their demands of £100bn/ECJ are not good starting positions.
I am going to challenge everyone, as far as I am able, who continues to state that the 'UK agreed to fund the EU current spending round' - it is absolute nonsense.
EU income comes from the Own Resources Decision, which is NOTHING to do with the current spending round - in fact, it applies permanently unless revoked or varied. It is not tied to the spending cycle or budget in any way.
Nation states approve how the EU's 'own resources' are spent, via the EU budget, but by EU treaty and law, the EU can only spend what it has from its 'own resources'. The ORD will end on Brexit for the UK.
By EU law, the UK has no debt whatsoever to the EU after Brexit. The EU know this perfectly well, which is why they are trying to blackmail the UK to agree to the bill before trade talks. Unfortunately, there are far too many in the UK remainers league who are basically in agreement that the EU should be allowed to extort us and that we should agree. Amazing.
I think that's fair and your earlier post was correct as well. We can't walk away without having a really good fist at negotiation and in good faith. Though I do think the £100bn demand is going to look unreasonable to everyone so if we do walk away because they don't reduce the figure to something that passes a sniff test then I think they will come off worse. If they reduce the figure to say £35bn and we walk away because we refuse to pay anything, even stuff we've agreed to in the current spending round them we will come off worse. If both sides are reasonable then we have a good chance of getting a deal done.
“We must ..consciously address the genuine fears and concerns of unionists in a meaningful way".
"We need a new approach, one which unlocks unionist opposition to a new Ireland by reminding them of their historic place here and of the positive contribution they have made to society on this island," Mr Adams said.
"Whilst Mrs May’s rhetoric of ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ has been consigned to the dustbin of history after June 8th, I still think no deal is likely simply because of the complexity of the deal required, and time is very short, with nearly three months of the two year article 50 timetable frittered away with the needless general election "
And to that likelihood you can add the likelihood that the negotiating period will be extended for a few months to allow a deal to be reached. Paddy Power would still have to pay out if that happened.
I am going to challenge everyone, as far as I am able, who continues to state that the 'UK agreed to fund the EU current spending round' - it is absolute nonsense.
EU income comes from the Own Resources Decision, which is NOTHING to do with the current spending round - in fact, it applies permanently unless revoked or varied. It is not tied to the spending cycle or budget in any way.
Nation states approve how the EU's 'own resources' are spent, via the EU budget, but by EU treaty and law, the EU can only spend what it has from its 'own resources'. The ORD will end on Brexit for the UK.
By EU law, the UK has no debt whatsoever to the EU after Brexit. The EU know this perfectly well, which is why they are trying to blackmail the UK to agree to the bill before trade talks. Unfortunately, there are far too many in the UK remainers league who are basically in agreement that the EU should be allowed to extort us and that we should agree. Amazing.
I think that's fair and your earlier post was correct as well. We can't walk away without having a really good fist at negotiation and in good faith. Though I do think the £100bn demand is going to look unreasonable to everyone so if we do walk away because they don't reduce the figure to something that passes a sniff test then I think they will come off worse. If they reduce the figure to say £35bn and we walk away because we refuse to pay anything, even stuff we've agreed to in the current spending round them we will come off worse. If both sides are reasonable then we have a good chance of getting a deal done.
In a technical sense you are right, but in a political sense compromise on the budget until 2021 makes sense and is an easy way of winning friends in the right places. We were signed up to £12bn in net contributions anyway, I don't see what difference it makes.
I agree we should compromise if we receive something of value in return. But we need to be honest. We owe nothing. So if we agree to pay (say) 30bn, we should receive an awful lot of value in return. 30bn is a huge amount of money to pay for a FTA with SM access given that we can get access via the WTO anyway, so it had better be a very good agreement that gives the UK access to services. If not, we should refuse to pay it.
I am going to challenge everyone, as far as I am able, who continues to state that the 'UK agreed to fund the EU current spending round' - it is absolute nonsense.
EU income comes from the Own Resources Decision, which is NOTHING to do with the current spending round - in fact, it applies permanently unless revoked or varied. It is not tied to the spending cycle or budget in any way.
Nation states approve how the EU's 'own resources' are spent, via the EU budget, but by EU treaty and law, the EU can only spend what it has from its 'own resources'. The ORD will end on Brexit for the UK.
By EU law, the UK has no debt whatsoever to the EU after Brexit. The EU know this perfectly well, which is why they are trying to blackmail the UK to agree to the bill before trade talks. Unfortunately, there are far too many in the UK remainers league who are basically in agreement that the EU should be allowed to extort us and that we should agree. Amazing.
