A few years ago I was in Japan, at a very posh ski resort called Hakuba. By the side of the slopes were some very nice Alpine cabins owned by the Tokyo jet set. On the eve of the Nagano Olympics in 1998, these cabins of perhaps 1,400 square feet changed hands for $5m. They can now be bought for just $500,000. Small differences in supply and demand can make big differences to price.
Another example: Hong Kong. There's very limited space, it's an international city, there's substantial net migration and very large numbers of both Chinese and foreigners want to live there. Between 1997 and 2003, prices fell 70%.
I mention these things because there is good reason to think that UK - and particularly London - house prices will come down a long way.
And that'll be good for people in their late 20s and early 30s who haven't bought homes. And it'll be absolutely awful for those who are mortgaged up to their eyeballs. They would never forgive the government.
And there was you saying I'd played the London housing market perfectly...
A few years ago I was in Japan, at a very posh ski resort called Hakuba. By the side of the slopes were some very nice Alpine cabins owned by the Tokyo jet set. On the eve of the Nagano Olympics in 1998, these cabins of perhaps 1,400 square feet changed hands for $5m. They can now be bought for just $500,000. Small differences in supply and demand can make big differences to price.
And that'll be good for people in their late 20s and early 30s who haven't bought homes. And it'll be absolutely awful for those who are mortgaged up to their eyeballs. They would never forgive the government.
Well, good unless as a consequence they can't.
In house price crashes several things happen that all make buying cheap houses harder (for some people) than before.
1/ Nobody knows when the crash is over until a few years afterwards, so buyers don't want to buy in case prices worsen, and discretionary sellers don't want to sell in case prices improve. So the amount of stock falls, and so do transactions. In 1990, a two-bedroom flat in Little Venice that was £150k in 1988 could be had for £120k. Except it couldn't, because there were none for sale. Ask me how I know.
2/ Next, mortgage lenders want bigger deposits because a 10% deposit and 10% annual depreciation turns a 90% mortgage into a 100% mortgage (and after 2 years into a 110% mortgage). They also curb the salary multiples they'll consider, for the same reason.
3/ The ability to amass such deposits falls, however, because equity has been eroded among existing owners. Among FTBs and non-owners the problem is that their rent goes up. If you can avoid a £10k loss by paying £9k more rent, that's what you do.
4/ We saw all the above in 1988 to 1996. An extra bit of spice this time is that if house prices halved, and volumes halved as well, stamp duty would have to quadruple. That can only mean higher levels further down, so see 3/. Alternatively borrowing or some other tax would have to go up.
The above is without considering the implications of higher rates should those be a factor in triggering this conjectural crash.
If crashes were good and benign things they'd be called something like puppies, or unicorns, or something.
House price crashes are extremely painful, as you say. Nevertheless if you look around post-2008, those places that had them early (which is most of them), such as the US, Ireland, Spain, are in a better place as far as capital valuations are concerned than are we with our Osborne-extended bubble.
No disagreement there, although I'd contend that Spain's (and Ireland's) correction was hugely worsened by excessive building beforehand - undertaken, ironically, by the idea that more supply was obviously required to bring euro-adoption-driven prices down.
On topic, the next Conservative leader is going to need to be able to lead, rather than simply embody the default prejudices of the average Conservative. By that test, Boris Johnson looks the most suited to the role, for all his many flaws.
Going through the project stages: (1) unbridled enthusiasm; (2) mounting concern; (3) outright panic; (4) hunt for the guilty; (5) punishment of the innocent; (6) promotion of the uninvolved. On that basis Boris Johnson is too involved to be next leader and someone who is in a department that has relatively little to do with Brexit should be considered and who has stuck pretty much to the oscillating party line on Brexit. I am going for Sajid Javid*, who has had a good press for his competence on the Grenfell Tower incident.
* Another possibility is Jeremy Hunt but he has some baggage and may not be seen as a "safe pair of hands"
Sajid Javid is a Thatcherite who helped to lead the 'bonfire of the regulations'.
The word 'bonfire' may have been in bad taste, given what's been happening.
Merkel and Macron have announced a project to create a next generation European fighter jet that would replace the existing Rafales and Eurofighters.
Will BAE find themselves out in the cold?
The future is drones. There's an Anglo-Dutch startup* which is working on a fighter drone that is more maneuverable, faster, doesn't have to worry about pulling Gs, can refuel itself in mid-air, and can loiter for days at a time. It also doesn't need all the stuff to keep the pilot alive, so it's smaller and stealthier than a traditional plane.
The Eurofighter, the F35, etc., are all white elephants who won't stand a chance against the next generation of drones.
* I say start-up, but they've raised billions
May I remind you of Duncan Sandys, who sixty years ago said we could do without manned aircraft and the future was missiles?
It's the HS2 is useless because we'll all be working in VR offices argument. By all means watch Tomorrow's World when putting your infrastructure project together, but don't rely on it.
You'll get many more White Elephants going down that route than if you remain substantially grounded in a nearer future based on current trends.
+1
But it's not necessarily a popular view on here.
When it comes to military aircraft, we'll end up with a mixture: some combat drones, and manned aircraft. However many, if not all, of the 'manned' aircraft will be able to, for certain dangerous missions, be unmanned. But that'll apply more to bombing roles than air combat.
A few years ago I was in Japan, at a very posh ski resort called Hakuba. By the side of the slopes were some very nice Alpine cabins owned by the Tokyo jet set. On the eve of the Nagano Olympics in 1998, these cabins of perhaps 1,400 square feet changed hands for $5m. They can now be bought for just $500,000. Small differences in supply and demand can make big differences to price.
Another example: Hong Kong. There's very limited space, it's an international city, there's substantial net migration and very large numbers of both Chinese and foreigners want to live there. Between 1997 and 2003, prices fell 70%.
I mention these things because there is good reason to think that UK - and particularly London - house prices will come down a long way.
And that'll be good for people in their late 20s and early 30s who haven't bought homes. And it'll be absolutely awful for those who are mortgaged up to their eyeballs. They would never forgive the government.
And there was you saying I'd played the London housing market perfectly...
I've just been reading a couple of books, and it's staggering to think that the electron was discovered only 120 years ago, the atomic nucleus 106, and the neutron 85.
We've come a long way since then, but the 1900-1950 period must have seen one of the biggest rates of change in science and engineering ever. Probably society as well.
I heard the discovery of fire was a pretty big moment
Merkel and Macron have announced a project to create a next generation European fighter jet that would replace the existing Rafales and Eurofighters.
Will BAE find themselves out in the cold?
The future is drones. There's an Anglo-Dutch startup* which is working on a fighter drone that is more maneuverable, faster, doesn't have to worry about pulling Gs, can refuel itself in mid-air, and can loiter for days at a time. It also doesn't need all the stuff to keep the pilot alive, so it's smaller and stealthier than a traditional plane.
The Eurofighter, the F35, etc., are all white elephants who won't stand a chance against the next generation of drones.
* I say start-up, but they've raised billions
Interesting - so France and Germany are collaborating on the Hindenburg while others are looking into jet engines, in effect.
Merkel and Macron have announced a project to create a next generation European fighter jet that would replace the existing Rafales and Eurofighters.
Will BAE find themselves out in the cold?
The future is drones. There's an Anglo-Dutch startup* which is working on a fighter drone that is more maneuverable, faster, doesn't have to worry about pulling Gs, can refuel itself in mid-air, and can loiter for days at a time. It also doesn't need all the stuff to keep the pilot alive, so it's smaller and stealthier than a traditional plane.
The Eurofighter, the F35, etc., are all white elephants who won't stand a chance against the next generation of drones.
* I say start-up, but they've raised billions
Drones are a fantastic way to go so long as their command and control comms are not disrupted. I mean, who would do such a thing?
These drones are much, much more autonomous. They're not flown by people on the ground, they get general instructions from them.
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Merkel and Macron have announced a project to create a next generation European fighter jet that would replace the existing Rafales and Eurofighters.
Will BAE find themselves out in the cold?
The future is drones. There's an Anglo-Dutch startup* which is working on a fighter drone that is more maneuverable, faster, doesn't have to worry about pulling Gs, can refuel itself in mid-air, and can loiter for days at a time. It also doesn't need all the stuff to keep the pilot alive, so it's smaller and stealthier than a traditional plane.
The Eurofighter, the F35, etc., are all white elephants who won't stand a chance against the next generation of drones.
* I say start-up, but they've raised billions
May I remind you of Duncan Sandys, who sixty years ago said we could do without manned aircraft and the future was missiles?
The only reason we're developing another generation of manned fighters is the ex fighter jocks who now run the airforces can't bear not to. For once (or once again, depending on your perspective), rcs1k is right.
A few years ago I was in Japan, at a very posh ski resort called Hakuba. By the side of the slopes were some very nice Alpine cabins owned by the Tokyo jet set. On the eve of the Nagano Olympics in 1998, these cabins of perhaps 1,400 square feet changed hands for $5m. They can now be bought for just $500,000. Small differences in supply and demand can make big differences to price.
Another example: Hong Kong. There's very limited space, it's an international city, there's substantial net migration and very large numbers of both Chinese and foreigners want to live there. Between 1997 and 2003, prices fell 70%.
I mention these things because there is good reason to think that UK - and particularly London - house prices will come down a long way.
