Does. M. Barnier understand negotiation? I rather doubt it from the way he behaves.
On the contrary, he is rather good at it.
A clear position discussed and agreed with all parties on his side of the table. The contrast with DD's deliberate ambiguity is marked.
However, the truth is it is all inextricably linked.
Let's say they eventually say the "bill" they want is 50bn. More than we want but not necessarily utterly bonkers depending on how it's sliced up ( does that include 20bn for the normal stuff till March 2019? Is the rest in stallmentd over say 5 years? Does it include CNN for pensions? Can we offset some against the notional assets we presumably own 12.5% of etc etc etc) and say it came with full fat caffeinated access as now including the City, no tariffs etc. Well that would be one thing we'd probably make a reluctant show of but actually think "ok" reasonable deal let's be best buddies.
If 50 bn however, came with loads of strings, full fat ECJ, a commitment to open door EU migration, and they wanted it paid upfront in one hit. Well to put it mildly, that would be another thing.
£50 might be a reasonable restaurant bill if you've eaten grandly with three courses and decent plonk. It's not if it's baked potato with cheesy beans. You can't actually know the value of one part of the deal without the other.
I don't think a Brexit bill of anything like that figure will be paid. It would be political suicide. It is yet another reason that WTO hard Brexit is nailed on.
Even if it is WTO, are we going to renege on liabilities we have signed up for ? Will UK behave like a third world country ?
I thought the UK had zero liabilities from a purely legal standpoint.
There's an argument to be had but I don't fancy Britain's side on this one.
Does. M. Barnier understand negotiation? I rather doubt it from the way he behaves.
On the contrary, he is rather good at it.
A clear position discussed and agreed with all parties on his side of the table. The contrast with DD's deliberate ambiguity is marked.
However, the truth is it is all inextricably linked.
Let's say they eventually say the "bill" they want is 50bn. More than we want but not necessarily utterly bonkers depending on how it's sliced up ( does that include 20bn for the normal stuff till March 2019? Is the rest in stallmentd over say 5 years? Does it include CNN for pensions? Can we offset some against the notional assets we presumably own 12.5% of etc etc etc) and say it came with full fat caffeinated access as now including the City, no tariffs etc. Well that would be one thing we'd probably make a reluctant show of but actually think "ok" reasonable deal let's be best buddies.
If 50 bn however, came with loads of strings, full fat ECJ, a commitment to open door EU migration, and they wanted it paid upfront in one hit. Well to put it mildly, that would be another thing.
£50 might be a reasonable restaurant bill if you've eaten grandly with three courses and decent plonk. It's not if it's baked potato with cheesy beans. You can't actually know the value of one part of the deal without the other.
I don't think a Brexit bill of anything like that figure will be paid. It would be political suicide. It is yet another reason that WTO hard Brexit is nailed on.
Even if it is WTO, are we going to renege on liabilities we have signed up for ? Will UK behave like a third world country ?
I thought the UK had zero liabilities from a purely legal standpoint.
There's an argument to be had but I don't fancy Britain's side on this one.
An interesting article. "British families are putting aside more money than was previously thought, indicating that the savings crisis may not be as acute as feared. The average household saved 8.4pc of their income in 2015, new estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicate, substantially higher than the 6.5pc previously estimated."
She's a loser, to quote a message aimed at another Tory PM..
You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.
Far too soon to depose a leader who just won a general election.
Even by your standards that is a very stupid comment. She went into the election with the express objective of winning a bigger majority. She ended up without a majority at all. I call that failure.
She won the election, Mike, get over it.
It's a bit much you calling me stupid when you were the one touting James Chapman as the new great hope for the continuity Remainers!
Nobody won the election . Theresa May is in Downing Street courtesy of the DUP. It may be highly unlikely but were the DUP to switch sides Corbyn could become PM without a further General Election.
Tim Montgomerie ن ✔ @montie Yes, EU negotiating position(s) clear, transparent and small-minded: We want UK money, we want UK money, and we want more of UK's money 12m
There’s always a few nutcases anywhere in the USA. The ‘NASA Approved’ glasses are simply a standard to stop cheap imitations burning people’s eyes. The standard is the same as for welding masks, so if the country-boy conspiracy theorists have one of those to hand then they’re all good to go.
An interesting article. "British families are putting aside more money than was previously thought, indicating that the savings crisis may not be as acute as feared. The average household saved 8.4pc of their income in 2015, new estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicate, substantially higher than the 6.5pc previously estimated."
Didn't the lords committee report also point to zero liability?
Apparently the EU parliament received legal advice that Britain was on the hook. So perhaps it's open to interpretation, ie it can only be settled in court assuming an agreed court could be found that was willing to take this on. In any case the issue isn't mainly legal. Unless this gets sorted we won't have a functioning relationship with the EU. The amounts involved are unlikely to be high enough for that to be worth it for us. In any case we will probably WANT to spend money with the EU. The EU is an important actor that we will want to influence to our advantage. As we have thrown away our direct influence with the organisation, money is one of the few levers we have.
That's what matters at the end of the day. She won the election.
She just didn't win as much as expected.
If after being made to follow-on in the Cricket last week the WIndies had achieved a 450 in the third innings and England then scored 105/9 in the fourth innings then it would have been a very disappointing result for England compared to what was expected when the follow on was enforced. However it would still have been a victory even if a rather Pyrrhic one.
Didn't the lords committee report also point to zero liability?
Apparently the EU parliament received legal advice that Britain was on the hook. So perhaps it's open to interpretation, ie it can only be settled in court assuming an agreed court could be found that was willing to take this on. In any case the issue isn't mainly legal. Unless this gets sorted we won't have a functioning relationship with the EU. The amounts involved are unlikely to be high enough for that to be worth it for us. In any case we will probably WANT to spend money with the EU. The EU is an important actor that we will want to influence to our advantage. As we have thrown away our direct influence with the organisation, money is one of the few levers we have.
Could be as mythical as the Scottish Government's legal advice.
Does. M. Barnier understand negotiation? I rather doubt it from the way he behaves.
