Scrap HS2 and spend £56bn on fire-resistant housing, is what I'd do. Improving links between London and oop North doesn't revitalise oop North, it just speeds up the brain drain into the capital.
£56bn ???
You're not up to date:
Many seem to view your views on HS2 as a test of how "sound" you are on the EU, and everything else.
It's bonkers.
I don't really follow that. Are you saying that pro Leave correlates with anti HS2?
How much support do you think T May would have from the public if she said that HS2 is a good idea but priorities is priorities, vanity projects is vanity projects, and a good stock of flame retardant dwelling places trumps shaving 17 minutes off the Leeds to London travel time?
Anyone who mentions the "shaving 20 minutes off" argument as a reason to oppose HS2 should be disqualified from the debate on the grounds they don't know what they're talking about.
Firstly, the time reduction from London to Leeds is from 2hrs 12 mins to 1hr 23 mins, a saving of 47 minutes, not 17, as well as an hour off the journey to Manchester, and well over an hour (1 hr 21 mins) to Manchester Airport. Leeds to Heathrow via Old Oak Common will reduce from 3hrs 12 mins to 1hr 38 mins.
Why is that important?
Because it redraws Britain's economic geography. It brings all the major Northern cities (Leeds, Manchester and London) and their major airports within daily commutable range of each other, and London. It will make business relocation there feasible, as well as living there and commuting elsewhere, and bring extra high-end spending and investment to those cities. It will also lead to modal shift. For example, right now I drive to Leeds from Hampshire because the rail journey time (4hr 30 mins) is about the same as by car. In future, I will be able to get there almost an hour faster by rail, and in far more comfort, so I will take the train freeing up road space, and more often because I can go there at weekends for leisure rather than spending half the time driving in traffic jams.
Existing rail and road north-south links are at capacity. It will free up freight capacity on the existing domestic network, allowing more intermodal trains to transit around the country, and therefore fewer lorries, and it will give more options for international airports to a wider chunk of the UK population, between Birmingham, Heathrow and Manchester, further allowing those hubs to develop.
You want the Midlands and the North to develop and prosper, you want HS2. We will all benefit.
The interesting point is that the Brexit vote hasn't resolved things. You might expect once a vote has been taken a majority would say, let's get on with it. A consensus would be built with just a small fringe of diehards who still hold out. I think there are several reasons why that hasn't happened.
The majority has said let's get on with it. The problems have come about because those in power who should have been getting on with it have dragged their feet and sought at every turn to delay the process.
Quite agree.
And if the EU demand anything like 50 billion as a settlement then the sentiment for leaving will get stronger, most people would back Boris on this one.
If there was a vote asking if we should pay 50 billion or more to leave, should we pay it yes or no, I reckon no would get 80%.
So people would want to stay in the EU, in order to avoid paying the bill to leave?
I love this. Having a female is important in negotiations? and quoting celebrity philosophers on twitter? Talk about clutching at straws when things aren't going your way.
Presumably you're far more qualified than Mr Robbins and Mr Case!
It would be nice to have someone leading the negotiations - man or woman - who read briefing and position papers. If Davis had done some reading previously, he might have realised that the UK was never going to have a string of trade deals lined up on the day we leave the European Union, for example.
Why won't we?
Because we are not able to engage in any negotiations before we leave the European Union.
Rubbish, that is just something Juncker dreamt up, there is nothing to stop us negotiating now ready for a deal when we leave. What are they going to do, kick us out?
I believe Fox starts talks with the US later this month.
It's unlikely the Conservatives will call a second referendum. They are completely passive in the face of Brexit - doing nothing to stop it and nothing to prepare for it either. They aren't interested in what a divided country thinks about it, only what their supporters think and their party is where most of the Leavers are. A second referendum would only happen if they lost power.
The clamour for a second referendum is growing but can someone suggest how and when it could be legislated, on what basis would the question/s be put and how would we unwind A50 and on what terms we would remain/rejoin the EU.
Without pragmatic and realistic answers to all these questions how does anyone think it is even remotely going to happen
When the final deal is clear in 2019, and has probably just been defeated in the 'meaningful vote' in parliament, by parliament (or indeed the government, as the only way out of the mess they will then be in), the choice would be the deal, or remain on the same terms as now
Nope. Remain on the same terms as now dies on June 23rd last year. The sooner everyone accepts this, the sooner we can all move forward.
Creating a binary choice between hard Brexit and hard Remain is likely to end badly for those who want us out of the EU.
The interesting point is that the Brexit vote hasn't resolved things. You might expect once a vote has been taken a majority would say, let's get on with it. A consensus would be built with just a small fringe of diehards who still hold out. I think there are several reasons why that hasn't happened.
The majority has said let's get on with it. The problems have come about because those in power who should have been getting on with it have dragged their feet and sought at every turn to delay the process.
Quite agree.
And if the EU demand anything like 50 billion as a settlement then the sentiment for leaving will get stronger, most people would back Boris on this one.
If there was a vote asking if we should pay 50 billion or more to leave, should we pay it yes or no, I reckon no would get 80%.
So people would want to stay in the EU, in order to avoid paying the bill to leave?
Nope, I reckon 80% would tell them to 'go whistle' and we leave without a deal.
Leaving without a deal will be down to the EU being unreasonable, and they will be big losers.
The interesting point is that the Brexit vote hasn't resolved things. You might expect once a vote has been taken a majority would say, let's get on with it. A consensus would be built with just a small fringe of diehards who still hold out. I think there are several reasons why that hasn't happened.
The majority has said let's get on with it.
This is true - there is a willingness to respect the referendum vote - but that majority is shrinking every day. I was happy-ish to go along with the vote, but I've just about changed my mind. I think leaving is too much of a mistake, and those of us who think so should say so. It's sad if the country suffers because of a case of The Emperor's New Clothes. We shouldn't go through with Brexit because we're too embarrassed to admit we made a mistake in the referendum.
Who exactly is going to call this second referendum ?
A govt of national unity led by Hammond, Soubry, Chukka and Nikkla ? That would be quite a lot of "events"..
If the Brexit deal is defeated in Parliament, what else is the government going to do? Call a General Election?!
Leave without a deal and without paying the bill.
Would be a lot of noise but given we are an ingenious people we would soon adapt.
If we leave without a deal, the economy would take a hit the like of which it will take years to recover from.
Would be smaller than the post 2008 "Gordon Brown legacy" apocalypse - and we are all still here aren't we ? Shape shifting lizards haven't taken over.
No, it would be of a completely different order of magnitude. Not only would a cliff-edge Brexit lead to freezes in business and inward investment and increased borrowing costs, but it would also physically prevent the free flow of goods and services. A cliff-edge does not just mean tariffs, it also means the UK's exclusion from literally hundreds of international agreements that have an impact on just about every import and export activity you can imagine.
Depends if you believe that the EU countries will put the project before their own narrow interests. There is a first time for everything I suppose.
If we walk out without a deal, that will be our decision not the EU27's.
The EU can decide to offer a stance for us to sign up to or walk away.
They misjudged their negotiations with Cameron spectacularly - will they be as daft this time ?
Scrap HS2 and spend £56bn on fire-resistant housing, is what I'd do. Improving links between London and oop North doesn't revitalise oop North, it just speeds up the brain drain into the capital.
One of the most bizarre features of the Right at the moment is their utter obsession with HS2. Really, really odd.
I remember going to a Leave event where I was asked by two people (and they were entirely independent conversations) about HS2 within minutes.
They spat out their drinks when I said I didn't oppose it. In fact, I was strongly in favour. The entirely fact-free invective that followed, to a response they clearly weren't expecting, was both ugly and off-putting.
Many seem to view your views on HS2 as a test of how "sound" you are on the EU, and everything else.
It's bonkers.
Aren't you some kind of transport consultant? It's clearly interfering with your patriotism
I think HS2 is a misallocation of resources compared with other railway projects which would benefit just as many people, but if that's the only infrastructure investment on offer I'll take it.
I am a programme management consultant, specialising in large-scale infrastructure projects, yes. But I happen to believe that lack of infrastructure spending is one of our greatest constraints on economic growth, and that the evidence supports this.