I think that's fair and your earlier post was correct as well. We can't walk away without having a really good fist at negotiation and in good faith. Though I do think the £100bn demand is going to look unreasonable to everyone so if we do walk away because they don't reduce the figure to something that passes a sniff test then I think they will come off worse. If they reduce the figure to say £35bn and we walk away because we refuse to pay anything, even stuff we've agreed to in the current spending round them we will come off worse. If both sides are reasonable then we have a good chance of getting a deal done.
In a technical sense you are right, but in a political sense compromise on the budget until 2021 makes sense and is an easy way of winning friends in the right places. We were signed up to £12bn in net contributions anyway, I don't see what difference it makes.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
That doesn't yet apply to Britain.
But after a Corbyn government it might.
From a Conservative perspective that's what you should hope for, because if a British Macron arrives before then, it's the Conservatives who will face the fate of the French Socialist party.
A credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
Today, 52/48 in favour of leave. We are leaving.
Can you imagine what a shambles a second Leave campaign would be? TMay's spectacular fall from grace would be nothing compared to that.
Can you imagine how terrible a remain campaign would be, joining the Euro and Schengen would be a requirement of remain now, it's a non-starter. Only among deluded people like you will the UK ever vote for joining the Euro.
No, really it wouldn't.
The plotters seeking to remove May are already talking about a pre-announced 2019 GE on the deal (Shipman in today's ST). It's only a short step from there to a second referendum.
So many people voted leave as a protest, never expecting it to have any consequences. As the moment of truth approaches, leave would lose support in droves, and any second referendum would remain by at least two to one.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
That doesn't yet apply to Britain.
But after a Corbyn government it might.
From a Conservative perspective that's what you should hope for, because if a British Macron arrives before then, it's the Conservatives who will face the fate of the French Socialist party.
A credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
Today, 52/48 in favour of leave. We are leaving.
Can you imagine what a shambles a second Leave campaign would be? TMay's spectacular fall from grace would be nothing compared to that.
Can you imagine how terrible a remain campaign would be, joining the Euro and Schengen would be a requirement of remain now, it's a non-starter. Only among deluded people like you will the UK ever vote for joining the Euro.
No, really it wouldn't.
The plotters seeking to remove May are already talking about a pre-announced 2019 GE on the deal (Shipman in today's ST). It's only a short step from there to a second referendum.
So many people voted leave as a protest, never expecting it to have any consequences. As the moment of truth approaches, leave would lose support in droves, and any second referendum would remain by at least two to one.
Don't be ridiculous, just today we had a poll with gives it as 52/48 to leave, mirroring the result last year. Labour has signed up to Brexit. The only parties which promised a second referendum got spanked at the election.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
That doesn't yet apply to Britain.
But after a Corbyn government it might.
From a Conservative perspective that's what you should hope for, because if a British Macron arrives before then, it's the Conservatives who will face the fate of the French Socialist party.
A credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
Today, 52/48 in favour of leave. We are leaving.
Can you imagine what a shambles a second Leave campaign would be? TMay's spectacular fall from grace would be nothing compared to that.
Can you imagine how terrible a remain campaign would be, joining the Euro and Schengen would be a requirement of remain now, it's a non-starter. Only among deluded people like you will the UK ever vote for joining the Euro.
No, really it wouldn't.
The plotters seeking to remove May are already talking about a pre-announced 2019 GE on the deal (Shipman in today's ST). It's only a short step from there to a second referendum.
So many people voted leave as a protest, never expecting it to have any consequences. As the moment of truth approaches, leave would lose support in droves, and any second referendum would remain by at least two to one.
Don't be ridiculous, just today we had a poll with gives it as 52/48 to leave, mirroring the result last year. Labour has signed up to Brexit. The only parties which promised a second referendum got spanked at the election.
Support for Brexit is treading water as the policy itself begins to unravel. It's time to smell the coffee.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
That doesn't yet apply to Britain.
But after a Corbyn government it might.
From a Conservative perspective that's what you should hope for, because if a British Macron arrives before then, it's the Conservatives who will face the fate of the French Socialist party.
A credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
Today, 52/48 in favour of leave. We are leaving.
Can you imagine what a shambles a second Leave campaign would be? TMay's spectacular fall from grace would be nothing compared to that.
Can you imagine how terrible a remain campaign would be, joining the Euro and Schengen would be a requirement of remain now, it's a non-starter. Only among deluded people like you will the UK ever vote for joining the Euro.
No, really it wouldn't.
The plotters seeking to remove May are already talking about a pre-announced 2019 GE on the deal (Shipman in today's ST). It's only a short step from there to a second referendum.