On the contrary, he is rather good at it.
A clear position discussed and agreed with all parties on his side of the table. The contrast with DD's deliberate ambiguity is marked.
However, the truth is it is all inextricably linked.
Let's say they eventually say the "bill" they want is 50bn. More than we want but not necessarily utterly bonkers depending on how it's sliced up ( does that include 20bn for the normal stuff till March 2019? Is the rest in installments over say 5 years? Does it include costs for pensions? Can we offset some against the notional assets we presumably own 12.5% of etc etc etc) and say it came with full fat caffeinated access as now including the City, no tariffs etc. Well that would be one thing we'd probably make a reluctant show of but actually think "ok" reasonable deal let's be best buddies.
If 50 bn however, came with loads of strings, full fat ECJ, a commitment to open door EU migration, and they wanted it paid upfront in one hit. Well to put it mildly, that would be another thing.
£50 might be a reasonable restaurant bill if you've eaten grandly with three courses and decent plonk. It's not if it's baked potato with cheesy beans. You can't actually know the value of one part of the deal without the other.
Yes, that's true. But we don't have to pay a penny without the full deal. Round 1 is about saying "We're prepared to pay £50bn (or whatever) if everything else is OK". Round 2 is about what we'd get. If Round 2 fails, Round 1 is inoperative, although there will be some binding commitments that we can't renege on without going all banana republic.
Personally I think there will be a cobbled-together deal in the end. It's in the EU's DNA to fudge, and we have no snsible choice but to fudge.
Yeah something like that. But why is Barnier still stating the "exit bill" (and EU citizens and Ireland of course) must be resolved (sufficient progress to be fair) before we move on, when we all know there's going to be some back and forth when we say "well X we agreed to in stage one will be X minus something unless we get free trade to our liking (or whatever on the ECJ/Irish border etc).
I accept there will be horse trading but the EU's position isn't really realistic in the context of an actual real negotiation (assuming they really want one of course- or we are all just wasting time!). Lots of fudge to come. Probably.
Didn't the lords committee report also point to zero liability?
Apparently the EU parliament received legal advice that Britain was on the hook. So perhaps it's open to interpretation, ie it can only be settled in court assuming an agreed court could be found that was willing to take this on. In any case the issue isn't mainly legal. Unless this gets sorted we won't have a functioning relationship with the EU. The amounts involved are unlikely to be high enough for that to be worth it for us. In any case we will probably WANT to spend money with the EU. The EU is an important actor that we will want to influence to our advantage. As we have thrown away our direct influence with the organisation, money is one of the few levers we have.
Could be as mythical as the Scottish Government's legal advice.
The UK ambassador to the EU pointed this out when the question of legal obligations came up in parliamentary committee.
That's what matters at the end of the day. She won the election.
She just didn't win as much as expected.
If after being made to follow-on in the Cricket last week the WIndies had achieved a 450 in the third innings and England then scored 105/9 in the fourth innings then it would have been a very disappointing result for England compared to what was expected when the follow on was enforced. However it would still have been a victory even if a rather Pyrrhic one.
TMay LOST the CON majority in her vanity election project when her stated aim was to get a bigger one.
The simple truth is that even if an acceptable deal cannot ultimately be agreed and as a result tariffs are introduced between the UK and the EU, we're still going to continue buying most of our cars from Europe, there's simply no realistic alternative. Perhaps the increase in costs will persuade some to downgrade, if that's the word, from Mercedes and BMW to say VW or from VW to Seat or Skoda and perhaps also convince us to hold onto our cars for a year or two longer than previously, but all in all that may not be such a bad thing.
But in that unlikely scenario, we could almost certainly pull off a quick FT deal to ensure cheaper US cars could replace the German metal.
And you also ignore the 'British' Hondas, Nissans and Toyotas that are better cars than Renaults, Citroens, BMWs, Audis, VWs, Skodas and SEATS.
Irrelevant anyway. Electric and driverless are going to disrupt the whole industry in short order and there's not a darn thing the EU, UK govt or you and I can do about it... even if we wanted to.
The simple truth is that even if an acceptable deal cannot ultimately be agreed and as a result tariffs are introduced between the UK and the EU, we're still going to continue buying most of our cars from Europe, there's simply no realistic alternative. Perhaps the increase in costs will persuade some to downgrade, if that's the word, from Mercedes and BMW to say VW or from VW to Seat or Skoda and perhaps also convince us to hold onto our cars for a year or two longer than previously, but all in all that may not be such a bad thing.
An interesting article. "British families are putting aside more money than was previously thought, indicating that the savings crisis may not be as acute as feared. The average household saved 8.4pc of their income in 2015, new estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicate, substantially higher than the 6.5pc previously estimated."
Didn't the lords committee report also point to zero liability?
Apparently the EU parliament received legal advice that Britain was on the hook. So perhaps it's open to interpretation, ie it can only be settled in court assuming an agreed court could be found that was willing to take this on. In any case the issue isn't mainly legal. Unless this gets sorted we won't have a functioning relationship with the EU. The amounts involved are unlikely to be high enough for that to be worth it for us. In any case we will probably WANT to spend money with the EU. The EU is an important actor that we will want to influence to our advantage. As we have thrown away our direct influence with the organisation, money is one of the few levers we have.
Could be as mythical as the Scottish Government's legal advice.
I actually directed you to the relevant provisions. So no, I don't think the advice is mythical.
Does. M. Barnier understand negotiation? I rather doubt it from the way he behaves.
On the contrary, he is rather good at it.
A clear position discussed and agreed with all parties on his side of the table. The contrast with DD's deliberate ambiguity is marked.
However, the tYou can't actually know the value of one part of the deal without the other.
Yes, that's true. But we don't have to pay a penny without the full deal. Round 1 is about saying "We're prepared to pay £50bn (or whatever) if everything else is OK". Round 2 is about what we'd get. If Round 2 fails, Round 1 is inoperative, although there will be some binding commitments that we can't renege on without going all banana republic.