We are still suffering from our legacy of being the very first country to industrialise, and are still sweating the back of limited Victorian assets that are well over 150 years old.
Our success as a nation was built off the back of our early investment in infrastructure and engineering. We used it to build ourselves, and then build the world. It frustrates me beyond belief that some now see this as wasteful and an example of public sector largesse.
One of the biggest things Osborne got right, in my view, was his desire for more infrastructure and development spending in the UK.
Unreasonable demands from the rest of the EU in their negotiation with the Uk will surely just go to prove how right the UK electors were to vote to leave?
You want the Midlands and the North to develop and prosper, you want HS2. We will all benefit.
Opposition to HS2 does seem to be based on a kind of fundamentalism and refusal to compromise. Even if you have other pet infrastructure projects that you may think more worthy we just need to get a move on.
The interesting point is that the Brexit vote hasn't resolved things. You might expect once a vote has been taken a majority would say, let's get on with it. A consensus would be built with just a small fringe of diehards who still hold out. I think there are several reasons why that hasn't happened.
The majority has said let's get on with it. The problems have come about because those in power who should have been getting on with it have dragged their feet and sought at every turn to delay the process.
Quite agree.
And if the EU demand anything like 50 billion as a settlement then the sentiment for leaving will get stronger, most people would back Boris on this one.
If there was a vote asking if we should pay 50 billion or more to leave, should we pay it yes or no, I reckon no would get 80%.
So people would want to stay in the EU, in order to avoid paying the bill to leave?
Nope, I reckon 80% would tell them to 'go whistle' and we leave without a deal.
Leaving without a deal will be down to the EU being unreasonable, and they will be big losers.
"Leaving without a deal" means that instead of us giving them a cheque, they'll send the bailiffs round.
Scrap HS2 and spend £56bn on fire-resistant housing, is what I'd do. Improving links between London and oop North doesn't revitalise oop North, it just speeds up the brain drain into the capital.
£56bn ???
You're not up to date:
' Campaigners opposed to the HS2 high speed rail network have seized on claims the project will cost double the official estimate.
The claims HS2 will cost £111 billion, twice as much as the official £55.7 billion figure being used by Government and HS2 Ltd, were made in the Sunday Times newspaper.
The claims relate to an estimate prepared by Michael Byng which was commissioned by the Department for Transport. '
Why 111 billion? Who not 200 billion? Or 500? In fact, why not a trillion? What's the next figure the anti's produce out of their backsides?
The anti-HS2 brigade get ever more hysterical. There's a capacity problem. Yes, I know some people try to deny that, but it's there, and every year's passenger growth cements that problem. a 2% growth in journeys from 2014/5 to 2015/6. A 129% increase since privatisation. (*)
HS2 is a reasonable solution to that problem, especially given the experience of the disastrous WCML upgrade ten years ago.
I don't understand it. Particularly when erstwhile intelligent people make this fallacious argument that HS2 will somehow "suck" resources into London. It's like saying that new airports in the North will suck business overseas, or a new motorway to Newcastle-upon-Tyne would suck aspiring workers down South.
The argument is not fallacious at all. It is based on studies done of high speed rail links around Europe, particularly France, which show that high speed rail links did not result in growth in the regions but caused more business to move from the regions to Paris. Just because the studies do not agree with what you would like to happen does not mean they are not accurate.
So where are we at the moment; we’re getting ‘rid’ of the European Court of Justice and ending free movement. Against that we’re having trouble recruiting nurses and fruit and vegetable pickers, looks like there might need to be complex negotiations to stay where we are on licensing and importing medicines, if we can, and there seems to be a good chance of difficulty with importing radio-isotopes for cancer treatment and other issues about nuclear energy. Oh and the money for the NHS was in a unicorns saddllebags! And ‘we didn’t mean it anyway!'
I'd never want to work on a project run by Remainers. What is being changed is legal and consitutional; tasks outstanding are merely staffing.
If I had to choose between legal wrangling and staffing issues, I'd chose the latter every time...
But ending free movement is what’s indicating forthcoming labour crises.
(Note that’s labour with a small l!)
Incidentally, I’m becoming increasingly suspicious of our headline employment statistics. They really don’t seem to be related to what is actually happening.
Really? It explains why cafes and bars are buzzing, and also why certain members of my family who had been long term unemployed (including several single mothers) are so proudly posting of their new jobs. I'm very proud of them. And also of the little changes in the Government's stewardship of the economy that has created the jobs.
It's not perfect, and I wish there was more export activity (and less import activity), but the economy has defied naysayers over the years. How many recessions has Uncle Vince predicted since 2010?
The U.K. Economy has many strengths with its fairly flexible job market. The downside is the massive costs loaded onto fixed capital assets. This creates an economy based mostly on labour. In addition many fixed assets that do exist are owned by foreigners. I estimate that my cost of capital in the U.K. on fixed assets is about 20% while in Switzerland where we have a sister company it is 4%. My average cost of skilled labour is £30k pa in Switzerland it is £60k. If we are to expand our exports this situation needs to change radically. It is easier to move labour than fixed assets. We don't want to end up like the Philippines
The member of my family involved in practical exporting..... selling hi tech goods to countries on the Pacific Rim ....... is finding life difficult at the moment.
Gallstones?
haha. Altrhough they’re not funny!
No; no-one wants to buy British. I suspect they think the goods will be cheaper soon, as the pound slides.
The interesting point is that the Brexit vote hasn't resolved things. You might expect once a vote has been taken a majority would say, let's get on with it. A consensus would be built with just a small fringe of diehards who still hold out. I think there are several reasons why that hasn't happened.
The majority has said let's get on with it. The problems have come about because those in power who should have been getting on with it have dragged their feet and sought at every turn to delay the process.
Quite agree.
And if the EU demand anything like 50 billion as a settlement then the sentiment for leaving will get stronger, most people would back Boris on this one.
If there was a vote asking if we should pay 50 billion or more to leave, should we pay it yes or no, I reckon no would get 80%.
So people would want to stay in the EU, in order to avoid paying the bill to leave?
Nope, I reckon 80% would tell them to 'go whistle' and we leave without a deal.
Leaving without a deal will be down to the EU being unreasonable, and they will be big losers.
"Leaving without a deal" means that instead of us giving them a cheque, they'll send the bailiffs round.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
You want the Midlands and the North to develop and prosper, you want HS2. We will all benefit.
Opposition to HS2 does seem to be based on a kind of fundamentalism and refusal to compromise. Even if you have other pet infrastructure projects that you may think more worthy we just need to get a move on.
Opposition seems to me to be based on the reasonable assertion that we shouldn't put all our investment eggs in one basket.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
The interesting point is that the Brexit vote hasn't resolved things. You might expect once a vote has been taken a majority would say, let's get on with it. A consensus would be built with just a small fringe of diehards who still hold out. I think there are several reasons why that hasn't happened.
The majority has said let's get on with it.
This is true - there is a willingness to respect the referendum vote - but that majority is shrinking every day. I was happy-ish to go along with the vote, but I've just about changed my mind. I think leaving is too much of a mistake, and those of us who think so should say so. It's sad if the country suffers because of a case of The Emperor's New Clothes. We shouldn't go through with Brexit because we're too embarrassed to admit we made a mistake in the referendum.
Let us see if David Davis & Co do as well this month as they did last month. Another "success" like last month's will have the Brexiteers calling for his head.
The interesting point is that the Brexit vote hasn't resolved things. You might expect once a vote has been taken a majority would say, let's get on with it. A consensus would be built with just a small fringe of diehards who still hold out. I think there are several reasons why that hasn't happened.
The majority has said let's get on with it. The problems have come about because those in power who should have been getting on with it have dragged their feet and sought at every turn to delay the process.
Quite agree.
And if the EU demand anything like 50 billion as a settlement then the sentiment for leaving will get stronger, most people would back Boris on this one.
If there was a vote asking if we should pay 50 billion or more to leave, should we pay it yes or no, I reckon no would get 80%.
So people would want to stay in the EU, in order to avoid paying the bill to leave?
Nope, I reckon 80% would tell them to 'go whistle' and we leave without a deal.
Leaving without a deal will be down to the EU being unreasonable, and they will be big losers.