So many people voted leave as a protest, never expecting it to have any consequences. As the moment of truth approaches, leave would lose support in droves, and any second referendum would remain by at least two to one.
Don't be ridiculous, just today we had a poll with gives it as 52/48 to leave, mirroring the result last year. Labour has signed up to Brexit. The only parties which promised a second referendum got spanked at the election.
Support for Brexit is treading water as the policy itself begins to unravel. It's time to smell the coffee.
Are moves afoot this weekend for a British Macron?
But after a Corbyn government it might.
credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
Today, 52/48 in favour of leave. We are leaving.
Can you imagine what a shambles a second Leave campaign would be? TMay's spectacular fall from grace would be nothing compared to that.
Can you imagine how terrible a remain campaign would be, joining the Euro and Schengen would be a requirement of remain now, it's a non-starter. Only among deluded people like you will the UK ever vote for joining the Euro.
No, really it wouldn't.
The plotters seeking to remove May are already talking about a pre-announced 2019 GE on the deal (Shipman in today's ST). It's only a short step from there to a second referendum.
So many people voted leave as a protest, never expecting it to have any consequences. As the moment of truth approaches, leave would lose support in droves, and any second referendum would remain by at least two to one.
Don't be ridiculous, just today we had a poll with gives it as 52/48 to leave, mirroring the result last year. Labour has signed up to Brexit. The only parties which promised a second referendum got spanked at the election.
Watch the mood music, follow the trend.
The second vote isn't going to be tomorrow, so any current poll is worthless, as well as being a poll.
A second vote will come when the circumstances are very different, which is why it will be won for Remain. Either in 2019, if public disquiet about the imminent exit reaches irresitable levels or, more likely, at an opportune moment during the extended transitional period of EEA and CU membership that is likely to emerge as the first outcome from the current talks. Under a non Conservative government.
Anti-Brexit sentiment played a part in Labour's surge, as the correlation of its swing with the referendum results illustrates. Despite Corbyn, almost all Labour MPs are anti-Brexit and, in power, simply need the mandate of a second vote to abandon the whole thing. They certainly won't want to implement it and be held accountable for th consequences, for sure.
Are moves afoot this weekend for a British Macron?
But after a Corbyn government it might.
credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
Today, 52/48 in favour of leave. We are leaving.
Can you imagine what a shambles a second Leave campaign would be? TMay's spectacular fall from grace would be nothing compared to that.
Can you imagine how terrible a remain campaign would be, joining the Euro and Schengen would be a requirement of remain now, it's a non-starter. Only among deluded people like you will the UK ever vote for joining the Euro.
No, really it wouldn't.
The plotters seeking to remove May are already talking about a pre-announced 2019 GE on the deal (Shipman in today's ST). It's only a short step from there to a second referendum.
So many people voted leave as a protest, never expecting it to have any consequences. As the moment of truth approaches, leave would lose support in droves, and any second referendum would remain by at least two to one.
Don't be ridiculous, just today we had a poll with gives it as 52/48 to leave, mirroring the result last year. Labour has signed up to Brexit. The only parties which promised a second referendum got spanked at the election.
Watch the mood music, follow the trend.
The second vote isn't going to be tomorrow, so any current poll is worthless, as well as being a poll.
A second vote will come when the circumstances are very different, which is why it will be won for Remain. Either in 2019, if public disquiet about the imminent exit reaches irresitable levels or, more likely, at an opportune moment during the extended transitional period of EEA and CU membership that is likely to emerge as the first outcome from the current talks. Under a non Conservative government.
Anti-Brexit sentiment played a part in Labour's surge, as the correlation of its swing with the referendum results illustrates. Despite Corbyn, almost all Labour MPs are anti-Brexit and, in power, simply need the mandate of a second vote to abandon the whole thing. They certainly won't want to implement it and be held accountable for th consequences, for sure.
The trend since the election has been towards Brexit (though still MOE). Part of the Corbyn effect had been to open up younger voters to a more EUsceptic view from the left.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
That doesn't yet apply to Britain.
But after a Corbyn government it might.
From a Conservative perspective that's what you should hope for, because if a British Macron arrives before then, it's the Conservatives who will face the fate of the French Socialist party.
A credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
Today, 52/48 in favour of leave. We are leaving.
Can you imagine what a shambles a second Leave campaign would be? TMay's spectacular fall from grace would be nothing compared to that.
Can you imagine how terrible a remain campaign would be, joining the Euro and Schengen would be a requirement of remain now, it's a non-starter. Only among deluded people like you will the UK ever vote for joining the Euro.