Personally I think there will be a cobbled-together deal in the end. It's in the EU's DNA to fudge, and we have no snsible choice but to fudge.
Yeah something like that. But why is Barnier still stating the "exit bill" (and EU citizens and Ireland of course) must be resolved (sufficient progress to be fair) before we move on, when we all know there's going to be some back and forth when we say "well X we agreed to in stage one will be X minus something unless we get free trade to our liking (or whatever on the ECJ/Irish border etc).
I accept there will be horse trading but the EU's position isn't really realistic in the context of an actual real negotiation (assuming they really want one of course- or we are all just wasting time!). Lots of fudge to come. Probably.
Ultimately because the only thing that matters to us is continuity aka transition arrangement that ensures the basic things stay the same after Brexit. That's the last thing to be discussed in the Article 50 talks. There will be huge pressure to agree the other stuff, so we will pay whatever they ask for in money after a small haggle, they will say, OK to have FTA later but not now, then the important stuff is about aeroplanes, customs agreements, immigration rules, nuclear waste etc.
And you also ignore the 'British' Hondas, Nissans and Toyotas that are better cars than Renaults, Citroens, BMWs, Audis, VWs, Skodas and SEATS. Irrelevant anyway. Electric and driverless are going to disrupt the whole industry in short order and there's not a darn thing the EU, UK govt or you and I can do about it... even if we wanted to.
The simple truth is that even if an acceptable deal cannot ultimately be agreed and as a result tariffs are introduced between the UK and the EU, we're still going to continue buying most of our cars from Europe, there's simply no realistic alternative. Perhaps the increase in costs will persuade some to downgrade, if that's the word, from Mercedes and BMW to say VW or from VW to Seat or Skoda and perhaps also convince us to hold onto our cars for a year or two longer than previously, but all in all that may not be such a bad thing.
Agreed and I would add all the asian cars that get better and better. The backlash on diesels is alsready starting to hurt German car sales.
Didn't the lords committee report also point to zero liability?
Apparently the EU parliament received legal advice that Britain was on the hook. So perhaps it's open to interpretation, ie it can only be settled in court assuming an agreed court could be found that was willing to take this on. In any case the issue isn't mainly legal. Unless this gets sorted we won't have a functioning relationship with the EU. The amounts involved are unlikely to be high enough for that to be worth it for us. In any case we will probably WANT to spend money with the EU. The EU is an important actor that we will want to influence to our advantage. As we have thrown away our direct influence with the organisation, money is one of the few levers we have.
Could be as mythical as the Scottish Government's legal advice.
I actually directed you to the relevant provisions. So no, I don't think the advice is mythical.
I hope they aren't using your thread as their legal advice.
In all seriousness, doesn't article 31 only apply to treaties that are in force?
That's what matters at the end of the day. She won the election.
She just didn't win as much as expected.
If after being made to follow-on in the Cricket last week the WIndies had achieved a 450 in the third innings and England then scored 105/9 in the fourth innings then it would have been a very disappointing result for England compared to what was expected when the follow on was enforced. However it would still have been a victory even if a rather Pyrrhic one.
TMay LOST the CON majority in her vanity election project when her stated aim was to get a bigger one.
Indeed she failed in her objective.
However she still beat all her political opponents (even if by less than expected or her predecessor did) and is still Prime Minister. She won the election just not be a very good margin.
If Man Utd only win a 3-2 victory next week in stoppage time at home against Leicester this weekend is that a LOSS considering their last two results have been 4-0 victories?
SInce the prevailing mood on pb seems to be "foggy thinking in England, Continent cut off", the prospects of a worthwhile deal seem faint if that's a guide to how the negotiations are going to play out.
A lot of people who have bought a German car recently must be feeling they have been mugged, now it looks as though the manufacturers have been canoodling... Interesting to see JLR have the loeest depreciation too.
That's what matters at the end of the day. She won the election.
She just didn't win as much as expected.
If after being made to follow-on in the Cricket last week the WIndies had achieved a 450 in the third innings and England then scored 105/9 in the fourth innings then it would have been a very disappointing result for England compared to what was expected when the follow on was enforced. However it would still have been a victory even if a rather Pyrrhic one.
But had it been a different Labour leader the DUP might have propped up a minority Labour Govt regardless of the Tories being so much closer to the winning post. On that basis, Theresa May could have won the election but ceased to be PM because none of the smaller parties would agree to support her.
Couldn't find a quick quote from the article that can quite capture it, but this comment from below the line does it some justice (bs = Venezuelan bolivars):
Yeah, a few weeks ago, I offered a guy bs 10,000 for about 4 hours of work. This guy has a wife, two kids, no job, practically nothing. The whole bunch are skinny as rails. Bs 10,000 is almost doubIe what anyone pays. I figured he’d jump at it.
Ahhhh, no.
“The monkey is going go win today and I need to be there”. The monkey? WTF are you talking about? “Animalitos”.
That's what matters at the end of the day. She won the election.
She just didn't win as much as expected.
If after being made to follow-on in the Cricket last week the WIndies had achieved a 450 in the third innings and England then scored 105/9 in the fourth innings then it would have been a very disappointing result for England compared to what was expected when the follow on was enforced. However it would still have been a victory even if a rather Pyrrhic one.
But had it been a different Labour leader the DUP might have propped up a minority Labour Govt regardless of the Tories being so much closer to the winning post.
The shortest of short straws.
Another Labour leader wouldn't have got anywhere near 40% of the vote.
You'd think after outperforming in three ballots, Corbyn's threat wold be taken seriously by now.
That's what matters at the end of the day. She won the election.
She just didn't win as much as expected.
If after being made to follow-on in the Cricket last week the WIndies had achieved a 450 in the third innings and England then scored 105/9 in the fourth innings then it would have been a very disappointing result for England compared to what was expected when the follow on was enforced. However it would still have been a victory even if a rather Pyrrhic one.
TMay LOST the CON majority in her vanity election project when her stated aim was to get a bigger one.