"Leaving without a deal" means that instead of us giving them a cheque, they'll send the bailiffs round.
Theresa May has the support of the majority of the Conservative party if she chooses to sack ministers and enforce discipline on her feuding cabinet, after a weekend of leadership manoeuvres and poisonous leaks.
A message has been sent to the prime minister by the executive of the 1922 committee, which represents the parliamentary party, saying she has its support to stay on and deliver Brexit in March 2019.
“The PM has the strong support of Tory MPs — she can enforce cabinet discipline however she thinks is appropriate,” said one senior Conservative. “We will be cheering her on.”
Mrs May has shown little sign of gaining control in the wake of the June election, and in the past 48 hours Philip Hammond, the chancellor, has become the target of two hostile briefings to the media over comments he allegedly made in cabinet that public sector workers are “overpaid” and that “even” women could drive modern trains.
The almost verbatim leaking of cabinet discussions with the intention of wounding the chancellor is rare in British politics and highly corrosive, but the Sunday Times claimed no fewer than five ministers had contributed to its account.
I love this. Having a female is important in negotiations? and quoting celebrity philosophers on twitter? Talk about clutching at straws when things aren't going your way.
Presumably you're far more qualified than Mr Robbins and Mr Case!
It would be nice to have someone leading the negotiations - man or woman - who read briefing and position papers. If Davis had done some reading previously, he might have realised that the UK was never going to have a string of trade deals lined up on the day we leave the European Union, for example.
Why won't we?
Because we are not able to engage in any negotiations before we leave the European Union.
Rubbish, that is just something Juncker dreamt up, there is nothing to stop us negotiating now ready for a deal when we leave. What are they going to do, kick us out?
I believe Fox starts talks with the US later this month.
No, it's EU law: EU member states cannot negotiate trade agreements. We are an EU member state. Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not.
There will be no negotiations with the US about a trade deal until after we have left the EU. There may be talks about possibly starting a negotiation, but that is something entirely different. And, of course, no trade deal with the US can come into force until it has been approved by Congress. We may have something in place by 2022/23, if we are lucky - but that will depend greatly on who wins the 2020 Presidential election and what Congress looks like when a deal comes in front of it. As we have a trade surplus with the US currently, it is hard to see US politicians agreeing to something that does not redress this.
I love this. Having a female is important in negotiations? and quoting celebrity philosophers on twitter? Talk about clutching at straws when things aren't going your way.
Presumably you're far more qualified than Mr Robbins and Mr Case!
It would be nice to have someone leading the negotiations - man or woman - who read briefing and position papers. If Davis had done some reading previously, he might have realised that the UK was never going to have a string of trade deals lined up on the day we leave the European Union, for example.
Why won't we?
Because we are not able to engage in any negotiations before we leave the European Union.
Rubbish, that is just something Juncker dreamt up, there is nothing to stop us negotiating now ready for a deal when we leave. What are they going to do, kick us out?
I believe Fox starts talks with the US later this month.
The Uk can "scope out" trade deals with other countries now but not yet "negotiate".
The UK will always want to be seen to comply with its existing international obligations even if they are going to change at some future pooint. The Uk will otherwise find it difficult to urge other countries to stick to their obligations.
Unreasonable demands from the rest of the EU in their negotiation with the Uk will surely just go to prove how right the UK electors were to vote to leave?
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Yep - this is what puzzles me. Why are we where we are when it was so obvious that the EU27 were going to be desperate to do a deal on the terms the UK dictated to them?
Scrap HS2 and spend £56bn on fire-resistant housing, is what I'd do. Improving links between London and oop North doesn't revitalise oop North, it just speeds up the brain drain into the capital.
One of the most bizarre features of the Right at the moment is their utter obsession with HS2. Really, really odd.
I remember going to a Leave event where I was asked by two people (and they were entirely independent conversations) about HS2 within minutes.
They spat out their drinks when I said I didn't oppose it. In fact, I was strongly in favour. The entirely fact-free invective that followed, to a response they clearly weren't expecting, was both ugly and off-putting.
Many seem to view your views on HS2 as a test of how "sound" you are on the EU, and everything else.
It's bonkers.
Aren't you some kind of transport consultant? It's clearly interfering with your patriotism
I think HS2 is a misallocation of resources compared with other railway projects which would benefit just as many people, but if that's the only infrastructure investment on offer I'll take it.
I am a programme management consultant, specialising in large-scale infrastructure projects, yes. But I happen to believe that lack of infrastructure spending is one of our greatest constraints on economic growth, and that the evidence supports this.
We are still suffering from our legacy of being the very first country to industrialise, and are still sweating the back of limited Victorian assets that are well over 150 years old.
Our success as a nation was built off the back of our early investment in infrastructure and engineering. We used it to build ourselves, and then build the world. It frustrates me beyond belief that some now see this as wasteful and an example of public sector largesse.
One of the biggest things Osborne got right, in my view, was his desire for more infrastructure and development spending in the UK.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Not sure I have ever said that, in my view they are so arrogant they are virtually impossible to deal with, as Cameron found out.
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
We can get on with our situation, and leave them to realise we are not going to give in to them.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
What's the collective noun for straw men ?
A "Hammond" ?
I'll take that as a "not yet".
Have you apologised for Project Fear yet ? The immediate collapse of the economy was the cornerstone of the Remain argument. Perhaps you weren't the "experts" after all ?
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Having the option of walking away without a deal (ie on WTO terms) has to be alive in order to have a negotiating position.
It is not logically inconsistent with a statement that doing a deal is easy (even if the statement proves to be wrong).
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
What's the collective noun for straw men ?
A "Hammond" ?
I'll take that as a "not yet".
Have you apologised for Project Fear yet ? The immediate collapse of the economy was the cornerstone of the Remain argument. Perhaps you weren't the "experts" after all ?
East the straw man game innit ?
How has the punishment budget affected everyone? I have to say it hasn't caused me any problems at all.
Who exactly is going to call this second referendum ?
A govt of national unity led by Hammond, Soubry, Chukka and Nikkla ? That would be quite a lot of "events"..
If the Brexit deal is defeated in Parliament, what else is the government going to do? Call a General Election?!
Leave without a deal and without paying the bill.
Would be a lot of noise but given we are an ingenious people we would soon adapt.
If we leave without a deal, the economy would take a hit the like of which it will take years to recover from.
Would be smaller than the post 2008 "Gordon Brown legacy" apocalypse - and we are all still here aren't we ? Shape shifting lizards haven't taken over.
No, it would be of a completely different order of magnitude. Not only would a cliff-edge Brexit lead to freezes in business and inward investment and increased borrowing costs, but it would also physically prevent the free flow of goods and services. A cliff-edge does not just mean tariffs, it also means the UK's exclusion from literally hundreds of international agreements that have an impact on just about every import and export activity you can imagine.
Depends if you believe that the EU countries will put the project before their own narrow interests. There is a first time for everything I suppose.
If we walk out without a deal, that will be our decision not the EU27's.
The EU can decide to offer a stance for us to sign up to or walk away.
They misjudged their negotiations with Cameron spectacularly - will they be as daft this time ?
Will they be daft enough not to realise that the UK is prepared to inflict substantial, long-lasting harm on itself in order to avoid paying a sum that the OBR has said will have no material impact on the state of the UK's finances? Nope - I think that after this last year nothing we can do would surprise them.
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
Lord Lawson sounds completely out of touch with the realities of the EU. He always talks as if it is merely a matter of our bilateral relations with France and Germany and therefore concludes that there is no need for us to bother with the EU at all.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
What's the collective noun for straw men ?
A "Hammond" ?
I'll take that as a "not yet".
Have you apologised for Project Fear yet ? The immediate collapse of the economy was the cornerstone of the Remain argument. Perhaps you weren't the "experts" after all ?
East the straw man game innit ?
How has the punishment budget affected everyone? I have to say it hasn't caused me any problems at all.
Can't believe my leave vote gave such a boost to Scottish independence. Hang on a minute...
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Not sure I have ever said that, in my view they are so arrogant they are virtually impossible to deal with, as Cameron found out.