And that'll be good for people in their late 20s and early 30s who haven't bought homes. And it'll be absolutely awful for those who are mortgaged up to their eyeballs. They would never forgive the government.
And there was you saying I'd played the London housing market perfectly...
Repeat after me, it's a home not an investment...
Indeed it is. I'd expect my daughter will live here after I'm gone, because no one really needs much more.
I'm just disappointed that I've only got 4 more years on my fixed rate...
There is both VAT and customs duty liable on goods arriving in the UK from outside the European Union. I think that both of these charges have some percentage sent to Brussels.
No disagreement there, although I'd contend that Spain's (and Ireland's) correction was hugely worsened by excessive building beforehand - undertaken, ironically, by the idea that more supply was obviously required to bring euro-adoption-driven prices down.
The Spanish boom of the early and mid 2000s was almost entirely property driven. Spain sold apartments to Germans, and that brought capital into the country that enabled them to live beyond their means.
Nowadays we do similarly: only we're selling off plan London apartments to Singaporean dentists.
Merkel and Macron have announced a project to create a next generation European fighter jet that would replace the existing Rafales and Eurofighters.
Will BAE find themselves out in the cold?
The future is drones. There's an Anglo-Dutch startup* which is working on a fighter drone that is more maneuverable, faster, doesn't have to worry about pulling Gs, can refuel itself in mid-air, and can loiter for days at a time. It also doesn't need all the stuff to keep the pilot alive, so it's smaller and stealthier than a traditional plane.
The Eurofighter, the F35, etc., are all white elephants who won't stand a chance against the next generation of drones.
* I say start-up, but they've raised billions
May I remind you of Duncan Sandys, who sixty years ago said we could do without manned aircraft and the future was missiles?
The only reason we're developing another generation of manned fighters is the ex fighter jocks who now run the airforces can't bear not to. For once (or once again, depending on your perspective), rcs1k is right.
It was very clear Scotland would have to do so had IndyRef gone yes.
Yes of course, because it would have been by agreement with the UK. Naturally as part of that we'd have insisted on them taking on debt.
This is different. there is little net EU debt to speak of, and we are leaving according the Article 50 provisions. These simply say that the treaties cease to apply on Brexit date. End of story, in the absence of any agreement otherwise. If those drafting Article 50 had wanted to include some guff about liabilities, they could have done so. They didn't.
I 100% agree. However, given that the EU, the EU27, and the UK will all disagree about this, the only way of getting a ruling on whether the UK does owe billions in compensation to the EU will be to ask the CJEU.
..it is important to agree future ownership and liabilities for.. equipment..owned by Euratom and located in the UK.
Bland in itself, but to my eyes a full concession by the UK of the need for a line item reckoning when leaving.
So, at the most basic level, HMG accepts there will be a Brexit financial settlement.
However, as this example demonstrates, there will not be a cash number agreed in the first negotiation. That is because many of the asset transfers are predicated on the future relationship. Even assuming the UK is leaving Euratom there are two possibilities, the assets transfer to the UK or Euratom retains a UK presence. The settlement is different in each case.
No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS
You may have summarised a large proportion of the Leave vote. No wonder Remain lost
(Not serious, but it was too good to miss)
:-)
I didn't actually vote because I thought both campaigns were piss-poor and unworthy of support. So I consider myself neutral, in that I still do. The fact that it's all going mammaries skywards now can be seen to underscore and validate both the Leave claim that control has been lost (otherwise why would it be so hard to leave) and the Remain argument that it's more difficult than was acknowledged.
But what evidence is there the £350 million "lie" was decisive? For all we know, the vote was only as close as it was because people believed the "instant recession if we leave" Remain "lie". If they hadn't it might have been 55:45.
It reminds me of legal cases one reads about, in which the appealing defendant wants to argue that it was some trivial error in the evidence against him that swayed the jury, and that absent those, he'd have got off. Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
I've just been reading a couple of books, and it's staggering to think that the electron was discovered only 120 years ago, the atomic nucleus 106, and the neutron 85.
We've come a long way since then, but the 1900-1950 period must have seen one of the biggest rates of change in science and engineering ever. Probably society as well.
I heard the discovery of fire was a pretty big moment
(Pedant mode on)
Surely 'the discovery of how to create fire' ?
Though the start of farming has to be a biggie as well.
As it happens, we've regressed. I bet the majority of teenagers wouldn't know how to start a fire even with a matchbox, and they'd starve if left alone on a farm ...
No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS
But there is no intelligence test at the ballot box.
Stupid people are allowed to vote
With all due respect, Scott, your first comment is a matter of opinion and your second probably has a lot to do with why your side lost.
Something almost all sales trainers tell salesmen is not to disparage the customer's existing supplier, as this amounts to telling the customer he is stupid. People you insult have little incentive to want to please you; quite the reverse.
"The Commission says the rebate is no longer necessary, but UK officials say the justification remains - UK payments to the EU kitty are disproportionately high, with the Treasury paying twice as much to the EU budget as France, and one and a half times as much as Germany."
"A new EU levy on European banks - a 'Financial Transactions Tax'" to go to Brussels...
"At the moment 0.3 per cent of VAT in every pound spent goes directly towards EU funding. But Brussels politicians are planning to raise the levy to 1.3 per cent"...
So the £350 million a week is probably an underestimate.
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Dream on.
I can only agree with this. Too many remainers think a second referendum will solve all problems. We'll vote to Remain, and that will be that.
I seriously doubt that. Even if (somehow) it's 60:40 to Remain in the second referendum then how would you counter the following:
Leavers saying "Best of three"
Leavers saying "This is nothing more than an attempt to subvert the first referendum result 'EU style', in voting until we get the answer we want."
It's hard not to at least see that point of view. It's also hard to see how to prevent UKIP suddenly climbing to 35-40% in the polls (which will tend towards landslide in 2022) except by either the cancellation, or simple outright rigging, of future elections.
A second referendum (if offered) should be a choice of:
'Accept Deal (EEA/EFTA/other) as negotiated' or 'Crash out to WTO'
Remain should NOT be on the ballot.
Leaving the EU might well be an economic disaster for the country. I'm even prepared to accept it will be. Not leaving will be a political disaster, and depending on how people react (civil disobedience, general strikes), could lead to an economic disaster anyway.
Merkel and Macron have announced a project to create a next generation European fighter jet that would replace the existing Rafales and Eurofighters.
Will BAE find themselves out in the cold?
The future is drones. There's an Anglo-Dutch startup* which is working on a fighter drone that is more maneuverable, faster, doesn't have to worry about pulling Gs, can refuel itself in mid-air, and can loiter for days at a time. It also doesn't need all the stuff to keep the pilot alive, so it's smaller and stealthier than a traditional plane.
The Eurofighter, the F35, etc., are all white elephants who won't stand a chance against the next generation of drones.
* I say start-up, but they've raised billions
May I remind you of Duncan Sandys, who sixty years ago said we could do without manned aircraft and the future was missiles?
The only reason we're developing another generation of manned fighters is the ex fighter jocks who now run the airforces can't bear not to. For once (or once again, depending on your perspective), rcs1k is right.
Did the Iranians 'hack' it, or did it come down of it's own accord? Make your guess.
That's the big reason why the US and others will have at least one top-of-the-range manned fighter platform: the risk of hacking, or computers making the wrong decisions on sensitive missions, are too great. If the enemy finds a way into your datalink/encryption, or your craft are useless. Worse than that, they could turn them against you. That's not necessarily the case with manned craft.
"The Commission says the rebate is no longer necessary, but UK officials say the justification remains - UK payments to the EU kitty are disproportionately high, with the Treasury paying twice as much to the EU budget as France, and one and a half times as much as Germany."
"A new EU levy on European banks - a 'Financial Transactions Tax'" to go to Brussels...
"At the moment 0.3 per cent of VAT in every pound spent goes directly towards EU funding. But Brussels politicians are planning to raise the levy to 1.3 per cent"...
So the £350 million a week is probably an underestimate.
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Dream on.
I can only agree with this. Too many remainers think a second referendum will solve all problems. We'll vote to Remain, and that will be that.
I seriously doubt that. Even if (somehow) it's 60:40 to Remain in the second referendum then how would you counter the following:
I honestly do not get this idea that £350 million for the NHS was some sort of lie.
Given that we (well, others - I abstained) were not voting for a government, the "for the NHS" tag was clearly a suggestion, not a promise by anyone, because a Leave vote would not put anybody into a position to implement it. It would just make it possible, if the government wanted to do that.
And re the amount, well, yes, some of the £350 million comes back, so perhaps the net figure applies. But also perhaps not. Having rendered £350 million a week unto Brussels, it is the latter's decision where and how to spend that portion that comes back, not ours. So conceivably, one could choose to spend none of it in the manner the EU chooses, and instead route all of it to the NHS.
Of all the arguments about how mendacious the Leave campaign was, this strikes me as among the weakest. It is like saying that Corbyn said in the election that he'd set up a National Care Service, but has not done so, and is thus a wicked liar.
The figure was a lie. We don't send £350m. We never did.
The "give it to the NHS instead" was a lie. Whatever the number, it will never be spent exclusively on the NHS
It's not the same as Corbyn. Corbyn said things would happen if people voted for his plan. They did not vote for his plan. Boris said things would happen if people voted for his plan. They did vote that way. Boris deserves all the criticism he gets
We pay £17 billion gross of which we get a proportion back. The £350 million is defensible, for the reasons outlined previously.