It was a general election caused in part by endless Remoaning that the referendum result did not give May a mandate for her interpretation of Brexit. It was Remoaners who wanted a general election as much as anyone to try and defeat a hard Brexit
No, she can't turn it round, but she can salvage her reputation and depart with grace, .
Maybe, but she needs to crack on really. Her not condemning Trump was a mis-step: that's a free hit on an unpopular president saying stupid things.
The President of our largest destination for exports who we need a trade deal or at least favourable trading terms with as soon as Brexit is completed, not a good idea to attack him
Exactly. Why the flip is virtue signaling to achieve nothing in particular more important than getting possibly the most important trade deal in our history?
Exactly, we need favourable trafing terms with the US (even under Trump) more than the US needs favourable trading terms with us
It's ironic that most of the things we need for Brexit to be a success can be best delivered by remaining in the EU.
That is the paradox. The best Brexit is no Brexit.
Still, think of all that cheap Australian iron ore that we could import if we were free of EU shackles.
You are ignoring the immigration issue, the referendum was immigration control and sovereignty v the economy and immigration control narrowly won
The referendum was about the NHS based on the big lie. The official campaign barely mentioned immigration which, of course, is central to a healthy economy.
.
That is nonsense. The polls heavily moved towards Leave when they started talking about immigration. It suits Remainers to blame it on the NHS thing. UKIP got 13% from nowhere in a GE by banging on about immigration, the public have never wanted it, and the first chance they got to have a say, they told the elite to poke it
The top 3 reasons people voted Leave were:
1. Decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK 2. Regaining control over immigration and UK borders 3. Lack of choice about how the EU would expand its membership and powers
That was true for Tory and Labour Leave voters, the NHS funding claim did not feature in the top 3 reasons at all
No, she can't turn it round, but she can salvage her reputation and depart with grace, .
Maybe, but she needs to crack on really. Her not condemning Trump was a mis-step: that's a free hit on an unpopular president saying stupid things.
The President of our largest destination for exports who we need a trade deal or at least favourable trading terms with as soon as Brexit is completed, not a good idea to attack him
Exactly. Why the flip is virtue signaling to achieve nothing in particular more important than getting possibly the most important trade deal in our history?
Exactly, we need favourable trafing terms with the US (even under Trump) more than the US needs favourable trading terms with us
It's ironic that most of the things we need for Brexit to be a success can be best delivered by remaining in the EU.
That is the paradox. The best Brexit is no Brexit.
Still, think of all that cheap Australian iron ore that we could import if we were free of EU shackles.
You are ignoring the immigration issue, the referendum was immigration control and sovereignty v the economy and immigration control narrowly won
The referendum was about the NHS based on the big lie. The official campaign barely mentioned immigration which, of course, is central to a healthy economy.
.
That is nonsense. The polls heavily moved towards Leave when they started talking about immigration. It suits Remainers to blame it on the NHS thing. UKIP got 13% from nowhere in a GE by banging on about immigration, the public have never wanted it, and the first chance they got to have a say, they told the elite to poke it
The top 3 reasons people voted Leave were:
1. Decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK 2. Regaining control over immigration and UK borders 3. Lack of choice about how the EU would expand its membership and powers
That was true for Tory and Labour Leave voters, the NHS funding claim did not feature in the top 3 reasons at all
No, she can't turn it round, but she can salvage her reputation and depart with grace, .
Maybe, but she needs to crack on really. Her not condemning Trump was a mis-step: that's a free hit on an unpopular president saying stupid things.
The President of our largest destination for exports who we need a trade deal or at least favourable trading terms with as soon as Brexit is completed, not a good idea to attack him
Exactly. Why the flip is virtue signaling to achieve nothing in particular more important than getting possibly the most important trade deal in our history?
Exactly, we need favourable trafing terms with the US (even under Trump) more than the US needs favourable trading terms with us
It's ironic that most of the things we need for Brexit to be a success can be best delivered by remaining in the EU.
That is the paradox. The best Brexit is no Brexit.
Still, think of all that cheap Australian iron ore that we could import if we were free of EU shackles.
You are ignoring the immigration issue, the referendum was immigration control and sovereignty v the economy and immigration control narrowly won
The referendum was about the NHS based on the big lie. The official campaign barely mentioned immigration which, of course, is central to a healthy economy.
.
That is nonsense. The polls heavily moved towards Leave when they started talking about immigration. It suits Remainers to blame it on the NHS thing. UKIP got 13% from nowhere in a GE by banging on about immigration, the public have never wanted it, and the first chance they got to have a say, they told the elite to poke it
The top 3 reasons people voted Leave were:
1. Decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK 2. Regaining control over immigration and UK borders 3. Lack of choice about how the EU would expand its membership and powers
That was true for Tory and Labour Leave voters, the NHS funding claim did not feature in the top 3 reasons at all
No, she can't turn it round, but she can salvage her reputation and depart with grace, .
Maybe, but she needs to crack on really. Her not condemning Trump was a mis-step: that's a free hit on an unpopular president saying stupid things.
The President of our largest destination for exports who we need a trade deal or at least favourable trading terms with as soon as Brexit is completed, not a good idea to attack him
Exactly. Why the flip is virtue signaling to achieve nothing in particular more important than getting possibly the most important trade deal in our history?
Exactly, we need favourable trafing terms with the US (even under Trump) more than the US needs favourable trading terms with us
It's ironic that most of the things we need for Brexit to be a success can be best delivered by remaining in the EU.
That is the paradox. The best Brexit is no Brexit.
Still, think of all that cheap Australian iron ore that we could import if we were free of EU shackles.
You are ignoring the immigration issue, the referendum was immigration control and sovereignty v the economy and immigration control narrowly won
The referendum was about the NHS based on the big lie. The official campaign barely mentioned immigration which, of course, is central to a healthy economy.
.
That is nonsense. The polls heavily poke it
The top 3 reasons people voted Leave were:
1. Decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK 2. Regaining control over immigration and UK borders 3. Lack of choice about how the EU would expand its membership and powers
That was true for Tory and Labour Leave voters, the NHS funding claim did not feature in the top 3 reasons at all
Those may be the top 3 rationalisations, not reasons.