No, really it wouldn't.
The plotters seeking to remove May are already talking about a pre-announced 2019 GE on the deal (Shipman in today's ST). It's only a short step from there to a second referendum.
So many people voted leave as a protest, never expecting it to have any consequences. As the moment of truth approaches, leave would lose support in droves, and any second referendum would remain by at least two to one.
Don't be ridiculous, just today we had a poll with gives it as 52/48 to leave, mirroring the result last year. Labour has signed up to Brexit. The only parties which promised a second referendum got spanked at the election.
Support for Brexit is treading water as the policy itself begins to unravel. It's time to smell the coffee.
Lol, deluded. As always.
Well, we'll see wont we. Once jobs start disappearing it wont be 52/48 for long.
Today's match between Pakistan and South Africa in the Women's World Cup at Grace Road, Leicester appears to be available to watch live without charge on Sky's website:
Are moves afoot this weekend for a British Macron?
.
.
ing.
Can you imagine what a shambles a second Leave campaign would be?
Can you imagine how terrible a remain campaign would be, joining the Euro and Schengen would be a requirement of remain now, it's a non-starter. Only among deluded people like you will the UK ever vote for joining the Euro.
No, really it wouldn't.
The plotters seeking to remove May are already talking about a pre-announced 2019 GE on the deal (Shipman in today's ST). It's only a short step from there to a second referendum.
So many people voted leave as a protest, never expecting it to have any consequences. As the moment of truth approaches, leave would lose support in droves, and any second referendum would remain by at least two to one.
Don't be ridiculous, just today we had a poll with gives it as 52/48 to leave, mirroring the result last year. Labour has signed up to Brexit. The only parties which promised a second referendum got spanked at the election.
Watch the mood music, follow the trend.
The second vote isn't going to be tomorrow, so any current poll is worthless, as well as being a poll.
A second vote will come when the circumstances are very different, which is why it will be won for Remain. Either in 2019, if public disquiet about the imminent exit reaches irresitable levels or, more likely, at an opportune moment during the extended transitional period of EEA and CU membership that is likely to emerge as the first outcome from the current talks. Under a non Conservative government.
Anti-Brexit sentiment played a part in Labour's surge, as the correlation of its swing with the referendum results illustrates. Despite Corbyn, almost all Labour MPs are anti-Brexit and, in power, simply need the mandate of a second vote to abandon the whole thing. They certainly won't want to implement it and be held accountable for th consequences, for sure.
The trend since the election has been towards Brexit (though still MOE). Part of the Corbyn effect had been to open up younger voters to a more EUsceptic view from the left.
Now you are being ridiculous. Try actually speaking to younger voters!
The country has in effect already decided to take a different political direction; you can feel it everywhere. It is just a question of when this is confirmed by voting and the parliamentary arithmetic.
I don't know why anyone is looking at Brexit opinion polls. Even if 48% of people still think it was the wrong decision, the majority of those do not wish to see the democratic will of the people overturned.
My personal view is that, if the UK economy remains relatively strong - or even strengthens relative to the EU - then the number supporting Brexit will rise.
On the other hand, if we enter a serious recession, and people start losing their jobs (and blame Brexit), then you could see a backlash against Brexit.
I don't know why anyone is looking at Brexit opinion polls. Even if 48% of people still think it was the wrong decision, the majority of those do not wish to see the democratic will of the people overturned.
My personal view is that, if the UK economy remains relatively strong - or even strengthens relative to the EU - then the number supporting Brexit will rise.
On the other hand, if we enter a serious recession, and people start losing their jobs (and blame Brexit), then you could see a backlash against Brexit.
But you are not saying that Brexit itself is a neutral factor as regards our economic well-being, are you?
I don't know why anyone is looking at Brexit opinion polls. Even if 48% of people still think it was the wrong decision, the majority of those do not wish to see the democratic will of the people overturned.
My personal view is that, if the UK economy remains relatively strong - or even strengthens relative to the EU - then the number supporting Brexit will rise.
On the other hand, if we enter a serious recession, and people start losing their jobs (and blame Brexit), then you could see a backlash against Brexit.
'...the democratic will of the people' - on average it was pretty much a 'don't know'. Apart from that I agree.
BMW may well put pressure on the German government if it is the EU27 that is seen to be making unreasonable demands. But it has to be seen in the EU27. That means a complete change of tone and attitude on the British side - and no more willy-waving for domestic consumption. Right now, British public opinion is worthless for the UK in terms of leverage.