No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS, because this would require a government decision, and a government was not being voted for. I get that you would like people to have thought this a promise, so that it can be characterised as a lie, but the comparison with Corbyn is exact.
The rebate never actually goes to Brussels, so the correct number is £12-13bn (I think).
The correct number is just over £15 billion. Around £280 million a week. Even a year later I have heard no good explanation as to why Vote Leave didn't use this figure instead given it is still eye wateringly large and would not be subject to the same valid criticism as the £350 million.
Should Britain have a second referendum? I don't think there's any case for it in the absence of clear signs that the public has decisively changed its mind in the face of an unravelling of Leave's proposition. Nothing like that has happened yet.
Leaving the EU might well be an economic disaster for the country. I'm even prepared to accept it will be.
I think this is something Remainers simply do not get. The left certainly does not get it in right-leaning voters.
Leavers voted Leave did so in contemplation of the pros and cons and judged the former worth the latter. Their judgment may be wrong, but there is no evidence they gave the cons no thought.
Likewise the left demonises the right for not caring about the old, the poor, the sick, or whatever. For all they know, however, and much likelier, the right-leaning voter cares very much about all those things, but judges that Labour or the LibDems will make them all worse.
I honestly do not get this idea that £350 million for the NHS was some sort of lie.
Given that we (well, others - I abstained) were not voting for a government, the "for the NHS" tag was clearly a suggestion, not a promise by anyone, because a Leave vote would not put anybody into a position to implement it. It would just make it possible, if the government wanted to do that.
And re the amount, well, yes, some of the £350 million comes back, so perhaps the net figure applies. But also perhaps not. Having rendered £350 million a week unto Brussels, it is the latter's decision where and how to spend that portion that comes back, not ours. So conceivably, one could choose to spend none of it in the manner the EU chooses, and instead route all of it to the NHS.
Of all the arguments about how mendacious the Leave campaign was, this strikes me as among the weakest. It is like saying that Corbyn said in the election that he'd set up a National Care Service, but has not done so, and is thus a wicked liar.
The figure was a lie. We don't send £350m. We never did.
The "give it to the NHS instead" was a lie. Whatever the number, it will never be spent exclusively on the NHS
It's not the same as Corbyn. Corbyn said things would happen if people voted for his plan. They did not vote for his plan. Boris said things would happen if people voted for his plan. They did vote that way. Boris deserves all the criticism he gets
We pay £17 billion gross of which we get a proportion back. The £350 million is defensible, for the reasons outlined previously.
No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS, because this would require a government decision, and a government was not being voted for. I get that you would like people to have thought this a promise, so that it can be characterised as a lie, but the comparison with Corbyn is exact.
The rebate never actually goes to Brussels, so the correct number is £12-13bn (I think).
The correct number is just over £15 billion. Around £280 million a week. Even a year later I have heard no good explanation as to why Vote Leave didn't use this figure instead given it is still eye wateringly large and would not be subject to the same valid criticism as the £350 million.
Thank you very much .
So that's post rebate, but adding back the VAT and CET payments.
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Dream on.
I can only agree with this. Too many remainers think a second referendum will solve all problems. We'll vote to Remain, and that will be that.
I seriously doubt that. Even if (somehow) it's 60:40 to Remain in the second referendum then how would you counter the following:
Leavers saying "Best of three"
Leavers saying "This is nothing more than an attempt to subvert the first referendum result 'EU style', in voting until we get the answer we want."
It's hard not to at least see that point of view. It's also hard to see how to prevent UKIP suddenly climbing to 35-40% in the polls (which will tend towards landslide in 2022) except by either the cancellation, or simple outright rigging, of future elections.
A second referendum (if offered) should be a choice of:
'Accept Deal (EEA/EFTA/other) as negotiated' or 'Crash out to WTO'
Remain should NOT be on the ballot.
Leaving the EU might well be an economic disaster for the country. I'm even prepared to accept it will be. Not leaving will be a political disaster, and depending on how people react (civil disobedience, general strikes), could lead to an economic disaster anyway.
That would assume that all the remaining leavers coalesce around a single party. UKIP are a busted flush, Nigel isn't interested in coming back, they are about to lurch to the right and become an anti-islam party. A new party could of course form, but just as remainers didn't all coalesce around the LDs, leavers will not all flock to one party. UKIP didn't even all flock to the tories this time - the vast majority of people, remainers or leavers, care more about other issues.
If a second referendum leads to a vote stay in, it could simply end up more like the Irish vote on Lisbon - they rejected it the first time, changed their minds the second time, and life moved on.
Leavers could of course argue for best of 3, they would just need to elect a government to support that. If they can get a government to do so, fair enough, if not, then they have to win the arguments over again.
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Dream on.
I can only agree with this. Too many remainers think a second referendum will solve all problems. We'll vote to Remain, and that will be that.
I seriously doubt that. Even if (somehow) it's 60:40 to Remain in the second referendum then how would you counter the following:
Leavers saying "Best of three"
That would be best of three.
I think a final decisive binding vote in 2057 would be correct. We'd have had a decent period of reflection by then.
On topic, the next Conservative leader is going to need to be able to lead, rather than simply embody the default prejudices of the average Conservative. By that test, Boris Johnson looks the most suited to the role, for all his many flaws.
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Dream on.
I can only agree with this. Too many remainers think a second referendum will solve all problems. We'll vote to Remain, and that will be that.
I seriously doubt that. Even if (somehow) it's 60:40 to Remain in the second referendum then how would you counter the following:
Leavers saying "Best of three"
That would be best of three.
I think a final decisive binding vote in 2057 would be correct. We'd have had a decent period of reflection by then.
There is no case for a further vote if it isn't going to produce a more durable political settlement. A 52:48 repeat either way would not do that (perhaps Leavers should have welcomed a repeat in early 2017 that some Remainers ardently sought at a time when the margin of Leave victory would have been far greater).
Should Britain have a second referendum? I don't think there's any case for it in the absence of clear signs that the public has decisively changed its mind in the face of an unravelling of Leave's proposition. Nothing like that has happened yet.
It remains an outside possibility.
You're being coy, surely.
How do you rate the chances of a) Leave's proposition unravelling and b) the public noticing?
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Dream on.
I can only agree with this. Too many remainers think a second referendum will solve all problems. We'll vote to Remain, and that will be that.
I seriously doubt that. Even if (somehow) it's 60:40 to Remain in the second referendum then how would you counter the following:
Leavers saying "Best of three"
That would be best of three.
I think a final decisive binding vote in 2057 would be correct. We'd have had a decent period of reflection by then.
There is no case for a further vote if it isn't going to produce a more durable political settlement. A 52:48 repeat either way would not do that (perhaps Leavers should have welcomed a repeat in early 2017 that some Remainers ardently sought at a time when the margin of Leave victory would have been far greater).
I agree with this but would characterise it differently. The new political settlement first needs to emerge in Westminster, and then needs to be validated by the public. If we had a second referendum with anything like the current balance, the public would mirror that and it would be another close and divisive result.
Step one is for the Brexiteers in government to admit that the game is up. Public opinion will follow. (This ties into your point about needing someone who can lead.)
Should Britain have a second referendum? I don't think there's any case for it in the absence of clear signs that the public has decisively changed its mind in the face of an unravelling of Leave's proposition. Nothing like that has happened yet.
It remains an outside possibility.
Doesn't parliament owe us a duty of care as the case for Leave unravells and we find ourselves on the edge of a precipice?
Merkel and Macron have announced a project to create a next generation European fighter jet that would replace the existing Rafales and Eurofighters.
Will BAE find themselves out in the cold?
The future is drones. There's an Anglo-Dutch startup* which is working on a fighter drone that is more maneuverable, faster, doesn't have to worry about pulling Gs, can refuel itself in mid-air, and can loiter for days at a time. It also doesn't need all the stuff to keep the pilot alive, so it's smaller and stealthier than a traditional plane.
The Eurofighter, the F35, etc., are all white elephants who won't stand a chance against the next generation of drones.
* I say start-up, but they've raised billions
Drones are a fantastic way to go so long as their command and control comms are not disrupted. I mean, who would do such a thing?
Drones are cheap and already causing problems near airports. What happens if a terrorist buys a drone? Do we have any anti-drone systems?
"Merkel and Macron have announced a project to create a next generation European fighter jet that would replace the existing Rafales and Eurofighters"
France will get as much research and development money from the project, then will withdraw to make its own jet.
Germany will make commitments to purchase to gain manufacturing jobs, but will use every excuse not to accept delivery.
"The German Air Force asked the U.S. military in May for a classified briefing on the F-35 fighter jet as part of an 'in-depth evaluation of market available solutions'. The German military plans to send Washington a formal 'letter of request' for information about the F-35 and Boeing Co's F-15 and F/A-18E/F fighter jets later this summer, the ministry spokesman said. "
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Dream on.
I can only agree with this. Too many remainers think a second referendum will solve all problems. We'll vote to Remain, and that will be that.
I seriously doubt that. Even if (somehow) it's 60:40 to Remain in the second referendum then how would you counter the following:
Leavers saying "Best of three"
Leavers saying "This is nothing more than an attempt to subvert the first referendum result 'EU style', in voting until we get the answer we want."