Well they were the top 3 rationalisations then for the 17 million people who did vote Leave, more than have ever voted for any political party or politician or answer to any referendum question in any previous UK vote
That's what matters at the end of the day. She won the election.
She just didn't win as much as expected.
If after being made to follow-on in the Cricket last week the WIndies had achieved a 450 in the third innings and England then scored 105/9 in the fourth innings then it would have been a very disappointing result for England compared to what was expected when the follow on was enforced. However it would still have been a victory even if a rather Pyrrhic one.
TMay LOST the CON majority in her vanity election project when her stated aim was to get a bigger one.
It was a general election caused in part by endless Remoaning that the referendum result did not give May a mandate for her interpretation of Brexit. It was Remoaners who wanted a general election as much as anyone to try and defeat a hard Brexit
Please let us know which "Remoaner" wanted a general election ?
Couldn't find a quick quote from the article that can quite capture it, but this comment from below the line does it some justice (bs = Venezuelan bolivars):
Yeah, a few weeks ago, I offered a guy bs 10,000 for about 4 hours of work. This guy has a wife, two kids, no job, practically nothing. The whole bunch are skinny as rails. Bs 10,000 is almost doubIe what anyone pays. I figured he’d jump at it.
Ahhhh, no.
“The monkey is going go win today and I need to be there”. The monkey? WTF are you talking about? “Animalitos”.
Ah okay, that voluntary tax on the poor.
In my (fairly limited) experience of living/travelling in some fairly odd corners of the world - there seem to be variants of that game/scam/lottery setup in every society.
That's what matters at the end of the day. She won the election.
She just didn't win as much as expected.
If after being made to follow-on in the Cricket last week the WIndies had achieved a 450 in the third innings and England then scored 105/9 in the fourth innings then it would have been a very disappointing result for England compared to what was expected when the follow on was enforced. However it would still have been a victory even if a rather Pyrrhic one.
TMay LOST the CON majority in her vanity election project when her stated aim was to get a bigger one.
It was a general election caused in part by endless Remoaning that the referendum result did not give May a mandate for her interpretation of Brexit. It was Remoaners who wanted a general election as much as anyone to try and defeat a hard Brexit
Please let us know which "Remoaner" wanted a general election ?
That's what matters at the end of the day. She won the election.
She just didn't win as much as expected.
If after being made to follow-on in the Cricket last week the WIndies had achieved a 450 in the third innings and England then scored 105/9 in the fourth innings then it would have been a very disappointing result for England compared to what was expected when the follow on was enforced. However it would still have been a victory even if a rather Pyrrhic one.
TMay LOST the CON majority in her vanity election project when her stated aim was to get a bigger one.
Indeed she failed in her objective.
However she still beat all her political opponents (even if by less than expected or her predecessor did) and is still Prime Minister. She won the election just not be a very good margin.
If Man Utd only win a 3-2 victory next week in stoppage time at home against Leicester this weekend is that a LOSS considering their last two results have been 4-0 victories?
Your rationalisation is stupid. All your words would have been appropriate if this was a 5 yearly general election.
But she already had a majority of 12 with three years to go. So now having fallen short by 8 seats cannot be considered a win by any means.
Couldn't find a quick quote from the article that can quite capture it, but this comment from below the line does it some justice (bs = Venezuelan bolivars):
Yeah, a few weeks ago, I offered a guy bs 10,000 for about 4 hours of work. This guy has a wife, two kids, no job, practically nothing. The whole bunch are skinny as rails. Bs 10,000 is almost doubIe what anyone pays. I figured he’d jump at it.
Ahhhh, no.
“The monkey is going go win today and I need to be there”. The monkey? WTF are you talking about? “Animalitos”.
Ah okay, that voluntary tax on the poor.
In my (fairly limited) experience of living/travelling in some fairly odd corners of the world - there seem to be variants of that game/scam/lottery setup in every society.
Yes, nor is it recent either. As pointed out in the comments, it's almost identical to "the numbers" in Harlem in the 40s (if you've ever read the "autobiography" of Malcolm X - which you should, it's a great read - there's a very vivid description in there... the NYT claims that100,000 people used to work in NY's "numbers" industry as late as the 1960s). But people turning to the game as they get hungrier - and shops turning to it as they run out of food to sell - is a very powerful and troubling image.
The welcoming happy faces of the cartoon-character animals in the advert that's pictured at the top are also weirdly disturbing.
An interesting article. "British families are putting aside more money than was previously thought, indicating that the savings crisis may not be as acute as feared. The average household saved 8.4pc of their income in 2015, new estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicate, substantially higher than the 6.5pc previously estimated."
I suspect that when the data is eventually published, both 2016 and (hopefully) 2017 will prove to have been excellent years for savings, helped in no small measure by the increases in share prices and other forms of investment around the world over this period. In the UK the FTSE 100 Index is currently over 1,000 points higher or +16% than its level at 31.12.15, while in many cases overseas markets, aided by the falls in sterling, have fared considerably better. In my own case the value of my total savings over the past 20 months have probably increased by over 20%, not as a result of any conscious effort on my part to spend less and/or to save more, but rather as a result of these market factors. The next two years may and indeed probably will prove to be very different in this regard.
An interesting article. "British families are putting aside more money than was previously thought, indicating that the savings crisis may not be as acute as feared. The average household saved 8.4pc of their income in 2015, new estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicate, substantially higher than the 6.5pc previously estimated."
I suspect that when the data is eventually published, both 2016 and (hopefully) 2017 will prove to have been excellent years for savings, helped in no small measure by the increases in share prices and other forms of investment around the world over this period. In the UK the FTSE 100 Index is currently over 1,000 points higher or +16% than its level at 31.12.15, while in many cases overseas markets, aided by the falls in sterling, have fared considerably better. In my own case the value of my total savings over the past 20 months have probably increased by over 20%, not as a result of any conscious effort on my part to spend less and/or to save more, but rather as a result of these market factors. The next two years may and indeed probably will prove to be very different in this regard.