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
We can get on with our situation, and leave them to realise we are not going to give in to them.
Our situation being a complete freeze on business and inward investment, higher borrowing costs, and the UK's exclusion from hundreds of international agreements underpinning the import and export of just about every kind of product you can imagine. That really would teach the EU27 a lesson!
Scrap HS2 and spend £56bn on fire-resistant housing, is what I'd do. Improving links between London and oop North doesn't revitalise oop North, it just speeds up the brain drain into the capital.
£56bn ???
You're not up to date:
' Campaigners opposed to the HS2 high speed rail network have seized on claims the project will cost double the official estimate.
The claims HS2 will cost £111 billion, twice as much as the official £55.7 billion figure being used by Government and HS2 Ltd, were made in the Sunday Times newspaper.
The claims relate to an estimate prepared by Michael Byng which was commissioned by the Department for Transport. '
Why 111 billion? Who not 200 billion? Or 500? In fact, why not a trillion? What's the next figure the anti's produce out of their backsides?
The anti-HS2 brigade get ever more hysterical. There's a capacity problem. Yes, I know some people try to deny that, but it's there, and every year's passenger growth cements that problem. a 2% growth in journeys from 2014/5 to 2015/6. A 129% increase since privatisation. (*)
HS2 is a reasonable solution to that problem, especially given the experience of the disastrous WCML upgrade ten years ago.
I don't understand it. Particularly when erstwhile intelligent people make this fallacious argument that HS2 will somehow "suck" resources into London. It's like saying that new airports in the North will suck business overseas, or a new motorway to Newcastle-upon-Tyne would suck aspiring workers down South.
The argument is not fallacious at all. It is based on studies done of high speed rail links around Europe, particularly France, which show that high speed rail links did not result in growth in the regions but caused more business to move from the regions to Paris. Just because the studies do not agree with what you would like to happen does not mean they are not accurate.
You have evidence of these studies?
The evidence was presenetd to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Transport which examined HS2 proposals and should still be available their web site.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Having the option of walking away without a deal (ie on WTO terms) has to be alive in order to have a negotiating position.
It is not logically inconsistent with a statement that doing a deal is easy (even if the statement proves to be wrong).
Walking away to WTO terms is based on the supposition that everything else is unaffected by our walking away. Sadly, that is not the case. The EU27 know this, even if David Davis may not have got round to reading the briefing paper that explains this to him.
Brexiters must despair, seeing the photo of Davis turning up for negotiations this morning with nothing but a grin.
It's occurred to me that if the negotiations were fronted by an A-team of Patel, Stuart, Leadsom and Hoey, the EU might have something to fear. It's a shame that the Tories prefer to leave the women in the kitchen.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Not sure I have ever said that, in my view they are so arrogant they are virtually impossible to deal with, as Cameron found out.
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
We can get on with our situation, and leave them to realise we are not going to give in to them.
Our situation being a complete freeze on business and inward investment, higher borrowing costs, and the UK's exclusion from hundreds of international agreements underpinning the import and export of just about every kind of product you can imagine. That really would teach the EU27 a lesson!
Quite the opposite.
We are not trying to teach anyone a lesson, just that it is pointless trying to negotiate with such an arrogant group who try to bully everyone.
We may as well spend the next 18 months preparing for no deal, if they want to come back to us with reasonable and sensible proposals then we can look at them.
However realistically it is very unlikely that they will.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
What's the collective noun for straw men ?
A "Hammond" ?
I'll take that as a "not yet".
Have you apologised for Project Fear yet ? The immediate collapse of the economy was the cornerstone of the Remain argument. Perhaps you weren't the "experts" after all ?
East the straw man game innit ?
How has the punishment budget affected everyone? I have to say it hasn't caused me any problems at all.
The remainder tactics are extremely transparent - seem to go in the huff when the fish aint biting.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Not sure I have ever said that, in my view they are so arrogant they are virtually impossible to deal with, as Cameron found out.
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
We can get on with our situation, and leave them to realise we are not going to give in to them.
Our situation being a complete freeze on business and inward investment, higher borrowing costs, and the UK's exclusion from hundreds of international agreements underpinning the import and export of just about every kind of product you can imagine. That really would teach the EU27 a lesson!
The rest of the EU represents 15% of the world. If they don't want to trade with us we can still trade with the other 85% to whom we have not given our full attention whilst we have been in the EU.
Theresa May has the support of the majority of the Conservative party if she chooses to sack ministers and enforce discipline on her feuding cabinet, after a weekend of leadership manoeuvres and poisonous leaks.
A message has been sent to the prime minister by the executive of the 1922 committee, which represents the parliamentary party, saying she has its support to stay on and deliver Brexit in March 2019.
“The PM has the strong support of Tory MPs — she can enforce cabinet discipline however she thinks is appropriate,” said one senior Conservative. “We will be cheering her on.”
Mrs May has shown little sign of gaining control in the wake of the June election, and in the past 48 hours Philip Hammond, the chancellor, has become the target of two hostile briefings to the media over comments he allegedly made in cabinet that public sector workers are “overpaid” and that “even” women could drive modern trains.
The almost verbatim leaking of cabinet discussions with the intention of wounding the chancellor is rare in British politics and highly corrosive, but the Sunday Times claimed no fewer than five ministers had contributed to its account.
I think the 1922 committee is speaking for Conservative activists and party members up and down the country. It always takes time for the reality on the ground to be reflected in the media narrative, but Conservatives have genuinely been impressed with May's willingness to take on responsibility and respond to criticism since the election. She has given the cabinet a period to speak out more publicly. That resulted first in Hammond's briefings against eurosceptics in the cabinet, and now the retaliatory counter-briefings.
It's now time for the various egos at play to settle down and start working for the party again, as the Prime Minister is doing. The only reason Labour came close in the election is because the Blairites went quiet. The public punish divided parties so there is a serious risk of letting Corbyn in, when we should be fighting the battle of a generation to fight off the worst threat of socialism since the 1970s.
Can we have a thread header outlining what leaving without a deal would actually mean to help confirm or refute the claims of both sides. No deal means letting all the intertwined treaties fall and i have heard suggestions that planes couldnt fly and the ports would be chaos. Surely there has got to be some form of minimum deal to prevent this and other things i'm not aware of happening.
Brexiters must despair, seeing the photo of Davis turning up for negotiations this morning with nothing but a grin.
It's occurred to me that if the negotiations were fronted by an A-team of Patel, Stuart, Leadsom and Hoey, the EU might have something to fear. It's a shame that the Tories prefer to leave the women in the kitchen.
There are the same number of women in the UK and Rest of the EU negotiating group shown round the table aren't there?
Brexiters must despair, seeing the photo of Davis turning up for negotiations this morning with nothing but a grin.
It's occurred to me that if the negotiations were fronted by an A-team of Patel, Stuart, Leadsom and Hoey, the EU might have something to fear. It's a shame that the Tories prefer to leave the women in the kitchen.
If Patel was leading the negotiations, Remainers would be saying she is completely incompetent, out of her depth and we need to switch to someone else. A year ago, Remainers were saying Leadsom needed to have May's competence. Then it was Johnson needing to have Davis' competence.
The criticism is just a desire to target whichever person is prominent in delivering Brexit at any moment. It is as grounded in reality as the argument that because papers aren't visible in the opening photograph, they can't possibly be in reach when needed. Before you know it, Remainers will be placing faith in unsubstantiated claims about politicians' negotiating beliefs by diehard anti-Brexit philosophers.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Not sure I have ever said that, in my view they are so arrogant they are virtually impossible to deal with, as Cameron found out.
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
We can get on with our situation, and leave them to realise we are not going to give in to them.
Our situation being a complete freeze on business and inward investment, higher borrowing costs, and the UK's exclusion from hundreds of international agreements underpinning the import and export of just about every kind of product you can imagine. That really would teach the EU27 a lesson!
The rest of the EU represents 15% of the world. If they don't want to trade with us we can still trade with the other 85% to whom we have not given our full attention whilst we have been in the EU.
No, we can't. If we walk out of the talks with no deal we will be severely hampered in trading elsewhere by our no longer being part of many hundreds of international agreements covering all kinds of trade and travel not only inside the EU but outside of it as well.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Not sure I have ever said that, in my view they are so arrogant they are virtually impossible to deal with, as Cameron found out.