It's hard not to at least see that point of view. It's also hard to see how to prevent UKIP suddenly climbing to 35-40% in the polls (which will tend towards landslide in 2022) except by either the cancellation, or simple outright rigging, of future elections.
A second referendum (if offered) should be a choice of:
'Accept Deal (EEA/EFTA/other) as negotiated' or 'Crash out to WTO'
Remain should NOT be on the ballot.
Leaving the EU might well be an economic disaster for the country. I'm even prepared to accept it will be. Not leaving will be a political disaster, and depending on how people react (civil disobedience, general strikes), could lead to an economic disaster anyway.
60/40 Change our minds vote would be fine. It's a much bigger margin than the original referendum, to the extent you could claim a consensus, which you can't do on the first one. However, those numbers aren't there. Currently I would expect a chunk of Remainers to switch to Leave - possibly more than going the other way.
Something almost all sales trainers tell salesmen is not to disparage the customer's existing supplier, as this amounts to telling the customer he is stupid. People you insult have little incentive to want to please you; quite the reverse.
Ummm, you were the one who said "No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS", and yet many people voted on that basis.
I've just been reading a couple of books, and it's staggering to think that the electron was discovered only 120 years ago, the atomic nucleus 106, and the neutron 85.
We've come a long way since then, but the 1900-1950 period must have seen one of the biggest rates of change in science and engineering ever. Probably society as well.
I heard the discovery of fire was a pretty big moment
(Pedant mode on)
Surely 'the discovery of how to create fire' ?
Though the start of farming has to be a biggie as well.
As it happens, we've regressed. I bet the majority of teenagers wouldn't know how to start a fire even with a matchbox, and they'd starve if left alone on a farm ...
On topic, the next Conservative leader is going to need to be able to lead, rather than simply embody the default prejudices of the average Conservative. By that test, Boris Johnson looks the most suited to the role, for all his many flaws.
I really don't follow your logic here.
I think Mr Meeks is suggesting that the next Tory leader will have to not only be a Remainer but champion the Remain cause. If so, neither point is true. The next Tory leader really needs to put back together the coalition that May had before the election. That means making Brexit work (or at the very least, plausibly landing someone else outside the party - and preferably the country - with the blame for it going tits up).
Something almost all sales trainers tell salesmen is not to disparage the customer's existing supplier, as this amounts to telling the customer he is stupid. People you insult have little incentive to want to please you; quite the reverse.
Ummm, you were the one who said "No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS", and yet many people voted on that basis.
It wasn't me who was calling them stupid...
Alice's argument is curious: To convince people you must flatter them, so we start with the assumption that the 52% all voted for intelligent, considered reasons and then discount most of the things said by the actual campaign as being beneath them.
I honestly do not get this idea that £350 million for the NHS was some sort of lie.
Given that we (well, others - I abstained) were not voting for a government, the "for the NHS" tag was clearly a suggestion, not a promise by anyone, because a Leave vote would not put anybody into a position to implement it. It would just make it possible, if the government wanted to do that.
And re the amount, well, yes, some of the £350 million comes back, so perhaps the net figure applies. But also perhaps not. Having rendered £350 million a week unto Brussels, it is the latter's decision where and how to spend that portion that comes back, not ours. So conceivably, one could choose to spend none of it in the manner the EU chooses, and instead route all of it to the NHS.
Of all the arguments about how mendacious the Leave campaign was, this strikes me as among the weakest. It is like saying that Corbyn said in the election that he'd set up a National Care Service, but has not done so, and is thus a wicked liar.
The figure was a lie. We don't send £350m. We never did.
The "give it to the NHS instead" was a lie. Whatever the number, it will never be spent exclusively on the NHS
It's not the same as Corbyn. Corbyn said things would happen if people voted for his plan. They did not vote for his plan. Boris said things would happen if people voted for his plan. They did vote that way. Boris deserves all the criticism he gets
We pay £17 billion gross of which we get a proportion back. The £350 million is defensible, for the reasons outlined previously.
No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS, because this would require a government decision, and a government was not being voted for. I get that you would like people to have thought this a promise, so that it can be characterised as a lie, but the comparison with Corbyn is exact.
The rebate never actually goes to Brussels, so the correct number is £12-13bn (I think).
The correct number is just over £15 billion. Around £280 million a week. Even a year later I have heard no good explanation as to why Vote Leave didn't use this figure instead given it is still eye wateringly large and would not be subject to the same valid criticism as the £350 million.
Cummings explained it I thought: they cynically decided that using £350m encouraged people to criticise the figure and keep it in the news.
I've just been reading a couple of books, and it's staggering to think that the electron was discovered only 120 years ago, the atomic nucleus 106, and the neutron 85.
We've come a long way since then, but the 1900-1950 period must have seen one of the biggest rates of change in science and engineering ever. Probably society as well.
I heard the discovery of fire was a pretty big moment
(Pedant mode on)
Surely 'the discovery of how to create fire' ?
Though the start of farming has to be a biggie as well.
As it happens, we've regressed. I bet the majority of teenagers wouldn't know how to start a fire even with a matchbox, and they'd starve if left alone on a farm ...
That would depend on the WiFi connection?
We had a 17 year old babysitter looking after our kids. She texted me to ask for the Wifi password, and I responded with "What's wifi?"
She then attempted to explain Wifi to me in a series of texts.
On topic, the next Conservative leader is going to need to be able to lead, rather than simply embody the default prejudices of the average Conservative. By that test, Boris Johnson looks the most suited to the role, for all his many flaws.
I really don't follow your logic here.
I think Mr Meeks is suggesting that the next Tory leader will have to not only be a Remainer but champion the Remain cause. If so, neither point is true. The next Tory leader really needs to put back together the coalition that May had before the election. That means making Brexit work (or at the very least, plausibly landing someone else outside the party - and preferably the country - with the blame for it going tits up).
It has to be a Bregretter capable of turning defeat and humiliation into a moment of national victory as we change course and decide to stay after all. I can absolutely see the logic of Boris in those circumstances.
(Perhaps the litmus test is whether the leader could make Casino_Royale feel good about that scenario.)
Something almost all sales trainers tell salesmen is not to disparage the customer's existing supplier, as this amounts to telling the customer he is stupid. People you insult have little incentive to want to please you; quite the reverse.
Ummm, you were the one who said "No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS", and yet many people voted on that basis.
It wasn't me who was calling them stupid...
How do you know "many people voted on that basis"?
I honestly do not get this idea that £350 million for the NHS was some sort of lie.
Given that we (well, others - I abstained) were not voting for a government, the "for the NHS" tag was clearly a suggestion, not a promise by anyone, because a Leave vote would not put anybody into a position to implement it. It would just make it possible, if the government wanted to do that.
And re the amount, well, yes, some of the £350 million comes back, so perhaps the net figure applies. But also perhaps not. Having rendered £350 million a week unto Brussels, it is the latter's decision where and how to spend that portion that comes back, not ours. So conceivably, one could choose to spend none of it in the manner the EU chooses, and instead route all of it to the NHS.
Of all the arguments about how mendacious the Leave campaign was, this strikes me as among the weakest. It is like saying that Corbyn said in the election that he'd set up a National Care Service, but has not done so, and is thus a wicked liar.
The figure was a lie. We don't send £350m. We never did.
The "give it to the NHS instead" was a lie. Whatever the number, it will never be spent exclusively on the NHS
It's not the same as Corbyn. Corbyn said things would happen if people voted for his plan. They did not vote for his plan. Boris said things would happen if people voted for his plan. They did vote that way. Boris deserves all the criticism he gets
We pay £17 billion gross of which we get a proportion back. The £350 million is defensible, for the reasons outlined previously.
No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS, because this would require a government decision, and a government was not being voted for. I get that you would like people to have thought this a promise, so that it can be characterised as a lie, but the comparison with Corbyn is exact.
The rebate never actually goes to Brussels, so the correct number is £12-13bn (I think).
The correct number is just over £15 billion. Around £280 million a week. Even a year later I have heard no good explanation as to why Vote Leave didn't use this figure instead given it is still eye wateringly large and would not be subject to the same valid criticism as the £350 million.
Farage told them to use £280m but was ignored I think...
How do you know "many people voted on that basis"?
The guy who came up with it says it won them the vote.
How did it win without many people voting for it?
Off the weakness of the opposing arguments.
This seems like an example of the popular argument whereby Brexiteers disown Brexit by blaming the other side for losing. It's an admission that they intended to protest, not to win.
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Dream on.
Leavers saying "Best of three"
That would be best of three.
I think a final decisive binding vote in 2057 would be correct. We'd have had a decent period of reflection by then.
There is no case for a further vote if it isn't going to produce a more durable political settlement. A 52:48 repeat either way would not do that (perhaps Leavers should have welcomed a repeat in early 2017 that some Remainers ardently sought at a time when the margin of Leave victory would have been far greater).
I agree with this but would characterise it differently. The new political settlement first needs to emerge in Westminster, and then needs to be validated by the public. If we had a second referendum with anything like the current balance, the public would mirror that and it would be another close and divisive result.
Step one is for the Brexiteers in government to admit that the game is up. Public opinion will follow. (This ties into your point about needing someone who can lead.)
The game isn't up.