If you have overseas assets, you will be alright. I believe £ = € within 6 months.
That's what matters at the end of the day. She won the election.
She just didn't win as much as expected.
If after being made to follow-on in the Cricket last week the WIndies had achieved a 450 in the third innings and England then scored 105/9 in the fourth innings then it would have been a very disappointing result for England compared to what was expected when the follow on was enforced. However it would still have been a victory even if a rather Pyrrhic one.
TMay LOST the CON majority in her vanity election project when her stated aim was to get a bigger one.
It was a general election caused in part by endless Remoaning that the referendum result did not give May a mandate for her interpretation of Brexit. It was Remoaners who wanted a general election as much as anyone to try and defeat a hard Brexit
Please let us know which "Remoaner" wanted a general election ?
Tim Farron and Jolyon Maugham for starters
Source ? And who is Jolyon Maugham ? Does he play for Everton ?
That's what matters at the end of the day. She won the election.
She just didn't win as much as expected.
If after being made to follow-on in the Cricket last week the WIndies had achieved a 450 in the third innings and England then scored 105/9 in the fourth innings then it would have been a very disappointing result for England compared to what was expected when the follow on was enforced. However it would still have been a victory even if a rather Pyrrhic one.
TMay LOST the CON majority in her vanity election project when her stated aim was to get a bigger one.
It was a general election caused in part by endless Remoaning that the referendum result did not give May a mandate for her interpretation of Brexit. It was Remoaners who wanted a general election as much as anyone to try and defeat a hard Brexit
Please let us know which "Remoaner" wanted a general election ?
Tim Farron and Jolyon Maugham for starters
Source ? And who is Jolyon Maugham ? Does he play for Everton ?
The way Brighton are buying players, both could be getting the call....
Britain will be subject to the rulings of European courts after Brexit, the government has conceded, in an apparent climbdown from its promise of judicial independence.
In the latest in a series of policy papers that seek to blur the edges of hard Brexit, the government argues that for the smooth settlement of cross-border disputes it is necessary that foreign judgments sometimes apply to individuals and businesses in the UK.
“A judgment obtained in one country can be recognised and enforced in another,” said a government source speaking anonymously before the paper’s publication on Tuesday.
That's what matters at the end of the day. She won the election.
She just didn't win as much as expected.
If after being made to follow-on in the Cricket last week the WIndies had achieved a 450 in the third innings and England then scored 105/9 in the fourth innings then it would have been a very disappointing result for England compared to what was expected when the follow on was enforced. However it would still have been a victory even if a rather Pyrrhic one.
TMay LOST the CON majority in her vanity election project when her stated aim was to get a bigger one.
It was a general election caused in part by endless Remoaning that the referendum result did not give May a mandate for her interpretation of Brexit. It was Remoaners who wanted a general election as much as anyone to try and defeat a hard Brexit
Please let us know which "Remoaner" wanted a general election ?
Tim Farron and Jolyon Maugham for starters
Source ? And who is Jolyon Maugham ? Does he play for Everton ?
A clear position discussed and agreed with all parties on his side of the table. The contrast with DD's deliberate ambiguity is marked.
If his position is clear, would you like to tell what it is? What arrangements are they proposing for the Irish border, for example, or tariffs on EU-UK trade?
WTO terms hard Brexit.
As Tusk said last October, there is only Hard Brexit or no Brexit. This is the EU position and the A50 default position.
It is amazing how many leavers have trouble with remembering that.
"As Tusk said last October, there is only Hard Brexit or no Brexit. This is the EU position and the A50 default position."
So why do most active REMAINers keep going on and on and on about the need for a soft Brexit, if it is an impossible arrangement with the EU?
I have no idea. Personally I have always maintained that it is either WTO or stay in.
Britain will be subject to the rulings of European courts after Brexit, the government has conceded, in an apparent climbdown from its promise of judicial independence.
In the latest in a series of policy papers that seek to blur the edges of hard Brexit, the government argues that for the smooth settlement of cross-border disputes it is necessary that foreign judgments sometimes apply to individuals and businesses in the UK.
“A judgment obtained in one country can be recognised and enforced in another,” said a government source speaking anonymously before the paper’s publication on Tuesday.
So... just to be clear... originally we were going to
1: Walk away. No deal was better than a bad deal. Until it wasn't .... 2: Summer of war - we were not going to follow the EU schedule. Until we did 3: Red line. No EuroCourts.... until now.
No wonder the Leavers are so fractious. Reality is a harsh mistress.
So... just to be clear... originally we were going to
1: Walk away. No deal was better than a bad deal. Until it wasn't .... 2: Summer of war - we were not going to follow the EU schedule. Until we did 3: Red line. No EuroCourts.... until now.
No wonder the Leavers are so fractious. Reality is a harsh mistress.
Interesting that none of the gobbier Brexiteers have responded yet.
Still trying to work out how to disavow a Government Brexit position paper without admitting Brexit is bollox...
So... just to be clear... originally we were going to
1: Walk away. No deal was better than a bad deal. Until it wasn't .... 2: Summer of war - we were not going to follow the EU schedule. Until we did 3: Red line. No EuroCourts.... until now.
No wonder the Leavers are so fractious. Reality is a harsh mistress.
Interesting that none of the gobbier Brexiteers have responded yet.
Still trying to work out how to disavow a Government Brexit position paper without admitting Brexit is bollox...
Maybe a purge will be needed to purify the revolution and remove the traitors that are undermining the promise of Brexit's vision of a golden, sunny re-run of 1957 with matron, nurses and no bl**dy forriners.
Britain will be subject to the rulings of European courts after Brexit, the government has conceded, in an apparent climbdown from its promise of judicial independence.
In the latest in a series of policy papers that seek to blur the edges of hard Brexit, the government argues that for the smooth settlement of cross-border disputes it is necessary that foreign judgments sometimes apply to individuals and businesses in the UK.
“A judgment obtained in one country can be recognised and enforced in another,” said a government source speaking anonymously before the paper’s publication on Tuesday.