If Brexit breaks down the likes of BMW will just live with it. Mini production could quite simple be transferred to Born in the Netherlands or Leipzig. As for dealing with the potential loss of sales they will merely focus on the emerging markets to more than make up for potential lost sales in the UK.
All UK car manufacturers if they so wished could move production in the blink of an eye. Peugeot moved 206 production from Ryton to Poissy quite freely 10 years ago. Nissan could move everything from Sunderland to an under used Renault plant such as Flins or Palencia in much the same way.
But we have the secondary suppliers in the UK! But supplier parts are interchangeable and international. Bosch, Valeo, Siemens, Continental, Ate, Brembo etc.etc. Let us face it the lights are almost out at the Ford Engine plant. Valencia beckons!
This potential catastrophe is not unique to the automotive sector. All manufacturing could be subject to similar moves. If shareholder revenues will be maximised by quitting the UK they quit!
Davis' bravado is plainly wishful thinking.
You are correct that production isn't hard to move.
The EU proved that in 2016 when then they loaned Ford £80m (including £10m of UK taxpayers money) to move production from Southampton to Turkey.
This loan was signed off by the EU bank governors including ... George Osborne.
Very clear 'No ECJ' and EU Citizens would have 'identical rights to Brits, except voting rights, which they can get by becoming British.
What about that is not fair?
Nothing, as far as I can see. But EU wants superior rights for EU citizens and extra-territorial jurisdiction for the ECJ.
When I'm interviewing for staff there are certain questions I'm not legally allowed to ask because the law thinks I won't judge them "fairly".
Under a system where one equally qualified candidate has more legal 'rights' than another - which one am I likely to instantly discard?
It's therefore inevitable that (under at least employment law) your ECJ preferential status would need to become private and hidden. Which would further stoke resentment of a Fifth Column.
If we allow some residents to be bound by a different juristriction how long before some residents demand to be ruled by Shariah law.....that is what REMOANERS are in effect calling for.
If we allow some residents to be bound by a different juristriction how long before some residents demand to be ruled by Shariah law.....that is what REMOANERS are in effect calling for.
I think SO has previously called it an unreasonable demand.
Thinking of getting a couple of Nintendo Switches at the airport, could be a good way to waste all of the time we're going to spend on planes in the next two weeks. Any decent two player games other than Mario Kart?
Thinking of getting a couple of Nintendo Switches at the airport, could be a good way to waste all of the time we're going to spend on planes in the next two weeks. Any decent two player games other than Mario Kart?
Robert disappeared from here the other evening when it was quiet to play - I think - ARMS, which is multiplayer fighting.
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
They will get away with it until May (or whoever) has the bollox and nous to debate it.
I share your despair.
It is beyond May to be fair but it is not relevant until or unless a GE becomes likely at which time the conservatives will have a new leader, Vince Cable likely leader of the Lib Dems will talke Corbyn economics apart, and no one shares his view of 26% corporation tax including the SNP
Under Thatcher Corporation Tax ranged from 35% to 52%. In other Western economies it remains above 26% today!
If we allow some residents to be bound by a different juristriction how long before some residents demand to be ruled by Shariah law.....that is what REMOANERS are in effect calling for.
I think SO has previously called it an unreasonable demand.
Are moves afoot this weekend for a British Macron?
But after a Corbyn government it might.
credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
Today, 52/48 in favour of leave. We are leaving.
Can you imagine what a shambles a second Leave campaign would be? TMay's spectacular fall from grace would be nothing compared to that.
Can you imagine how terrible a remain campaign would be, joining the Euro and Schengen would be a requirement of remain now, it's a non-starter. Only among deluded people like you will the UK ever vote for joining the Euro.
No, really it wouldn't.
The plotters seeking to remove May are already talking about a pre-announced 2019 GE on the deal (Shipman in today's ST). It's only a short step from there to a second referendum.
So many people voted leave as a protest, never expecting it to have any consequences. As the moment of truth approaches, leave would lose support in droves, and any second referendum would remain by at least two to one.
Don't be ridiculous, just today we had a poll with gives it as 52/48 to leave, mirroring the result last year. Labour has signed up to Brexit. The only parties which promised a second referendum got spanked at the election.
Watch the mood music, follow the trend.
The second vote isn't going to be tomorrow, so any current poll is worthless, as well as being a poll.
A second vote will come when the circumstances are very different, which is why it will be won for Remain. Either in 2019, if public disquiet about the imminent exit reaches irresitable levels or, more likely, at an opportune moment during the extended transitional period of EEA and CU membership that is likely to emerge as the first outcome from the current talks. Under a non Conservative government.