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
We can get on with our situation, and leave them to realise we are not going to give in to them.
Our situation being a complete freeze on business and inward investment, higher borrowing costs, and the UK's exclusion from hundreds of international agreements underpinning the import and export of just about every kind of product you can imagine. That really would teach the EU27 a lesson!
The rest of the EU represents 15% of the world. If they don't want to trade with us we can still trade with the other 85% to whom we have not given our full attention whilst we have been in the EU.
No, we can't. If we walk out of the talks with no deal we will be severely hampered in trading elsewhere by our no longer being part of many hundreds of international agreements covering all kinds of trade and travel not only inside the EU but outside of it as well.
We will grandfather in the vast majority of those deals and sign more elsewhere. There will be some disruption of course, which is why it's preferable to get a deal, but not at any cost. Conservative economic reform always has a disruption period while it beds in, but it is usually for the better.
Scrap HS2 and spend £56bn on fire-resistant housing, is what I'd do. Improving links between London and oop North doesn't revitalise oop North, it just speeds up the brain drain into the capital.
£56bn ???
You're not up to date:
' Campaigners opposed to the HS2 high speed rail network have seized on claims the project will cost double the official estimate.
The claims HS2 will cost £111 billion, twice as much as the official £55.7 billion figure being used by Government and HS2 Ltd, were made in the Sunday Times newspaper.
The claims relate to an estimate prepared by Michael Byng which was commissioned by the Department for Transport. '
Why 111 billion? Who not 200 billion? Or 500? In fact, why not a trillion? What's the next figure the anti's produce out of their backsides?
The anti-HS2 brigade get ever more hysterical. There's a capacity problem. Yes, I know some people try to deny that, but it's there, and every year's passenger growth cements that problem. a 2% growth in journeys from 2014/5 to 2015/6. A 129% increase since privatisation. (*)
HS2 is a reasonable solution to that problem, especially given the experience of the disastrous WCML upgrade ten years ago.
The argument is not fallacious at all. It is based on studies done of high speed rail links around Europe, particularly France, which show that high speed rail links did not result in growth in the regions but caused more business to move from the regions to Paris. Just because the studies do not agree with what you would like to happen does not mean they are not accurate.
You have evidence of these studies?
The evidence was presenetd to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Transport which examined HS2 proposals and should still be available their web site.
You will by definition find a very wide range of views and opinions being presented to a Parliamentary Select Committee on any new proposal, scrutiny is what it is there for.
But, I'm still waiting for this supposed "killer blow" of evidence. On the other hand, studies from the LSE, OECD and KPMG have shown strong benefits, and MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of HS2.
Concluding paragraph of that Policy Exchange paper:
We estimate that the overall impact of a Brexit involving a move to WTO rules would be relatively small. One important influence in making this calculation is the depreciation in sterling which occurred immediately after the Referendum. We expect the depreciation to be maintained well into the next decade, with only a very slow recovery in the real exchange rate.
Re HS2 I listened to a very interesting report from the lead in delivery for the Crewe area and she was very enthusiastic. She said that London will be within 55 minutes, Birmingham and Manchester 15 minutes and she has billions in Middle East and Chinese investment to promote massive regeneration including 100,000 new homes in the area and allowing large numbers of back office and other London jobs relocating to the area.
She affirmed that the Northern Powerhouse would spread prosperity throughout the North greatly assisted by HS2 and HS3.
Indeed if you can reach London in 55 minutes and benefit from greatly reduced housing costs why wouldn't you. It is an opening to a whole new quality of life for many southern based families
Indeed but the idea that they consciously set out to vote against Brexit is simply garbage.
Nobody said "they consciously set out to vote against Brexit", but they did they consciously set out to vote against the vision of Brexit that Tezza put forward
We have a Conservative government that believes in democracy and listening to the people.
They asked the people at a General Election if the people wanted the vision of Brexit they were selling, and the people said "No"
And Tezza said "We are doing it anyway"
Funny kind of democracy and listening to the people...
Actually, Theresa May's vision of Brexit won more support than any other vision on offer. That's why she came first in votes and first in seats. The second most preferred vision was another hard Brexit, albeit of a socialist kind. The EEA/second referendum vision came an extremely distant third.
Scrap HS2 and spend £56bn on fire-resistant housing, is what I'd do. Improving links between London and oop North doesn't revitalise oop North, it just speeds up the brain drain into the capital.
£56bn ???
You're not up to date:
' Campaigners opposed to the HS2 high speed rail network have seized on claims the project will cost double the official estimate.
The claims HS2 will cost £111 billion, twice as much as the official £55.7 billion figure being used by Government and HS2 Ltd, were made in the Sunday Times newspaper.
The claims relate to an estimate prepared by Michael Byng which was commissioned by the Department for Transport. '
Why 111 billion? Who not 200 billion? Or 500? In fact, why not a trillion? What's the next figure the anti's produce out of their backsides?
The anti-HS2 brigade get ever more hysterical. There's a capacity problem. Yes, I know some people try to deny that, but it's there, and every year's passenger growth cements that problem. a 2% growth in journeys from 2014/5 to 2015/6. A 129% increase since privatisation. (*)
HS2 is a reasonable solution to that problem, especially given the experience of the disastrous WCML upgrade ten years ago.
The argument is not fallacious at all. It is based on studies done of high speed rail links around Europe, particularly France, which show that high speed rail links did not result in growth in the regions but caused more business to move from the regions to Paris. Just because the studies do not agree with what you would like to happen does not mean they are not accurate.
You have evidence of these studies?
The evidence was presenetd to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Transport which examined HS2 proposals and should still be available their web site.
You will by definition find a very wide range of views and opinions being presented to a Parliamentary Select Committee on any new proposal, scrutiny is what it is there for.
But, I'm still waiting for this supposed "killer blow" of evidence. On the other hand, studies from the LSE, OECD and KPMG have shown strong benefits, and MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of HS2.
Indeed but the idea that they consciously set out to vote against Brexit is simply garbage.
Nobody said "they consciously set out to vote against Brexit", but they did they consciously set out to vote against the vision of Brexit that Tezza put forward
In polls of why people voted Labour, Brexit wasn't even in the top ten reasons.
Yep - this is what puzzles me. Why are we where we are when it was so obvious that the EU27 were going to be desperate to do a deal on the terms the UK dictated to them?
Relax. We're just waiting for the CEO of BMW to get on the blower, right?
Indeed but the idea that they consciously set out to vote against Brexit is simply garbage.
Nobody said "they consciously set out to vote against Brexit", but they did they consciously set out to vote against the vision of Brexit that Tezza put forward
We have a Conservative government that believes in democracy and listening to the people.
They asked the people at a General Election if the people wanted the vision of Brexit they were selling, and the people said "No"
And Tezza said "We are doing it anyway"
Funny kind of democracy and listening to the people...
Nearly 90% of the UK's population voted for hard Brexit parties. The Tories, Labour, UKIP and DUP all had their own variant of hard Brexit.
Who backed a soft Brexit or no Brexit? Lib Dems and SNP basically and they didn't exactly set the world alight.
That is just a cheap debating point of little political value. People vote for candidates - and the current Parliament probably contains a bigger number of Remainers than the last one.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Not sure I have ever said that, in my view they are so arrogant they are virtually impossible to deal with, as Cameron found out.
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
We can get on with our situation, and leave them to realise we are not going to give in to them.
Our situation being a complete freeze on business and inward investment, higher borrowing costs, and the UK's exclusion from hundreds of international agreements underpinning the import and export of just about every kind of product you can imagine. That really would teach the EU27 a lesson!
The rest of the EU represents 15% of the world. If they don't want to trade with us we can still trade with the other 85% to whom we have not given our full attention whilst we have been in the EU.
No, we can't. If we walk out of the talks with no deal we will be severely hampered in trading elsewhere by our no longer being part of many hundreds of international agreements covering all kinds of trade and travel not only inside the EU but outside of it as well.