So... just to be clear... originally we were going to
1: Walk away. No deal was better than a bad deal. Until it wasn't .... 2: Summer of war - we were not going to follow the EU schedule. Until we did 3: Red line. No EuroCourts.... until now.
No wonder the Leavers are so fractious. Reality is a harsh mistress.
A court to handle any trade disputes is fair enough, I think the issue is if it is to be the ECJ or not.
A clear position discussed and agreed with all parties on his side of the table. The contrast with DD's deliberate ambiguity is marked.
If his position is clear, would you like to tell what it is? What arrangements are they proposing for the Irish border, for example, or tariffs on EU-UK trade?
WTO terms hard Brexit.
As Tusk said last October, there is only Hard Brexit or no Brexit. This is the EU position and the A50 default position.
It is amazing how many leavers have trouble with remembering that.
"As Tusk said last October, there is only Hard Brexit or no Brexit. This is the EU position and the A50 default position."
So why do most active REMAINers keep going on and on and on about the need for a soft Brexit, if it is an impossible arrangement with the EU?
I have no idea. Personally I have always maintained that it is either WTO or stay in.
My view too. Soft Brexit is a mirage and not possible on the timescale.
Hard WTO Brexit is the default and does require a smidgen of planning, even if those in charge think it unlikely to happen.
So... just to be clear... originally we were going to
1: Walk away. No deal was better than a bad deal. Until it wasn't .... 2: Summer of war - we were not going to follow the EU schedule. Until we did 3: Red line. No EuroCourts.... until now.
No wonder the Leavers are so fractious. Reality is a harsh mistress.
Interesting that none of the gobbier Brexiteers have responded yet.
Still trying to work out how to disavow a Government Brexit position paper without admitting Brexit is bollox...
Britain will be subject to the rulings of European courts after Brexit, the government has conceded, in an apparent climbdown from its promise of judicial independence.
In the latest in a series of policy papers that seek to blur the edges of hard Brexit, the government argues that for the smooth settlement of cross-border disputes it is necessary that foreign judgments sometimes apply to individuals and businesses in the UK.
“A judgment obtained in one country can be recognised and enforced in another,” said a government source speaking anonymously before the paper’s publication on Tuesday.
I know you can't spell "Remainer" withouy adding an "o", but I can assure you Jolyon is no High Priest. The Secret Cabal of All-Powerful Remainers Who Can Make Leavers Do Anything just thru mind-waves (and thus enable Leavers to blame Remainers for everything everywhere ever) had a vote and he only made it to Low Verger of Remainers. I voted him for Milk Monitor but it's hard to make your voice heard in the hollowed-out volcano base, the acoustics are terrible...
A clear position discussed and agreed with all parties on his side of the table. The contrast with DD's deliberate ambiguity is marked.
If his position is clear, would you like to tell what it is? What arrangements are they proposing for the Irish border, for example, or tariffs on EU-UK trade?
WTO terms hard Brexit.
As Tusk said last October, there is only Hard Brexit or no Brexit. This is the EU position and the A50 default position.
It is amazing how many leavers have trouble with remembering that.
"As Tusk said last October, there is only Hard Brexit or no Brexit. This is the EU position and the A50 default position."
So why do most active REMAINers keep going on and on and on about the need for a soft Brexit, if it is an impossible arrangement with the EU?
I have no idea. Personally I have always maintained that it is either WTO or stay in.
My view too. Soft Brexit is a mirage and not possible on the timescale.
Hard WTO Brexit is the default and does require a smidgen of planning, even if those in charge think it unlikely to happen.
There may be a transition period for a year or 2 but it will ultimately have to be hard Brexit otherwise for most Leave voters it will be no Brexit at all. We will only move towards a more soft Brexit position if and when we ever get a moderate Labour PM again
Please let us know which "Remoaner" wanted a general election ?
and did they also want it to "crush the saboteurs" ?
They wanted it to 'crush the hard Brexiteers'
The Secret Cabal of All-Powerful Remainers Who Can Make Leavers Do Anything strikes again! Thru cunning mind waves and arcane Dark Arts, they made Theresa May call an election entirely involuntarily. Behold their Might!
I know you can't spell "Remainer" withouy adding an "o", but I can assure you Jolyon is no High Priest. The Secret Cabal of All-Powerful Remainers Who Can Make Leavers Do Anything just thru mind-waves (and thus enable Leavers to blame Remainers for everything everywhere ever) had a vote and he only made it to Low Verger of Remainers. I voted him for Milk Monitor but it's hard to make your voice heard in the hollowed-out volcano base, the acoustics are terrible...
I know you can't spell "Remainer" withouy adding an "o", but I can assure you Jolyon is no High Priest. The Secret Cabal of All-Powerful Remainers Who Can Make Leavers Do Anything just thru mind-waves (and thus enable Leavers to blame Remainers for everything everywhere ever) had a vote and he only made it to Low Verger of Remainers. I voted him for Milk Monitor but it's hard to make your voice heard in the hollowed-out volcano base, the acoustics are terrible...
Britain will be subject to the rulings of European courts after Brexit, the government has conceded, in an apparent climbdown from its promise of judicial independence.
In the latest in a series of policy papers that seek to blur the edges of hard Brexit, the government argues that for the smooth settlement of cross-border disputes it is necessary that foreign judgments sometimes apply to individuals and businesses in the UK.
“A judgment obtained in one country can be recognised and enforced in another,” said a government source speaking anonymously before the paper’s publication on Tuesday.
A clear position discussed and agreed with all parties on his side of the table. The contrast with DD's deliberate ambiguity is marked.
If his position is clear, would you like to tell what it is? What arrangements are they proposing for the Irish border, for example, or tariffs on EU-UK trade?
WTO terms hard Brexit.
As Tusk said last October, there is only Hard Brexit or no Brexit. This is the EU position and the A50 default position.
It is amazing how many leavers have trouble with remembering that.
"As Tusk said last October, there is only Hard Brexit or no Brexit. This is the EU position and the A50 default position."