Anti-Brexit sentiment played a part in Labour's surge, as the correlation of its swing with the referendum results illustrates. Despite Corbyn, almost all Labour MPs are anti-Brexit and, in power, simply need the mandate of a second vote to abandon the whole thing. They certainly won't want to implement it and be held accountable for th consequences, for sure.
You are correct that production isn't hard to move.
The EU proved that in 2016 when then they loaned Ford £80m (including £10m of UK taxpayers money) to move production from Southampton to Turkey.
This loan was signed off by the EU bank governors including ... George Osborne.
In practice production is more likely to move into the UK than out, given that we're not starting from a level playing field where UK exports to the UK match imports from the EU.
At the moment the balance of trade in goods is roughly that there are two imports from the EU for every one export to the EU in terms of value. So to illustrate the potential consequences, consider an extreme theoretical case where literally all EU manufacturing were sourced outside of the UK. Then those EU manufacturers would gain no further competitive advantage in mainland EU markets but thanks to tariff barriers be at a huge competitive disadvantage in the event that any new manufacturer sprung up in the UK to compete in those markets.
We are not quite at that theoretical point, but such are the current trade imbalances that it is hard to see an overall reduction in the volume of trade serving to increase rather than reduce the balance of trade with the EU. Let's say the overall volume of trade halved - then even if UK exports fell by 50% so long as imports from the EU fell by 25% the balance of payments would be unchanged.
In practice, car manufacturers with assembly plants in the UK are going to find it far easier to sell vehicles competitively in the UK, while their EU based plants will become geared more towards EU markets. The trade too and fro in both directions between supplier markets will no doubt also be granted some dispensation such that the UK will grant dispensation to allow tariffs on UK imports to be used to offset EU tariffs on UK exports. Manufacturers with plants solely on the EU mainland won't have that advantage.
Those effects of tariffs on price competition might quite possibly be enhanced by consumer attitudes. I think that UK consumers will become more economically nationalistic, moving closer into line with the attitudes of French consumers now, given the fallout from what will be perceived as the EU's unwillingness to strike a deal in both parties interests.
I don't know why anyone is looking at Brexit opinion polls. Even if 48% of people still think it was the wrong decision, the majority of those do not wish to see the democratic will of the people overturned.
My personal view is that, if the UK economy remains relatively strong - or even strengthens relative to the EU - then the number supporting Brexit will rise.
On the other hand, if we enter a serious recession, and people start losing their jobs (and blame Brexit), then you could see a backlash against Brexit.
But you are not saying that Brexit itself is a neutral factor as regards our economic well-being, are you?
Brexit is fairly neutral IMO because what people are chasing is the best source of money / work / jobs. As long as the economy delivers, no one will worry, but if it looks like staying the in the EU will deliver more money / work / jobs then the EU will be the flavour of the moment and Brexit in trouble.
People just want predictability and security and whatever supplies it will be in favour
Labour won big among younger voters, but a substantial number still voted Conservative. It was the loss of support among 35-44 year olds, and lower turnout among older voters that cost the majority.
Comments
Unfortunately British negotiating strategy has for many years consisted of posturing beforehand, surrendering in the negotiations and then lying afterwards.
I don't have much confidence.
I think you'll find that youth unemployment will rise somewhat shall we say.
Major's government was brought down because of 'Tory sleaze' and nasty-party stuff like Peter Lilley's infamous 'little list'. Even with the recession and the subsequent ERM debacle, plus Blair abandoning Clause 4, Labour did not lead on economic competence. Those events only neutralised the Conservatives' advantage, but it was their tiredness in office that did them in, not the actions of the few remaining sane figures in government like Major, Clarke and Hesteltine.
I'm not so sure about the % of those who've left home at 16 vs in later years..............
Joining the Euro at a much higher exchange rate would likely have done crippling economic damage to Britain.
The last recession would certainly have been deeper and longer with perhaps the whole banking system crashing.
If we'd joined the Euro at a relatively high exchange rate we'd have faced the same choices as Germany and would probably have reached the same conclusions much sooner about how to ensure sustainably high wage levels in a globalising world.
This idea that BMW will convince the entire EU to go soft [ remember, it is Britain who is leaving the EU ] is laughable. I drive a BMW and if it is 10% dearer , I will still buy a new BMW. I have very little choice. In any case, I will only drive a BMW.
It was ironic that the strong economic performance from 1993 onwards was a result of the government implementing an EU-sceptic economic policy, against their will and despite all their previous predictions of disaster if it was tried. It was not surprising that they reaped little electoral support as a consequence.