We will grandfather in the vast majority of those deals and sign more elsewhere. There will be some disruption of course, which is why it's preferable to get a deal, but not at any cost. Conservative economic reform always has a disruption period while it beds in, but it is usually for the better.
We can only grandfather deals in if that is agreed by the other parties to the deals, including the EU.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Not sure I have ever said that, in my view they are so arrogant they are virtually impossible to deal with, as Cameron found out.
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
We can get on with our situation, and leave them to realise we are not going to give in to them.
Our situation being a complete freeze on business and inward investment, higher borrowing costs, and the UK's exclusion from hundreds of international agreements underpinning the import and export of just about every kind of product you can imagine. That really would teach the EU27 a lesson!
The rest of the EU represents 15% of the world. If they don't want to trade with us we can still trade with the other 85% to whom we have not given our full attention whilst we have been in the EU.
a) the first law of trade is that volume is broadly inversely proportional to distance (whether geographical or regulatory)
b) there is nothing from being in the EU that 'distracts' from trade with the ROW; just look at Germany.
Twitter Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound 18m18 minutes ago Michael Gove and the people who work for him or are friends with him played NO role whatsoever in the stories I wrote at the weekend
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Not sure I have ever said that, in my view they are so arrogant they are virtually impossible to deal with, as Cameron found out.
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
We can get on with our situation, and leave them to realise we are not going to give in to them.
Our situation being a complete freeze on business and inward investment, higher borrowing costs, and the UK's exclusion from hundreds of international agreements underpinning the import and export of just about every kind of product you can imagine. That really would teach the EU27 a lesson!
The rest of the EU represents 15% of the world. If they don't want to trade with us we can still trade with the other 85% to whom we have not given our full attention whilst we have been in the EU.
a) the first law of trade is that volume is broadly inversely proportional to distance (whether geographical or regulatory)
b) there is nothing from being in the EU that 'distracts' from trade with the ROW; just look at Germany.
If you read the Policy Exchange paper further down the thread you will see the gravity models based on your first law were very flawed. The EU distracts from trade with the ROW by making it impossible to sign trade deals with them without EU agreement. Trade agreements are important for making trade easier. That is the whole reason Remainers say it is so important we get a good deal with the EU.
I travel from Manchester to London on a regular basis, it takes around 2 hours or so now to do that journey, can anyone explain why shaving off 20 mins of that journey with HS2 is a good idea.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Not sure I have ever said that, in my view they are so arrogant they are virtually impossible to deal with, as Cameron found out.
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
We can get on with our situation, and leave them to realise we are not going to give in to them.
Our situation being a complete freeze on business and inward investment, higher borrowing costs, and the UK's exclusion from hundreds of international agreements underpinning the import and export of just about every kind of product you can imagine. That really would teach the EU27 a lesson!
The rest of the EU represents 15% of the world. If they don't want to trade with us we can still trade with the other 85% to whom we have not given our full attention whilst we have been in the EU.
a) the first law of trade is that volume is broadly inversely proportional to distance (whether geographical or regulatory)
b) there is nothing from being in the EU that 'distracts' from trade with the ROW; just look at Germany.
a) "the first law of trade" – The empirical models may be called "Gravity Models", but they don't have the equivalent status of the law of gravity. b) Of course there is. It is called "trade diversion" in the literature, and it is by no means insignificant.
It's remarkable how all the Leavers who told us in advance that a deal would easily and painlessly be negotiated with the EU are now telling us that Britain should walk away without a deal. Perhaps they might instead care to admit first that they misjudged the situation?
Not sure I have ever said that, in my view they are so arrogant they are virtually impossible to deal with, as Cameron found out.
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
We can get on with our situation, and leave them to realise we are not going to give in to them.
Our situation being a complete freeze on business and inward investment, higher borrowing costs, and the UK's exclusion from hundreds of international agreements underpinning the import and export of just about every kind of product you can imagine. That really would teach the EU27 a lesson!
The rest of the EU represents 15% of the world. If they don't want to trade with us we can still trade with the other 85% to whom we have not given our full attention whilst we have been in the EU.
No, we can't. If we walk out of the talks with no deal we will be severely hampered in trading elsewhere by our no longer being part of many hundreds of international agreements covering all kinds of trade and travel not only inside the EU but outside of it as well.
We will grandfather in the vast majority of those deals and sign more elsewhere. There will be some disruption of course, which is why it's preferable to get a deal, but not at any cost. Conservative economic reform always has a disruption period while it beds in, but it is usually for the better.
We can only grandfather deals in if that is agreed by the other parties to the deals, including the EU.
While it would be easier to get the EU's agreement, we can easily rewrite a few articles in those treaties to effectively grandfather them in with it.
Twitter Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound 18m18 minutes ago Michael Gove and the people who work for him or are friends with him played NO role whatsoever in the stories I wrote at the weekend
My guess is that the briefings against Hammond have come primarily from Amber Rudd...
Those criticising the Tory negotiations have a good point but it could be far worse. If Labour had won the GE we'd have Abbott and McDonnell going in to bat for us.
This is the level of politicians we have and yet so many on here put so much faith in them, its ridiculous. We have 650 MPs, I'd wager that less than 10% have achieved anything worthwhile outside of politics.
Yes but they were the ones who stood up and decided to go into politics. It's not a closed shop. You could do it. @Tissue_Price did it.
I stood in 2015
Then that is admirable. Aren't you proving the point though? The level of politicians we have is a function of the people who put themselves up, together with the public (or associations) who vote for them.
In effect local parties decide who will be MPs, most seats don't change hands, get selected and you've got a job for life - most of them cruise through it.
Those criticising the Tory negotiations have a good point but it could be far worse. If Labour had won the GE we'd have Abbott and McDonnell going in to bat for us.
This is the level of politicians we have and yet so many on here put so much faith in them, its ridiculous. We have 650 MPs, I'd wager that less than 10% have achieved anything worthwhile outside of politics.
Yes but they were the ones who stood up and decided to go into politics. It's not a closed shop. You could do it. @Tissue_Price did it.
I stood in 2015
Then that is admirable. Aren't you proving the point though? The level of politicians we have is a function of the people who put themselves up, together with the public (or associations) who vote for them.
In effect local parties decide who will be MPs, most seats don't change hands, get selected and you've got a job for life - most of them cruise through it.
I travel from Manchester to London on a regular basis, it takes around 2 hours or so now to do that journey, can anyone explain why shaving off 20 mins of that journey with HS2 is a good idea.
Have you ever travelled on HS1?
I have, frequently. It's nice, and a pleasant surprise to whizz out so quickly . But I'm still an HS2 sceptic - it is a classic example of Big Projectitis, which politicians of all parties suffer from.
The case for HS2, to be fair, is based not so much on the 20 minutes ass on the argument that growth in demand for rail services is gradually overwhelming existing capacity, so Something Must Be Done.The question is whether the big-bang HS2 is the right answer. I'm not totally opposed and I don't pretend to be a rail expert, but it's not unreasonable to question it.
Twitter Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound 18m18 minutes ago Michael Gove and the people who work for him or are friends with him played NO role whatsoever in the stories I wrote at the weekend
What's that line from Yes, Prime Minister? Never believe anything until it has been denied.
I suspect our negotiation tactic is to let things drift, settle down. We don't want to be bounced into costly solutions for problems that turn out to be minor.
I suspect our negotiation tactic is to let things drift, settle down. We don't want to be bounced into costly solutions for problems that turn out to be minor.
Can we have a thread header outlining what leaving without a deal would actually mean to help confirm or refute the claims of both sides. No deal means letting all the intertwined treaties fall and i have heard suggestions that planes couldnt fly and the ports would be chaos. Surely there has got to be some form of minimum deal to prevent this and other things i'm not aware of happening.
The moon will turn to blood but don't worry about that. It'll be quite pretty, and tides are overrated.
I'm more worried about the zombies. In preparation I've just bought all of the boxed sets of Walking Dead and I'm going to binge-watch them for survival tricks and tips.
I'm also keen that Mr @Morris_Dancer publishes his books in print format, When the power goes off I won't be able to read my new copy of Traitor's Prize when the Kindle goes flat, will I?
It's these little details that will help us survive. Plus the airline ready meals we'll be able to pick up from the crashed jets after they've fallen out of the sky.