This is just the last chance saloon for the lobbying effort to stop Brexit. It is sounding increasingly desperate, to be honest.
Remainers arguing for a second referendum, now, just because the polls are slightly more in your favour than a few months ago risks blowing up in your face due to the same arrogance that led the Tories to lose their majority.
More broadly, it seems to suggest you lose a mandate as soon as you lose your opinion poll lead, which, given it happens with frightening regularity aroundabout mid-term, would invalidate virtually every government in the last 100 years inside 12-24 months.
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Dream on.
Leavers saying "Best of three"
That would be best of three.
I think a final decisive binding vote in 2057 would be correct. We'd have had a decent period of reflection by then.
There is no case for a further vote if it isn't going to produce a more durable political settlement. A 52:48 repeat either way would not do that (perhaps Leavers should have welcomed a repeat in early 2017 that some Remainers ardently sought at a time when the margin of Leave victory would have been far greater).
I agree with this but would characterise it differently. The new political settlement first needs to emerge in Westminster, and then needs to be validated by the public. If we had a second referendum with anything like the current balance, the public would mirror that and it would be another close and divisive result.
Step one is for the Brexiteers in government to admit that the game is up. Public opinion will follow. (This ties into your point about needing someone who can lead.)
The game isn't up.
This is just the last chance saloon for the lobbying effort to stop Brexit. It is sounding increasingly desperate, to be honest.
You doth protest too much.
Some of the views on here regarding Brexit make the (Well my local group at least) Lib Dem members sound like Peter Bone.
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Dream on.
Leavers saying "Best of three"
That would be best of three.
I think a final decisive binding vote in 2057 would be correct. We'd have had a decent period of reflection by then.
There is no case for a further vote if it isn't going to produce a more durable political settlement. A 52:48 repeat either way would not do that (perhaps Leavers should have welcomed a repeat in early 2017 that some Remainers ardently sought at a time when the margin of Leave victory would have been far greater).
I agree with this but would characterise it differently. The new political settlement first needs to emerge in Westminster, and then needs to be validated by the public. If we had a second referendum with anything like the current balance, the public would mirror that and it would be another close and divisive result.
Step one is for the Brexiteers in government to admit that the game is up. Public opinion will follow. (This ties into your point about needing someone who can lead.)
The game isn't up.
This is just the last chance saloon for the lobbying effort to stop Brexit. It is sounding increasingly desperate, to be honest.
You doth protest too much.
Yep, the final, desperate scramble to try and stop Brexit is palpable....
On topic, the next Conservative leader is going to need to be able to lead, rather than simply embody the default prejudices of the average Conservative. By that test, Boris Johnson looks the most suited to the role, for all his many flaws.
I really don't follow your logic here.
I think Mr Meeks is suggesting that the next Tory leader will have to not only be a Remainer but champion the Remain cause. If so, neither point is true. The next Tory leader really needs to put back together the coalition that May had before the election. That means making Brexit work (or at the very least, plausibly landing someone else outside the party - and preferably the country - with the blame for it going tits up).
No, that's not what I'm suggesting. The ideal next Conservative leader would be able to talk about something other than Brexit. Such a candidate does not exist. In their absence they need someone to guide them through a series of uncomfortable compromises with reality.
The coalition that Theresa May previously had is inadequate because those uncomfortable compromises with reality are no longer avoidable.
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Dream on.
Leavers saying "Best of three"
That would be best of three.
I think a final decisive binding vote in 2057 would be correct. We'd have had a decent period of reflection by then.
There is no case for a further vote if it isn't going to produce a more durable political settlement. A 52:48 repeat either way would not do that (perhaps Leavers should have welcomed a repeat in early 2017 that some Remainers ardently sought at a time when the margin of Leave victory would have been far greater).
I agree with this but would characterise it differently. The new political settlement first needs to emerge in Westminster, and then needs to be validated by the public. If we had a second referendum with anything like the current balance, the public would mirror that and it would be another close and divisive result.
Step one is for the Brexiteers in government to admit that the game is up. Public opinion will follow. (This ties into your point about needing someone who can lead.)
The game isn't up.
This is just the last chance saloon for the lobbying effort to stop Brexit. It is sounding increasingly desperate, to be honest.
You doth protest too much.
Yep, the final, desperate scramble to try and stop Brexit is palpable....
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Dream on.
Leavers saying "Best of three"
That would be best of three.
I think a final decisive binding vote in 2057 would be correct. We'd have had a decent period of reflection by then.
There is no case for a further vote if it isn't going to produce a more durable political settlement. A 52:48 repeat either way would not do that (perhaps Leavers should have welcomed a repeat in early 2017 that some Remainers ardently sought at a time when the margin of Leave victory would have been far greater).
I agree with this but would characterise it differently. The new political settlement first needs to emerge in Westminster, and then needs to be validated by the public. If we had a second referendum with anything like the current balance, the public would mirror that and it would be another close and divisive result.
Step one is for the Brexiteers in government to admit that the game is up. Public opinion will follow. (This ties into your point about needing someone who can lead.)
The game isn't up.
This is just the last chance saloon for the lobbying effort to stop Brexit. It is sounding increasingly desperate, to be honest.
You doth protest too much.
Some of the views on here regarding Brexit make the (Well my local group at least) Lib Dem members sound like Peter Bone.
Is there any issue about which a random group of LibDems would express strong opinions? Probably not even PR.
On topic, the next Conservative leader is going to need to be able to lead, rather than simply embody the default prejudices of the average Conservative. By that test, Boris Johnson looks the most suited to the role, for all his many flaws.
I really don't follow your logic here.
I think Mr Meeks is suggesting that the next Tory leader will have to not only be a Remainer but champion the Remain cause. If so, neither point is true. The next Tory leader really needs to put back together the coalition that May had before the election. That means making Brexit work (or at the very least, plausibly landing someone else outside the party - and preferably the country - with the blame for it going tits up).
No, that's not what I'm suggesting. The ideal next Conservative leader would be able to talk about something other than Brexit. Such a candidate does not exist. In their absence they need someone to guide them through a series of uncomfortable compromises with reality.
The coalition that Theresa May previously had is inadequate because those uncomfortable compromises with reality are no longer avoidable.
Any ideas, other than Boris, as to the identity of the perfect candidate? Ruth Davidson sticks out like a sore thumb surely as someone untainted by Brexit and who can actually engage on other issues? Assuming no return for Dave.
On topic, the next Conservative leader is going to need to be able to lead, rather than simply embody the default prejudices of the average Conservative. By that test, Boris Johnson looks the most suited to the role, for all his many flaws.
I really don't follow your logic here.
I think Mr Meeks is suggesting that the next Tory leader will have to not only be a Remainer but champion the Remain cause. If so, neither point is true. The next Tory leader really needs to put back together the coalition that May had before the election. That means making Brexit work (or at the very least, plausibly landing someone else outside the party - and preferably the country - with the blame for it going tits up).
It has to be a Bregretter capable of turning defeat and humiliation into a moment of national victory as we change course and decide to stay after all. I can absolutely see the logic of Boris in those circumstances.
(Perhaps the litmus test is whether the leader could make Casino_Royale feel good about that scenario.)
I'm flattered that you see me as a totem, william, but I struggle to get inside your head to see the world as you see it.
For you, there is no problem, issue, setback, challenge or opportunity to you for which the solution isn't More Europe.
For me, it’s national political independence and the EU would have to be a fundamentally different organisation for me to want to rejoin – much more akin to the Council of Europe – although, I accept, an enhanced Cameron deal might be acceptable enough for a fair few Leavers.
Merkel and Macron have announced a project to create a next generation European fighter jet that would replace the existing Rafales and Eurofighters.
Will BAE find themselves out in the cold?
The future is drones. There's an Anglo-Dutch startup* which is working on a fighter drone that is more maneuverable, faster, doesn't have to worry about pulling Gs, can refuel itself in mid-air, and can loiter for days at a time. It also doesn't need all the stuff to keep the pilot alive, so it's smaller and stealthier than a traditional plane.
The Eurofighter, the F35, etc., are all white elephants who won't stand a chance against the next generation of drones.
* I say start-up, but they've raised billions
Isn't the UN pushing for heavy restrictions on use of robots and drones in warfare though?
I honestly do not get this idea that £350 million for the NHS was some sort of lie.
Given that we (well, others - I abstained) were not voting for a government, the "for the NHS" tag was clearly a suggestion, not a promise by anyone, because a Leave vote would not put anybody into a position to implement it. It would just make it possible, if the government wanted to do that.
And re the amount, well, yes, some of the £350 million comes back, so perhaps the net figure applies. But also perhaps not. Having rendered £350 million a week unto Brussels, it is the latter's decision where and how to spend that portion that comes back, not ours. So conceivably, one could choose to spend none of it in the manner the EU chooses, and instead route all of it to the NHS.
Of all the arguments about how mendacious the Leave campaign was, this strikes me as among the weakest. It is like saying that Corbyn said in the election that he'd set up a National Care Service, but has not done so, and is thus a wicked liar.
The figure was a lie. We don't send £350m. We never did.
The "give it to the NHS instead" was a lie. Whatever the number, it will never be spent exclusively on the NHS
It's not the same as Corbyn. Corbyn said things would happen if people voted for his plan. They did not vote for his plan. Boris said things would happen if people voted for his plan. They did vote that way. Boris deserves all the criticism he gets
We pay £17 billion gross of which we get a proportion back. The £350 million is defensible, for the reasons outlined previously.