So why do most active REMAINers keep going on and on and on about the need for a soft Brexit, if it is an impossible arrangement with the EU?
To some extent we can work with the EU system or we have to work around it. You could still call it a hard Brexit, but I don't think it is a useful term. We have a choice of the same but worse than what we had before; even worse but different; or choosing to cancel the whole thing. It depends on how much we are prepared to compromise to limit the damage. The real risk for Leavers is that it is bad enough that people decide to cancel. From their perspective it would be a good idea for some of them to start taking responsibility for their decisions and put some effort into delivering a Brexit people can live with, rather just blaming Remainers and the EU for not giving them what they want.
“That will be our decision. We will decide whether the UK has made sufficient progress when it comes to citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and issues pertaining to Ireland and only if we are satisfied that sufficient progress has been made on those three areas will we then give the go-ahead to talk about trade,” Mr Varadkar said.
Comments
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/03/05/the-e60-billion-question-the-eu-exit-charge-and-what-it-means/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41000209
All those lads and lasses as StarLizard better be working overtime on those predictive models !!!
http://what-is-is.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/gops-blazing-saddles-bluff-on-debt.html
Yes, EU negotiating position(s) clear, transparent and small-minded: We want UK money, we want UK money, and we want more of UK's money
12m
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/20/breitbart-news-apologises-using-lukas-podolski-picture-migrant/
She just didn't win as much as expected.
If after being made to follow-on in the Cricket last week the WIndies had achieved a 450 in the third innings and England then scored 105/9 in the fourth innings then it would have been a very disappointing result for England compared to what was expected when the follow on was enforced. However it would still have been a victory even if a rather Pyrrhic one.
I accept there will be horse trading but the EU's position isn't really realistic in the context of an actual real negotiation (assuming they really want one of course- or we are all just wasting time!). Lots of fudge to come. Probably.
Perhaps the increase in costs will persuade some to downgrade, if that's the word, from Mercedes and BMW to say VW or from VW to Seat or Skoda and perhaps also convince us to hold onto our cars for a year or two longer than previously, but all in all that may not be such a bad thing.
And you also ignore the 'British' Hondas, Nissans and Toyotas that are better cars than Renaults, Citroens, BMWs, Audis, VWs, Skodas and SEATS.
Irrelevant anyway. Electric and driverless are going to disrupt the whole industry in short order and there's not a darn thing the EU, UK govt or you and I can do about it... even if we wanted to.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/articles/nationalaccountsarticles/detailedassessmentofchangestobalanceofpaymentsannualestimates1997to2015
In fact the amount the UK has been living beyond its means looks to be rather similar to the amount governments have been borrowing.
In all seriousness, doesn't article 31 only apply to treaties that are in force?
However she still beat all her political opponents (even if by less than expected or her predecessor did) and is still Prime Minister. She won the election just not be a very good margin.
If Man Utd only win a 3-2 victory next week in stoppage time at home against Leicester this weekend is that a LOSS considering their last two results have been 4-0 victories?
https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/08/21/the-hunger-games-animalitos-edition/
This is a bloody tragedy.
Couldn't find a quick quote from the article that can quite capture it, but this comment from below the line does it some justice (bs = Venezuelan bolivars):
Yeah, a few weeks ago, I offered a guy bs 10,000 for about 4 hours of work. This guy has a wife, two kids, no job, practically nothing. The whole bunch are skinny as rails. Bs 10,000 is almost doubIe what anyone pays. I figured he’d jump at it.
Ahhhh, no.
“The monkey is going go win today and I need to be there”. The monkey? WTF are you talking about? “Animalitos”.
Ah okay, that voluntary tax on the poor.
Another Labour leader wouldn't have got anywhere near 40% of the vote.
You'd think after outperforming in three ballots, Corbyn's threat wold be taken seriously by now.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/21/gchq_knew_marcus_hutchins_risked_arrest_fbi/
Pre-emptive leaking by GCHQ?
1. Decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK
2. Regaining control over immigration and UK borders
3. Lack of choice about how the EU would expand its membership and powers
That was true for Tory and Labour Leave voters, the NHS funding claim did not feature in the top 3 reasons at all
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
Please let us know which "Remoaner" wanted a general election ?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/21/man-suffers-serious-injuries-in-east-london-acid-attack
But she already had a majority of 12 with three years to go. So now having fallen short by 8 seats cannot be considered a win by any means.
The welcoming happy faces of the cartoon-character animals in the advert that's pictured at the top are also weirdly disturbing.
In the latest in a series of policy papers that seek to blur the edges of hard Brexit, the government argues that for the smooth settlement of cross-border disputes it is necessary that foreign judgments sometimes apply to individuals and businesses in the UK.
“A judgment obtained in one country can be recognised and enforced in another,” said a government source speaking anonymously before the paper’s publication on Tuesday.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/21/brexit-paper-backs-away-from-pms-promise-of-judicial-independence
https://www.libdems.org.uk/general-election-2017-tim-farron
Jolyon Maugham QC is a barrister and high priest of Remoaners
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham
1: Walk away. No deal was better than a bad deal. Until it wasn't ....
2: Summer of war - we were not going to follow the EU schedule. Until we did
3: Red line. No EuroCourts.... until now.
No wonder the Leavers are so fractious. Reality is a harsh mistress.
Still trying to work out how to disavow a Government Brexit position paper without admitting Brexit is bollox...
Hard WTO Brexit is the default and does require a smidgen of planning, even if those in charge think it unlikely to happen.
“A judgment obtained in one country can be recognised and enforced in another,” said a government source"
Well, yes.
So why isn't the article headlined "UK court judgments will apply in the EU after Brexit"?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/us-canada-border-would-not-work-in-ireland-varadkar-says-1.3193744
“That will be our decision. We will decide whether the UK has made sufficient progress when it comes to citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and issues pertaining to Ireland and only if we are satisfied that sufficient progress has been made on those three areas will we then give the go-ahead to talk about trade,” Mr Varadkar said.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/to-be-less-dependent-on-immigration-britain-must-change-its-model-of-capitalism/