I suspect our negotiation tactic is to let things drift, settle down. We don't want to be bounced into costly solutions for problems that turn out to be minor.
[snip retweet]
That's a perfect result.
The important part is the BYE at the end. The other bits are fluff.
Twitter Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound 18m18 minutes ago Michael Gove and the people who work for him or are friends with him played NO role whatsoever in the stories I wrote at the weekend
What's that line from Yes, Prime Minister? Never believe anything until it has been denied.
Gove hasn't denied anything, its Tim Shipman who is clearly denying any involvement from Gove or his team in the articles he penned this weekend. Why would Gove suddenly wade into this briefing war between Johnson, Davis and Hammond, absolutely no upside for him so soon after his return to Cabinet?
I travel from Manchester to London on a regular basis, it takes around 2 hours or so now to do that journey, can anyone explain why shaving off 20 mins of that journey with HS2 is a good idea.
Have you ever travelled on HS1?
I have, frequently. It's nice, and a pleasant surprise to whizz out so quickly . But I'm still an HS2 sceptic - it is a classic example of Big Projectitis, which politicians of all parties suffer from.
The case for HS2, to be fair, is based not so much on the 20 minutes ass on the argument that growth in demand for rail services is gradually overwhelming existing capacity, so Something Must Be Done.The question is whether the big-bang HS2 is the right answer. I'm not totally opposed and I don't pretend to be a rail expert, but it's not unreasonable to question it.
It's my understanding (experts please chime in) that a slightly slower version could be done at a fraction of the construction costs - the planned speeds requiring much more solid foundations for laying the track. The terminals and land purchase would however be much the same.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is currently last-traded as joint second favourite for next Conservative leader on Betfair, behind David Davis but level at 9.6 with Boris Johnson.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is currently last-traded as joint second favourite for next Conservative leader on Betfair, behind David Davis but level at 9.6 with Boris Johnson.
I don't understand it. Particularly when erstwhile intelligent people make this fallacious argument that HS2 will somehow "suck" resources into London. It's like saying that new airports in the North will suck business overseas, or a new motorway to Newcastle-upon-Tyne would suck aspiring workers down South.
The logical end-point of those arguments is that the less infrastructure you have, the more local business and wealth you have retained in the locality. On that basis, we should be tearing up existing infrastructure, not adding to it. It's stark raving bonkers.
New physical and communications infrastructure is a win-win. It leads to additional growth at both ends, and allows greater opportunities for investment. Just look at how the M3/M4 and M1 corridors aided development of services "spokes" around London in the 1970s, and thereafter, in the Thames Valley, Surrey, North Hampshire, and Milton Keynes areas. There are several major company HQs there now. Infrastructure makes it more feasible to both live and work there.
The North is very poorly connected to London and the South-East, which is a global hub, and anything which enhances capacity, speed and "hook-in" to this is a very good thing for them, and everyone else.
Airports are an excellent example of how asymmetrical transport links can be; consider the ratio of the number of UK funseekers flying out from Leeds or Manchester airport to the mediterranean for wet tshirt contests every year, to the number of mediterranean funseekers flying in to the same airports for pleasure.
Two instances of failed attempts to leverage the provinces at the expense of London: 1. BBC Salford, where Beeb Londoners prefer to commute as necessary from London rather than relocate to Salford. 2. Bristol Mercantile Court, which was meant to mean us westcountry folk would sort out our differences with home grown legal talent rather than be forced to travel to the Great Wen; in fact it means that the London solicitors and London barristers usually on each side of the case have to take a train rather than pop round the corner to the proper Commercial Court; and if there are genuine west country interests involved it is generally much less conhvenient to get to Bristol than it is to London.
TheScreamingEagles - yesterday we had worries about the supply of technetium-99m - but then "ARTMS Products Inc. partners with Alliance Medical to modernize, stabilize UK medical isotope supply chain; to enable and demonstrate an alternative, non-reactor supply of technetium-99m". Probably worth waiting a day before making any costly decisions on Euratom.
Re HS2 I listened to a very interesting report from the lead in delivery for the Crewe area and she was very enthusiastic. She said that London will be within 55 minutes, Birmingham and Manchester 15 minutes and she has billions in Middle East and Chinese investment to promote massive regeneration including 100,000 new homes in the area and allowing large numbers of back office and other London jobs relocating to the area.
She affirmed that the Northern Powerhouse would spread prosperity throughout the North greatly assisted by HS2 and HS3.
Indeed if you can reach London in 55 minutes and benefit from greatly reduced housing costs why wouldn't you. It is an opening to a whole new quality of life for many southern based families
Which makes it all the more puzzling why we are drowning in all this Brexit nonsense....we are on the cusp of some wonderful improvements driven by technology, science and knowledge. The fallout from Brexit, whether it's Euratom, trade, whatever..... simply demonstrate all the more that our fate is inextricably linked to Europe.
Anyway, I'm quite frankly fed up of Brexit...it's stupid, self defeating and nihilistic....it has turned the Tory party into something that resembles a festering Louisiana swamp simmering with poisonous guttersnipes instead of something that claims to govern the UK. Corbyn no more wants to be PM today than he did ten years ago...he's a lefty polemical protest politician...we need them to give the political landscape some perspective and diversity (as much as right wing polemicists like seanT) but quite honestly you do not want either close to government.
Alarmingly, I have just noticed that I am close to 4,000 posts here. At, possibly 5 mins per post, or 100 words per post, that's much too much misspent time.
Until the next election of any betting interest I'll return to lurking so I can remain under the 4,000 figure. BigJohn.....I see you as the barometer of the UK political scene. You are as central as it comes...a one nation, pro EU (sort of), pragmatic Tory underscored by a very small c, a christian democrat in all but name. I find your bafflement and worries at the prospect of a looming hard Brexit interesting.... something incidentally inflicted solely by your party, a party that you thought stood for stability, economic security...easing the country through change....and now that same party has plunged the country into an ongoing social, political, economic crisis that has no end in sight.
Mr. Gin, why? Isn't Rudd on the same page as Hammond on our EU departure?
Yes. I don't think the briefings against Hammond have much to do with Brexit actually... I think they are mainly down to;
1. Hammond is seen by some as a bit of an old fashioned, tin-eared sexist.
2. Rudd was being lined up for his job until Theresa blew her majority and he became unsackable.
3. I read she's formed some sort of strange alliance with Boris... So there's the Brexit/Boris angle.
The main briefer was described as a Leave supporting cabinet minister, which would rule out Rudd. Their complaint was that Hammond was a member of the establishment who was out to undermine Brexit. A cabinet member denouncing another of being establishment is such an extraordinary accusation, you think it must come from Leadsom, although I could conceive of Davis thinking that. It certainly wouldn't come from either Johnson or Gove.
Can we have a thread header outlining what leaving without a deal would actually mean to help confirm or refute the claims of both sides. No deal means letting all the intertwined treaties fall and i have heard suggestions that planes couldnt fly and the ports would be chaos. Surely there has got to be some form of minimum deal to prevent this and other things i'm not aware of happening.
Yes, also that UK citizens in the EU would become illegal aliens no longer entitled to access to medical treatment and other services. If really looked like no deal, there would presumably be a mass exodus of e.g. pensioners from Spain to the UK beforehand.
Comments
Firstly, the time reduction from London to Leeds is from 2hrs 12 mins to 1hr 23 mins, a saving of 47 minutes, not 17, as well as an hour off the journey to Manchester, and well over an hour (1 hr 21 mins) to Manchester Airport. Leeds to Heathrow via Old Oak Common will reduce from 3hrs 12 mins to 1hr 38 mins.
Why is that important?
Because it redraws Britain's economic geography. It brings all the major Northern cities (Leeds, Manchester and London) and their major airports within daily commutable range of each other, and London. It will make business relocation there feasible, as well as living there and commuting elsewhere, and bring extra high-end spending and investment to those cities. It will also lead to modal shift. For example, right now I drive to Leeds from Hampshire because the rail journey time (4hr 30 mins) is about the same as by car. In future, I will be able to get there almost an hour faster by rail, and in far more comfort, so I will take the train freeing up road space, and more often because I can go there at weekends for leisure rather than spending half the time driving in traffic jams.