No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS, because this would require a government decision, and a government was not being voted for. I get that you would like people to have thought this a promise, so that it can be characterised as a lie, but the comparison with Corbyn is exact.
The rebate never actually goes to Brussels, so the correct number is £12-13bn (I think).
The correct number is just over £15 billion. Around £280 million a week. Even a year later I have heard no good explanation as to why Vote Leave didn't use this figure instead given it is still eye wateringly large and would not be subject to the same valid criticism as the £350 million.
Cummings explained it I thought: they cynically decided that using £350m encouraged people to criticise the figure and keep it in the news.
Precisely. Cummings holds all political campaigning in contempt so doesn't care how it's done, so long as it's effective.
Something almost all sales trainers tell salesmen is not to disparage the customer's existing supplier, as this amounts to telling the customer he is stupid. People you insult have little incentive to want to please you; quite the reverse.
Ummm, you were the one who said "No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS", and yet many people voted on that basis.
It wasn't me who was calling them stupid...
How do you know "many people voted on that basis"?
In my anecdata (posted here) in the week before the referendum, I reported several conversations where it was the theme, admittedly in the outpatients waiting room.
So "intelligent people" know it was a lie, and voted for it anyway because they liked it better than the alternative.
Okayyyyyyyyyyyy
No. The Leave campaign was not in government nor aspiring to be so. Hence it was always clear, not just post-vote, that Leave could not deliver it, as Leave was not and would not be in charge of public spending post-referendum.
While some Leavers may have believed it would somehow happen, others disbelieved that it would because it couldn't be implemented, but voted Leave anyway for other reasons. Still others would have thought some advantage might accrue but would not want it spent on the NHS.
It does not follow that all supporters of a ticket agree with every aspect of it. In the 1980s, Labour was a CND-supporting party. Did every single Labour voter vote thus because they wanted to disarm? Or did some disagree with CND, but thought we would not actually disarm? Or did they vote despite the CND entryism because on balance they liked the rest of the manifesto? Or because they didn't give a stuff about nukes either way?
You don't know how many there were of any of these persuasions and nor does anyone else. But if you characterise people who campaign against you as liars (from no obvious position of strength), and people who support that campaign as stupid, you had better get used to losing plebiscites.
Shame about Murray and Konta but semis is still far into the tournament (I disliked the snippet of BBC headline I saw which described Konta's performance [best by a British woman for decades] as a failure to reach the final).
On topic, the next Conservative leader is going to need to be able to lead, rather than simply embody the default prejudices of the average Conservative. By that test, Boris Johnson looks the most suited to the role, for all his many flaws.
I really don't follow your logic here.
I think Mr Meeks is suggesting that the next Tory leader will have to not only be a Remainer but champion the Remain cause. If so, neither point is true. The next Tory leader really needs to put back together the coalition that May had before the election. That means making Brexit work (or at the very least, plausibly landing someone else outside the party - and preferably the country - with the blame for it going tits up).
Then I don't follow even more, if we've left.
I do expect the next PM to be *more* internationalist than May, and that may well be a Tory PM, but only once Brexit is safely delivered.
As an aside, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that much of May's strategic judgement on voting coalitions prior to the election was correct, it's just she and her aides were totally tactically inept in executing it.
if you characterise people who campaign against you as liars (from no obvious position of strength), and people who support that campaign as stupid, you had better get used to losing plebiscites.
It's a provable lie, and it was you who said could not be intelligent people who believed it.
So "intelligent people" know it was a lie, and voted for it anyway because they liked it better than the alternative.
Okayyyyyyyyyyyy
No. The Leave campaign was not in government nor aspiring to be so. Hence it was always clear, not just post-vote, that Leave could not deliver it, as Leave was not and would not be in charge of public spending post-referendum.
While some Leavers may have believed it would somehow happen, others disbelieved that it would because it couldn't be implemented, but voted Leave anyway for other reasons. Still others would have thought some advantage might accrue but would not want it spent on the NHS.
It does not follow that all supporters of a ticket agree with every aspect of it. In the 1980s, Labour was a CND-supporting party. Did every single Labour voter vote thus because they wanted to disarm? Or did some disagree with CND, but thought we would not actually disarm? Or did they vote despite the CND entryism because on balance they liked the rest of the manifesto? Or because they didn't give a stuff about nukes either way?
You don't know how many there were of any of these persuasions and nor does anyone else. But if you characterise people who campaign against you as liars (from no obvious position of strength), and people who support that campaign as stupid, you had better get used to losing plebiscites.
Not true. Politicians have chosen to infer that the vote for Leave was a vote for immigration restrictions, despite their being nothing about immigration on the ballot paper.
How do you know "many people voted on that basis"?
The guy who came up with it says it won them the vote.
How did it win without many people voting for it?
Off the weakness of the opposing arguments.
This seems like an example of the popular argument whereby Brexiteers disown Brexit by blaming the other side for losing. It's an admission that they intended to protest, not to win.
I suspect Leavers thought if they voted Leave, them immigrants would be sent home the next day, or soon. If that is a bad idea, it really is up to the opposition to it to articulate a better one. This Remain did not do (saying "you're stupid" is not a good argument), and has yet to do. As was noted upthread, that leaving is proving troublesome is not an argument that we should have voted Remain. It is an argument that we are far more embroiled in the EU than we knew, which is actually a Leave argument.
If the Leave campaign was mendacious yet still won, it did so because its arguments were better, or because the Remain campaign was seen as more mendacious, or both.
I'm liking the thought that only PM Boris has the sheer chutzpah to say 'I've changed my mind, we should stay after all'
Why would he?
If it made him be PM he would.Boris was late to the leave show and he believed in an amnesty for illegal immigrants when Mayor of London.So can stride either side depending on a change in perception of a deal or no deal.He is a better actor than Paul Newman in The Sting.
On topic, the next Conservative leader is going to need to be able to lead, rather than simply embody the default prejudices of the average Conservative. By that test, Boris Johnson looks the most suited to the role, for all his many flaws.
I really don't follow your logic here.
I think Mr Meeks is suggesting that the next Tory leader will have to not only be a Remainer but champion the Remain cause. If so, neither point is true. The next Tory leader really needs to put back together the coalition that May had before the election. That means making Brexit work (or at the very least, plausibly landing someone else outside the party - and preferably the country - with the blame for it going tits up).
No, that's not what I'm suggesting. The ideal next Conservative leader would be able to talk about something other than Brexit. Such a candidate does not exist. In their absence they need someone to guide them through a series of uncomfortable compromises with reality.
The coalition that Theresa May previously had is inadequate because those uncomfortable compromises with reality are no longer avoidable.
I go with your analysis but surely Boris Johnson would be the person least able to guide the Conservative Party and the country through those uncomfortable compromises with reality?
So "intelligent people" know it was a lie, and voted for it anyway because they liked it better than the alternative.
Okayyyyyyyyyyyy
snip
While some Leavers may have believed it would somehow happen, others disbelieved that it would because it couldn't be implemented, but voted Leave anyway for other reasons. Still others would have thought some advantage might accrue but would not want it spent on the NHS.
It does not follow that all supporters of a ticket agree with every aspect of it. In the 1980s, Labour was a CND-supporting party. Did every single Labour voter vote thus because they wanted to disarm? Or did some disagree with CND, but thought we would not actually disarm? Or did they vote despite the CND entryism because on balance they liked the rest of the manifesto? Or because they didn't give a stuff about nukes either way?
You don't know how many there were of any of these persuasions and nor does anyone else. But if you characterise people who campaign against you as liars (from no obvious position of strength), and people who support that campaign as stupid, you had better get used to losing plebiscites.
There are those who support EU membership for political reasons and see the economics as a side-benefit (williamglenn)
There are those who support EU membership for economic reasons and see the politics as something not to worry about too much (Topping, David Herdson)
There are those who reluctantly support EU membership for economic reasons even though they don't particularly like the politics (Richard Nabavi, BigGNorthWales)
There are those who somewhat hesitantly voted Leave for political reasons even though they were a little concerned about the short-term economics (DavidL, Robert Smithson)
There are those who voted Leave with conviction for political reasons even though they realised there might be an economic impact (Richard Tyndall, Charles)
There are those who voted Leave for political and economic reasons, as they see both as beneficial (Andrew Lilico, Daniel Hannan, GeoffM, Sean Fear)
The general public voted for Brexit as a result of a campaign to keep foreigners out. What a few fellow travellers thought they were voting for is neither here nor there. They're trapped in victory by the campaign they connived with.
So "intelligent people" know it was a lie, and voted for it anyway because they liked it better than the alternative.
Okayyyyyyyyyyyy
snip
While some Leavers may have believed it would somehow happen, others disbelieved that it would because it couldn't be implemented, but voted Leave anyway for other reasons. Still others would have thought some advantage might accrue but would not want it spent on the NHS.
It does not follow that all supporters of a ticket agree with every aspect of it. In the 1980s, Labour was a CND-supporting party. Did every single Labour voter vote thus because they wanted to disarm? Or did some disagree with CND, but thought we would not actually disarm? Or did they vote despite the CND entryism because on balance they liked the rest of the manifesto? Or because they didn't give a stuff about nukes either way?