As to Hague, he had no chance of electoral victory as a result of the strong economy Labour had inherited and their initial competence and moderation in government. Still his campaign did ensure that Britain couldn't be bounced into the Euro without a referendum - something the likes of Clarke and Heseltine wanted.
As for BMWs, a lot seem to have non-working indicator lights!
They went off to party like they'd found the PIN code on Uncle Germany's credit card, only to find Uncle Germany wasn't paying for the fun after all.
I'm afraid we'd have done an Ireland only fifteen times or so bigger.
The UK housing bubble would have been even larger followed by an even larger bust.
Anyway, I must be off. I dislike slightly off start times. It's 2pm for today's race.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/06/23/win-back-younger-voters-conservatives-must-present-case-against/
It probably needed a combination of Brown's personal hostility to Blair, Balls putting an intellectual spin on it and the Conservatives being hostile to the Euro.
https://twitter.com/PCollinsTimes/status/878875985369812992
I even heard a dinner party conversation recently of the "you'll never guess how much X sold their house for" kind.
It was worryingly reminiscent of the mid 2000s.
Fundamentally my issue is a philosophical one: I hate it when people compare numbers that are not strictly comparable.
Ideally, I would like to see a split like this:
Employed (full time)
Employed (part time/ZHC)
Self employed
Aprenticeship/training
Education
Not claiming benefits or looking for work
Unemployed
We could then also see if some countries suppressed their youth unemployment rate by making benefits hard to collect, or if young people struggled to find full time jobs.
What Macron required was a discredited Establishment Right and a discredited Establishment Left plus a significant hard left and a significant hard right.
That doesn't yet apply to Britain.
But after a Corbyn government it might.
' The level and rate of UK unemployment measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) using a definition of unemployment specified by the International Labour Organisation. Unemployed people as those without a job who have been actively seeking work in the past 4 weeks and are available to start work in the next 2 weeks. It also includes those who are out of work but have found a job and are waiting to start it in the next 2 weeks. '
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment
Leavers often seem to assume that the EU will collapse, as if the UK will somehow be the first domino. The reality is that our departure has already strengthened the EU and our mistake will ensure that the rest of it sticks more successfully together. All we are achieving is to destroy much of remaining influence that our country still has on the world stage. Sadly, life on the edge of the EU will prove a long way from the illusory vision of our taking back control.
A credible centre-right pro-European movement will come, as it did after Suez. The only question is whether the Conservatives will be the ones leading the charge.
Really ? 290bn / 27 = £11bn per nation. So, £11bn vs £230bn.
In terms of GDP, the ratio is almost the same. We have far more to lose than they have including the large countries. Only Germany, France, the Netherlands, Ireland are relatively big exporters to us. The East Europeans are more interested in FoM.
Now what happened to this bunch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Euro_Conservative_Party
Hasn't the last few years told you not to make assumptions ?
All UK car manufacturers if they so wished could move production in the blink of an eye. Peugeot moved 206 production from Ryton to Poissy quite freely 10 years ago. Nissan could move everything from Sunderland to an under used Renault plant such as Flins or Palencia in much the same way.
But we have the secondary suppliers in the UK! But supplier parts are interchangeable and international. Bosch, Valeo, Siemens, Continental, Ate, Brembo etc.etc. Let us face it the lights are almost out at the Ford Engine plant. Valencia beckons!
This potential catastrophe is not unique to the automotive sector. All manufacturing could be subject to similar moves. If shareholder revenues will be maximised by quitting the UK they quit!
Davis' bravado is plainly wishful thinking.
What isn't helpful is going into negotiations in bad faith or at least looking like we are, I think that's where the EU and Theresa have failed so far. Our rhetoric of "no deal" and their demands of £100bn/ECJ are not good starting positions.
EU income comes from the Own Resources Decision, which is NOTHING to do with the current spending round - in fact, it applies permanently unless revoked or varied. It is not tied to the spending cycle or budget in any way.
Nation states approve how the EU's 'own resources' are spent, via the EU budget, but by EU treaty and law, the EU can only spend what it has from its 'own resources'. The ORD will end on Brexit for the UK.
By EU law, the UK has no debt whatsoever to the EU after Brexit. The EU know this perfectly well, which is why they are trying to blackmail the UK to agree to the bill before trade talks. Unfortunately, there are far too many in the UK remainers league who are basically in agreement that the EU should be allowed to extort us and that we should agree. Amazing.
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/sinn-fein-president-gerry-adams-says-end-to-partition-of-ireland-in-a-few-short-years
“We must ..consciously address the genuine fears and concerns of unionists in a meaningful way".