Existing rail and road north-south links are at capacity. It will free up freight capacity on the existing domestic network, allowing more intermodal trains to transit around the country, and therefore fewer lorries, and it will give more options for international airports to a wider chunk of the UK population, between Birmingham, Heathrow and Manchester, further allowing those hubs to develop.
You want the Midlands and the North to develop and prosper, you want HS2. We will all benefit.
I believe Fox starts talks with the US later this month.
Leaving without a deal will be down to the EU being unreasonable, and they will be big losers.
They misjudged their negotiations with Cameron spectacularly - will they be as daft this time ?
We are still suffering from our legacy of being the very first country to industrialise, and are still sweating the back of limited Victorian assets that are well over 150 years old.
Our success as a nation was built off the back of our early investment in infrastructure and engineering. We used it to build ourselves, and then build the world. It frustrates me beyond belief that some now see this as wasteful and an example of public sector largesse.
One of the biggest things Osborne got right, in my view, was his desire for more infrastructure and development spending in the UK.
No; no-one wants to buy British. I suspect they think the goods will be cheaper soon, as the pound slides.
A "Hammond" ?
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/886692296485466112
There will be no negotiations with the US about a trade deal until after we have left the EU. There may be talks about possibly starting a negotiation, but that is something entirely different. And, of course, no trade deal with the US can come into force until it has been approved by Congress. We may have something in place by 2022/23, if we are lucky - but that will depend greatly on who wins the 2020 Presidential election and what Congress looks like when a deal comes in front of it. As we have a trade surplus with the US currently, it is hard to see US politicians agreeing to something that does not redress this.
The UK will always want to be seen to comply with its existing international obligations even if they are going to change at some future pooint. The Uk will otherwise find it difficult to urge other countries to stick to their obligations.
https://www.ft.com/content/5652c79c-ccae-11e4-b94f-00144feab7de
Personally I agree with Lord Lawson, we should pay them the courtesy of preliminary talks but once they insist the four freedoms cannot be breached, we may as well walk away.
We can get on with our situation, and leave them to realise we are not going to give in to them.
East the straw man game innit ?
It is not logically inconsistent with a statement that doing a deal is easy (even if the statement proves to be wrong).
Or for once in our history we could build something so it's ready when we need it.
It's occurred to me that if the negotiations were fronted by an A-team of Patel, Stuart, Leadsom and Hoey, the EU might have something to fear. It's a shame that the Tories prefer to leave the women in the kitchen.
We are not trying to teach anyone a lesson, just that it is pointless trying to negotiate with such an arrogant group who try to bully everyone.
We may as well spend the next 18 months preparing for no deal, if they want to come back to us with reasonable and sensible proposals then we can look at them.
However realistically it is very unlikely that they will.
It's now time for the various egos at play to settle down and start working for the party again, as the Prime Minister is doing. The only reason Labour came close in the election is because the Blairites went quiet. The public punish divided parties so there is a serious risk of letting Corbyn in, when we should be fighting the battle of a generation to fight off the worst threat of socialism since the 1970s.
And Tezza said "We are doing it anyway"
Funny kind of democracy and listening to the people...
The criticism is just a desire to target whichever person is prominent in delivering Brexit at any moment. It is as grounded in reality as the argument that because papers aren't visible in the opening photograph, they can't possibly be in reach when needed. Before you know it, Remainers will be placing faith in unsubstantiated claims about politicians' negotiating beliefs by diehard anti-Brexit philosophers.
ROFL
Desperate much?
People widely supported Theresa May calling the general election but it didn't stop them voting to remove her majority....
But, I'm still waiting for this supposed "killer blow" of evidence. On the other hand, studies from the LSE, OECD and KPMG have shown strong benefits, and MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of HS2.
We estimate that the overall impact of a Brexit involving a move to WTO rules
would be relatively small. One important influence in making this calculation is
the depreciation in sterling which occurred immediately after the Referendum.
We expect the depreciation to be maintained well into the next decade, with
only a very slow recovery in the real exchange rate.
https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/working-papers/wp490.pdf
She affirmed that the Northern Powerhouse would spread prosperity throughout the North greatly assisted by HS2 and HS3.
Indeed if you can reach London in 55 minutes and benefit from greatly reduced housing costs why wouldn't you. It is an opening to a whole new quality of life for many southern based families
Who backed a soft Brexit or no Brexit? Lib Dems and SNP basically and they didn't exactly set the world alight.
b) there is nothing from being in the EU that 'distracts' from trade with the ROW; just look at Germany.
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound 18m18 minutes ago
Michael Gove and the people who work for him or are friends with him played NO role whatsoever in the stories I wrote at the weekend
b) Of course there is. It is called "trade diversion" in the literature, and it is by no means insignificant.
1. Hammond is seen by some as a bit of an old fashioned, tin-eared sexist.
2. Rudd was being lined up for his job until Theresa blew her majority and he became unsackable.
3. I read she's formed some sort of strange alliance with Boris... So there's the Brexit/Boris angle.
The case for HS2, to be fair, is based not so much on the 20 minutes ass on the argument that growth in demand for rail services is gradually overwhelming existing capacity, so Something Must Be Done.The question is whether the big-bang HS2 is the right answer. I'm not totally opposed and I don't pretend to be a rail expert, but it's not unreasonable to question it.
https://labourlist.org/2017/07/corbyn-races-ahead-of-may-in-voter-backing/
I'm more worried about the zombies. In preparation I've just bought all of the boxed sets of Walking Dead and I'm going to binge-watch them for survival tricks and tips.
I'm also keen that Mr @Morris_Dancer publishes his books in print format, When the power goes off I won't be able to read my new copy of Traitor's Prize when the Kindle goes flat, will I?
It's these little details that will help us survive. Plus the airline ready meals we'll be able to pick up from the crashed jets after they've fallen out of the sky.
The important part is the BYE at the end.
The other bits are fluff.
The terminals and land purchase would however be much the same.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is currently last-traded as joint second favourite for next Conservative leader on Betfair, behind David Davis but level at 9.6 with Boris Johnson.
But how does any of this help any of the various parties ?
At this rate, they will just be scrapping over who becomes leader of the opposition.
Two instances of failed attempts to leverage the provinces at the expense of London: 1. BBC Salford, where Beeb Londoners prefer to commute as necessary from London rather than relocate to Salford. 2. Bristol Mercantile Court, which was meant to mean us westcountry folk would sort out our differences with home grown legal talent rather than be forced to travel to the Great Wen; in fact it means that the London solicitors and London barristers usually on each side of the case have to take a train rather than pop round the corner to the proper Commercial Court; and if there are genuine west country interests involved it is generally much less conhvenient to get to Bristol than it is to London.
Which makes it all the more puzzling why we are drowning in all this Brexit nonsense....we are on the cusp of some wonderful improvements driven by technology, science and knowledge. The fallout from Brexit, whether it's Euratom, trade, whatever..... simply demonstrate all the more that our fate is inextricably linked to Europe.
Anyway, I'm quite frankly fed up of Brexit...it's stupid, self defeating and nihilistic....it has turned the Tory party into something that resembles a festering Louisiana swamp simmering with poisonous guttersnipes instead of something that claims to govern the UK. Corbyn no more wants to be PM today than he did ten years ago...he's a lefty polemical protest politician...we need them to give the political landscape some perspective and diversity (as much as right wing polemicists like seanT) but quite honestly you do not want either close to government.
Alarmingly, I have just noticed that I am close to 4,000 posts here. At, possibly 5 mins per post, or 100 words per post, that's much too much misspent time.
Until the next election of any betting interest I'll return to lurking so I can remain under the 4,000 figure. BigJohn.....I see you as the barometer of the UK political scene. You are as central as it comes...a one nation, pro EU (sort of), pragmatic Tory underscored by a very small c, a christian democrat in all but name. I find your bafflement and worries at the prospect of a looming hard Brexit interesting.... something incidentally inflicted solely by your party, a party that you thought stood for stability, economic security...easing the country through change....and now that same party has plunged the country into an ongoing social, political, economic crisis that has no end in sight.