You don't know how many there were of any of these persuasions and nor does anyone else. But if you characterise people who campaign against you as liars (from no obvious position of strength), and people who support that campaign as stupid, you had better get used to losing plebiscites.
There are those who support EU membership for political reasons and see the economics as a side-benefit (williamglenn)
There are those who support EU membership for economic reasons and see the politics as something not to worry about too much (Topping, David Herdson)
There are those who reluctantly support EU membership for economic reasons even though they don't particularly like the politics (Richard Nabavi, BigGNorthWales)
There are those who somewhat hesitantly voted Leave for political reasons even though they were a little concerned about the short-term economics (DavidL, Robert Smithson)
There are those who voted Leave with conviction for political reasons even though they realised there might be an economic impact (Richard Tyndall, Charles)
There are those who voted Leave for political and economic reasons, as they see both as beneficial (Andrew Lilico, Daniel Hannan, GeoffM, Sean Fear)
I think that a fair summary. It would be interesting to see how whole country opinion broke down by those classifications, but the polling questions would have to be a bit less jargony.
I think that the enmeshment is not evidence of the EU being an octopus, but rather a "what have the Romans ever done for us?" question. We find these agreements such as Euratom or Europeans Medical licensing useful, but they generally fly under the radar as concealed benefits.
A second referendum would be iffy for a variety of reasons
(1) Why? Because some people are bad losers. And ore importantly, they are self-important, bad losers, and not used to it.
(2) Even if we decided to crawl back to the EU on bended knees, we at not dealing with a static position. It would be up to the EU to set terms, assuming they wanted us back. The Euro - hooray! A European army - hooray. Totally uncontrolled immigration - hooray. A European parliament - hooray. Good luck with that one.
(3) The repeal bill is a massive undertaking and will emphasise how much UK law has already been subsumed into Euro Directives and Regulations - despite Cleggy bleating about how little it had really affected the UK Parliament's pre-eminence. Up there with the threat of an imminent attack by the Wardrobe Monster if we left.
There's much squawking and squealing to come, but a second referendum isn't likely to be part of it.
I'm liking the thought that only PM Boris has the sheer chutzpah to say 'I've changed my mind, we should stay after all'
Why would he?
If it made him be PM he would.Boris was late to the leave show and he believed in an amnesty for illegal immigrants when Mayor of London.So can stride either side depending on a change in perception of a deal or no deal.He is a better actor than Paul Newman in The Sting.
It wouldn't make him PM though.
There's no where near enough hard core remainers in the parliamentary Conservative Party to make him PM if he switched sides.
And the likes of Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry would still vote against him anyway...
I honestly do not get this idea that £350 million for the NHS was some sort of lie.
Given that we (well, others - I abstained) were not voting for a government, the "for the NHS" tag was clearly a suggestion, not a promise by anyone, because a Leave vote would not put anybody into a position to implement it. It would just make it possible, if the government wanted to do that.
And re the amount, well, yes, some of the £350 million comes back, so perhaps the net figure applies. But also perhaps not. Having rendered £350 million a week unto Brussels, it is the latter's decision where and how to spend that portion that comes back, not ours. So conceivably, one could choose to spend none of it in the manner the EU chooses, and instead route all of it to the NHS.
Of all the arguments about how mendacious the Leave campaign was, this strikes me as among the weakest. It is like saying that Corbyn said in the election that he'd set up a National Care Service, but has not done so, and is thus a wicked liar.
The figure was a lie. We don't send £350m. We never did.
The "give it to the NHS instead" was a lie. Whatever the number, it will never be spent exclusively on the NHS
It's not the same as Corbyn. Corbyn said things would happen if people voted for his plan. They did not vote for his plan. Boris said things would happen if people voted for his plan. They did vote that way. Boris deserves all the criticism he gets
We pay £17 billion gross of which we get a proportion back. The £350 million is defensible, for the reasons outlined previously.
No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS, because this would require a government decision, and a government was not being voted for. I get that you would like people to have thought this a promise, so that it can be characterised as a lie, but the comparison with Corbyn is exact.
The rebate never actually goes to Brussels, so the correct number is £12-13bn (I think).
The correct number is just over £15 billion. Around £280 million a week. Even a year later I have heard no good explanation as to why Vote Leave didn't use this figure instead given it is still eye wateringly large and would not be subject to the same valid criticism as the £350 million.
Thank you very much .
So that's post rebate, but adding back the VAT and CET payments.
Correct. It was also the peak which was expected to drop slightly on coming years before starting to rise again after the next budgetary round.
Given the 24/7 campaign that going on to Stop Brexit is it any wonder opinion is shifting?
It's a 24/7 onslaught against Brexit at the moment and we're hearing absolutely no other counter arguments (a position that wouldn't be acceptable if there was a second referendum of course)
I would suspect that imminently a new pro-Brexit campaign group will set up to start rebutting a lot of the anti-Brexit claims that people are being subjected to every single day.
Mr. Meeks, guilt by association is an odd perspective for a lawyer. Shouldn't we judge arguments on their merits?
It's not guilt by association to note that to interpret the referendum result in the teeth of the campaign that the Leave campaign fought would be as much of an insult to democracy as to ignore the result in the first place.
Dr. Foxinsox, until Lisbon, Euratom was a separate institution, wasn't it? The EU swallowing it *is* a sign of the tentacles grabbing every power it can.
So "intelligent people" know it was a lie, and voted for it anyway because they liked it better than the alternative.
Okayyyyyyyyyyyy
No. The Leave campaign was not in government nor aspiring to be so. Hence it was always clear, not just post-vote, that Leave could not deliver it, as Leave was not and would not be in charge of public spending post-referendum.
While some Leavers may have believed it would somehow happen, others disbelieved that it would because it couldn't be implemented, but voted Leave anyway for other reasons. Still others would have thought some advantage might accrue but would not want it spent on the NHS.
It does not follow that all supporters of a ticket agree with every aspect of it. In the 1980s, Labour was a CND-supporting party. Did every single Labour voter vote thus because they wanted to disarm? Or did some disagree with CND, but thought we would not actually disarm? Or did they vote despite the CND entryism because on balance they liked the rest of the manifesto? Or because they didn't give a stuff about nukes either way?
You don't know how many there were of any of these persuasions and nor does anyone else. But if you characterise people who campaign against you as liars (from no obvious position of strength), and people who support that campaign as stupid, you had better get used to losing plebiscites.
Not true. Politicians have chosen to infer that the vote for Leave was a vote for immigration restrictions, despite their being nothing about immigration on the ballot paper.
And they are wrong to do so. Beyond leaving the EU, nobody has any idea exactly what Leavers were voting for, or why.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that some did so because they wanted Muslims sent back. Almost certainly, some people in care homes voted to have Romanian carers sent back to Romania. In the same way it seems likely that quite a lot of people last month voted Labour because they want an end to austerity, which has been necessary because of Labour.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To impute to all of them, or even a winning margin of them, the belief that £350 million would be spent on the NHS if they voted Leave has no support in evidence. It feels like a need to impute base or contemptible characteristics to someone you disagree with, so that, as they are clearly wicked or stupid, you have permission to hate them. Am I right, Scott?
Merkel and Macron have announced a project to create a next generation European fighter jet that would replace the existing Rafales and Eurofighters.
Will BAE find themselves out in the cold?
The future is drones. There's an Anglo-Dutch startup* which is working on a fighter drone that is more maneuverable, faster, doesn't have to worry about pulling Gs, can refuel itself in mid-air, and can loiter for days at a time. It also doesn't need all the stuff to keep the pilot alive, so it's smaller and stealthier than a traditional plane.
The Eurofighter, the F35, etc., are all white elephants who won't stand a chance against the next generation of drones.
* I say start-up, but they've raised billions
Isn't the UN pushing for heavy restrictions on use of robots and drones in warfare though?
Comments
The word 'bonfire' may have been in bad taste, given what's been happening.
This fire happened not long after Lakenal House 2009 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/kurtbarling/2010/07/the_jurys_out_on_timber_framed.html
But it's not necessarily a popular view on here.
When it comes to military aircraft, we'll end up with a mixture: some combat drones, and manned aircraft. However many, if not all, of the 'manned' aircraft will be able to, for certain dangerous missions, be unmanned. But that'll apply more to bombing roles than air combat.
Voting again until we get it right is acceptable?
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Dream on.
The only reason we're developing another generation of manned fighters is the ex fighter jocks who now run the airforces can't bear not to. For once (or once again, depending on your perspective), rcs1k is right.
I'm just disappointed that I've only got 4 more years on my fixed rate...
Nowadays we do similarly: only we're selling off plan London apartments to Singaporean dentists.
Hm, wonder how that might end up....
If you give a man a fire, he's warm for a night.
If you set a man on fire, he's warm for the rest of his life.
Been looking at the Euratom paper. It says:
..it is important to agree future ownership and liabilities for.. equipment..owned by Euratom and located in the UK.
Bland in itself, but to my eyes a full concession by the UK of the need for a line item reckoning when leaving.
So, at the most basic level, HMG accepts there will be a Brexit financial settlement.
However, as this example demonstrates, there will not be a cash number agreed in the first negotiation. That is because many of the asset transfers are predicated on the future relationship. Even assuming the UK is leaving Euratom there are two possibilities, the assets transfer to the UK or Euratom retains a UK presence. The settlement is different in each case.