"We need a new approach, one which unlocks unionist opposition to a new Ireland by reminding them of their historic place here and of the positive contribution they have made to society on this island," Mr Adams said.
And to that likelihood you can add the likelihood that the negotiating period will be extended for a few months to allow a deal to be reached. Paddy Power would still have to pay out if that happened.
The plotters seeking to remove May are already talking about a pre-announced 2019 GE on the deal (Shipman in today's ST). It's only a short step from there to a second referendum.
So many people voted leave as a protest, never expecting it to have any consequences. As the moment of truth approaches, leave would lose support in droves, and any second referendum would remain by at least two to one.
https://twitter.com/inthenow_tweet/status/877990737530372097
The second vote isn't going to be tomorrow, so any current poll is worthless, as well as being a poll.
A second vote will come when the circumstances are very different, which is why it will be won for Remain. Either in 2019, if public disquiet about the imminent exit reaches irresitable levels or, more likely, at an opportune moment during the extended transitional period of EEA and CU membership that is likely to emerge as the first outcome from the current talks. Under a non Conservative government.
Anti-Brexit sentiment played a part in Labour's surge, as the correlation of its swing with the referendum results illustrates. Despite Corbyn, almost all Labour MPs are anti-Brexit and, in power, simply need the mandate of a second vote to abandon the whole thing. They certainly won't want to implement it and be held accountable for th consequences, for sure.
Today's match between Pakistan and South Africa in the Women's World Cup at Grace Road, Leicester appears to be available to watch live without charge on Sky's website:
http://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12123/10926420/watch-pak-women-v-sa-women-live-stream
The country has in effect already decided to take a different political direction; you can feel it everywhere. It is just a question of when this is confirmed by voting and the parliamentary arithmetic.
Needing 60 off 15 overs
StanJames 10/11
DYOR
http://www.conservativehome.com/video/2017/06/watch-davis-eu-nationals-will-have-effectively-the-same-rights-as-british-citizens.html
Very clear 'No ECJ' and EU Citizens would have 'identical rights to Brits, except voting rights, which they can get by becoming British.
My personal view is that, if the UK economy remains relatively strong - or even strengthens relative to the EU - then the number supporting Brexit will rise.
On the other hand, if we enter a serious recession, and people start losing their jobs (and blame Brexit), then you could see a backlash against Brexit.
Anyone who followed me in on my Mixed Martial Arts bets using the suggested Patent yesterday would have achieved a return (on WH odds) of +26%
Apart from that I agree.
The EU proved that in 2016 when then they loaned Ford £80m (including £10m of UK taxpayers money) to move production from Southampton to Turkey.
This loan was signed off by the EU bank governors including ... George Osborne.
Under a system where one equally qualified candidate has more legal 'rights' than another - which one am I likely to instantly discard?
It's therefore inevitable that (under at least employment law) your ECJ preferential status would need to become private and hidden. Which would further stoke resentment of a Fifth Column.
He does have form for quixotic walkouts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/fame-fortune/lord-david-steel-party-leader-terrified-questions-budget/
See the 2nd photo, supposedly of David Steel...
I did ask him directly yesterday. No answer.
At the moment the balance of trade in goods is roughly that there are two imports from the EU for every one export to the EU in terms of value. So to illustrate the potential consequences, consider an extreme theoretical case where literally all EU manufacturing were sourced outside of the UK. Then those EU manufacturers would gain no further competitive advantage in mainland EU markets but thanks to tariff barriers be at a huge competitive disadvantage in the event that any new manufacturer sprung up in the UK to compete in those markets.
We are not quite at that theoretical point, but such are the current trade imbalances that it is hard to see an overall reduction in the volume of trade serving to increase rather than reduce the balance of trade with the EU. Let's say the overall volume of trade halved - then even if UK exports fell by 50% so long as imports from the EU fell by 25% the balance of payments would be unchanged.
In practice, car manufacturers with assembly plants in the UK are going to find it far easier to sell vehicles competitively in the UK, while their EU based plants will become geared more towards EU markets. The trade too and fro in both directions between supplier markets will no doubt also be granted some dispensation such that the UK will grant dispensation to allow tariffs on UK imports to be used to offset EU tariffs on UK exports. Manufacturers with plants solely on the EU mainland won't have that advantage.
Those effects of tariffs on price competition might quite possibly be enhanced by consumer attitudes. I think that UK consumers will become more economically nationalistic, moving closer into line with the attitudes of French consumers now, given the fallout from what will be perceived as the EU's unwillingness to strike a deal in both parties interests.
People just want predictability and security and whatever supplies it will be in favour