Stupid people are allowed to vote
I didn't actually vote because I thought both campaigns were piss-poor and unworthy of support. So I consider myself neutral, in that I still do. The fact that it's all going mammaries skywards now can be seen to underscore and validate both the Leave claim that control has been lost (otherwise why would it be so hard to leave) and the Remain argument that it's more difficult than was acknowledged.
But what evidence is there the £350 million "lie" was decisive? For all we know, the vote was only as close as it was because people believed the "instant recession if we leave" Remain "lie". If they hadn't it might have been 55:45.
It reminds me of legal cases one reads about, in which the appealing defendant wants to argue that it was some trivial error in the evidence against him that swayed the jury, and that absent those, he'd have got off. Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
Surely 'the discovery of how to create fire' ?
Though the start of farming has to be a biggie as well.
As it happens, we've regressed. I bet the majority of teenagers wouldn't know how to start a fire even with a matchbox, and they'd starve if left alone on a farm ...
Something almost all sales trainers tell salesmen is not to disparage the customer's existing supplier, as this amounts to telling the customer he is stupid. People you insult have little incentive to want to please you; quite the reverse.
"A new EU levy on European banks - a 'Financial Transactions Tax'" to go to Brussels...
"At the moment 0.3 per cent of VAT in every pound spent goes directly towards EU funding.
But Brussels politicians are planning to raise the levy to 1.3 per cent"...
So the £350 million a week is probably an underestimate.
I seriously doubt that. Even if (somehow) it's 60:40 to Remain in the second referendum then how would you counter the following:
Leavers saying "Best of three"
Leavers saying "This is nothing more than an attempt to subvert the first referendum result 'EU style', in voting until we get the answer we want."
It's hard not to at least see that point of view. It's also hard to see how to prevent UKIP suddenly climbing to 35-40% in the polls (which will tend towards landslide in 2022) except by either the cancellation, or simple outright rigging, of future elections.
A second referendum (if offered) should be a choice of:
'Accept Deal (EEA/EFTA/other) as negotiated' or
'Crash out to WTO'
Remain should NOT be on the ballot.
Leaving the EU might well be an economic disaster for the country. I'm even prepared to accept it will be.
Not leaving will be a political disaster, and depending on how people react (civil disobedience, general strikes), could lead to an economic disaster anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident
Did the Iranians 'hack' it, or did it come down of it's own accord? Make your guess.
That's the big reason why the US and others will have at least one top-of-the-range manned fighter platform: the risk of hacking, or computers making the wrong decisions on sensitive missions, are too great. If the enemy finds a way into your datalink/encryption, or your craft are useless. Worse than that, they could turn them against you. That's not necessarily the case with manned craft.
https://odeboyz.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/three-brexiteers.jpg?w=640
But all the data you want is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union
It remains an outside possibility.
Leavers voted Leave did so in contemplation of the pros and cons and judged the former worth the latter. Their judgment may be wrong, but there is no evidence they gave the cons no thought.
Likewise the left demonises the right for not caring about the old, the poor, the sick, or whatever. For all they know, however, and much likelier, the right-leaning voter cares very much about all those things, but judges that Labour or the LibDems will make them all worse.
So that's post rebate, but adding back the VAT and CET payments.
If a second referendum leads to a vote stay in, it could simply end up more like the Irish vote on Lisbon - they rejected it the first time, changed their minds the second time, and life moved on.
Leavers could of course argue for best of 3, they would just need to elect a government to support that. If they can get a government to do so, fair enough, if not, then they have to win the arguments over again.
A bit like watching a match between two male players who are ranked "like 700".
How do you rate the chances of a) Leave's proposition unravelling and b) the public noticing?
Step one is for the Brexiteers in government to admit that the game is up. Public opinion will follow. (This ties into your point about needing someone who can lead.)
France will get as much research and development money from the project, then will withdraw to make its own jet.
Germany will make commitments to purchase to gain manufacturing jobs, but will use every excuse not to accept delivery.
"The German Air Force asked the U.S. military in May for a classified briefing on the F-35 fighter jet as part of an 'in-depth evaluation of market available solutions'. The German military plans to send Washington a formal 'letter of request' for information about the F-35 and Boeing Co's F-15 and F/A-18E/F fighter jets later this summer, the ministry spokesman said. "
It wasn't me who was calling them stupid...
She then attempted to explain Wifi to me in a series of texts.
I don't think she's ever forgiven me.
(Perhaps the litmus test is whether the leader could make Casino_Royale feel good about that scenario.)
How did it win without many people voting for it?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885481504780013568
Okayyyyyyyyyyyy
This is just the last chance saloon for the lobbying effort to stop Brexit. It is sounding increasingly desperate, to be honest.
You doth protest too much.
More broadly, it seems to suggest you lose a mandate as soon as you lose your opinion poll lead, which, given it happens with frightening regularity aroundabout mid-term, would invalidate virtually every government in the last 100 years inside 12-24 months.
The coalition that Theresa May previously had is inadequate because those uncomfortable compromises with reality are no longer avoidable.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/885529504743030784
For you, there is no problem, issue, setback, challenge or opportunity to you for which the solution isn't More Europe.
For me, it’s national political independence and the EU would have to be a fundamentally different organisation for me to want to rejoin – much more akin to the Council of Europe – although, I accept, an enhanced Cameron deal might be acceptable enough for a fair few Leavers.
While some Leavers may have believed it would somehow happen, others disbelieved that it would because it couldn't be implemented, but voted Leave anyway for other reasons. Still others would have thought some advantage might accrue but would not want it spent on the NHS.
It does not follow that all supporters of a ticket agree with every aspect of it. In the 1980s, Labour was a CND-supporting party. Did every single Labour voter vote thus because they wanted to disarm? Or did some disagree with CND, but thought we would not actually disarm? Or did they vote despite the CND entryism because on balance they liked the rest of the manifesto? Or because they didn't give a stuff about nukes either way?
You don't know how many there were of any of these persuasions and nor does anyone else. But if you characterise people who campaign against you as liars (from no obvious position of strength), and people who support that campaign as stupid, you had better get used to losing plebiscites.
Shame about Murray and Konta but semis is still far into the tournament (I disliked the snippet of BBC headline I saw which described Konta's performance [best by a British woman for decades] as a failure to reach the final).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXF2kYK30co
I do expect the next PM to be *more* internationalist than May, and that may well be a Tory PM, but only once Brexit is safely delivered.
As an aside, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that much of May's strategic judgement on voting coalitions prior to the election was correct, it's just she and her aides were totally tactically inept in executing it.
I fear both will be lost, now.
If the Leave campaign was mendacious yet still won, it did so because its arguments were better, or because the Remain campaign was seen as more mendacious, or both.
There are those who support EU membership for economic reasons and see the politics as something not to worry about too much (Topping, David Herdson)
There are those who reluctantly support EU membership for economic reasons even though they don't particularly like the politics (Richard Nabavi, BigGNorthWales)
There are those who somewhat hesitantly voted Leave for political reasons even though they were a little concerned about the short-term economics (DavidL, Robert Smithson)
There are those who voted Leave with conviction for political reasons even though they realised there might be an economic impact (Richard Tyndall, Charles)
There are those who voted Leave for political and economic reasons, as they see both as beneficial (Andrew Lilico, Daniel Hannan, GeoffM, Sean Fear)
I think that the enmeshment is not evidence of the EU being an octopus, but rather a "what have the Romans ever done for us?" question. We find these agreements such as Euratom or Europeans Medical licensing useful, but they generally fly under the radar as concealed benefits.
(1) Why? Because some people are bad losers. And ore importantly, they are self-important, bad losers, and not used to it.
(2) Even if we decided to crawl back to the EU on bended knees, we at not dealing with a static position. It would be up to the EU to set terms, assuming they wanted us back. The Euro - hooray! A European army - hooray. Totally uncontrolled immigration - hooray. A European parliament - hooray. Good luck with that one.
(3) The repeal bill is a massive undertaking and will emphasise how much UK law has already been subsumed into Euro Directives and Regulations - despite Cleggy bleating about how little it had really affected the UK Parliament's pre-eminence. Up there with the threat of an imminent attack by the Wardrobe Monster if we left.
There's much squawking and squealing to come, but a second referendum isn't likely to be part of it.
There's no where near enough hard core remainers in the parliamentary Conservative Party to make him PM if he switched sides.
And the likes of Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry would still vote against him anyway...
It's a 24/7 onslaught against Brexit at the moment and we're hearing absolutely no other counter arguments (a position that wouldn't be acceptable if there was a second referendum of course)
I would suspect that imminently a new pro-Brexit campaign group will set up to start rebutting a lot of the anti-Brexit claims that people are being subjected to every single day.
Useful idiots are idiots.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that some did so because they wanted Muslims sent back. Almost certainly, some people in care homes voted to have Romanian carers sent back to Romania. In the same way it seems likely that quite a lot of people last month voted Labour because they want an end to austerity, which has been necessary because of Labour.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To impute to all of them, or even a winning margin of them, the belief that £350 million would be spent on the NHS if they voted Leave has no support in evidence. It feels like a need to impute base or contemptible characteristics to someone you disagree with, so that, as they are clearly wicked or stupid, you have permission to hate them. Am I right, Scott?