Mr. Root, further to that, what would be the point of a no confidence vote?
If we had no deal, then the options are only leave or remain (assuming the latter is even an option). If Labour isn't proposing another referendum, what policy change would actually be effected?
If there is no deal, the no confidence would be on the basis the Gov incompetently led us into a situation where we crashed out without a deal, and we need a change in government to sort out the mess they have created.
A change of government to pay 100 billion euros to the EU? Good luck with that in a general election campaign
1. The exit deal. This is the only one the EU is interested in, seemingly. This is essentially about settling accounts: what Britain owes and is owed on departure.
2. The nature of the future relationship. This is the only one Britain is interested in, the EU less so (again seemingly).
Article 50 links the two. But the EU's approach appears to be ignoring this, save for the fact that the two matters which they are concerned about - the border with Ireland and the rights of EU citizens - do form part of 2 above. Britain is saying that if you are going to discuss those you need to discuss the other matters as well. Even if that is correct, there is no real way of forcing the EU to do so. And time is not on Britain's side. That is a problem for us rather than the EU.
The other issue on money is that, as far as I can tell, there does not appear to be an agreed legal basis for determining what we owe and are owed in return ie what assets we have acquired and what liabilities we have incurred. It would help if that were set out - or at least Britain's view of this.
Even if Labour play clever politics with this, it does not help with getting a deal. Time is still running out and the chances of getting any sort of a deal, even with a Labour government, are low.
So we need to plan for a WTO Brexit. We may get a transitional deal, essentially the same as now but then what? It will look as if we've paid a lot of money to LINO. And the EU will have little interest thereafter in agreeing a deal with Britain.
All a bit of a mess, really.
I agree with most of this. There is an important point to make. If we accept that what we had previously as members is no longer available because we rejected membership and because the c EU is actually a system that you can be a member of, there is a lot of negotiating space. Better than nothing but less than what we had before. Leavers need to accept things will be worse in concrete terms as a consequence of their vote; Remainers need to accept we will leave the EU, even though it will make things worse, because the country voted for it. Neither are comfortable propositions to take on board.
We will definitively leave the EU. It won't be LINO. It probably won't be a disaster, but it will probably be a mitigated and compromised Brexit that no-one wanted.
Mr. HYUFD, indeed. Lack of house-building coupled with prolonged ultra-low interest rates are also making things very difficult.
Higher rates would be good for those trying to get onto the housing ladder, as well as pensioners (perhaps a rare case in today's politics of a change helping the youngest and oldest voters).
Interest rates will probably rise by 2019. House building is sensible but you have to consider the big local opposition to building on the green belt and on green fields, so brownbelt land has to be prioritised
The question of interest ... "Is Monsieur Barnier being reasonable?"
It depends on the definition of 'reasonable' doesn't it. A lot of lawyers' children have had very good educations paid for off the back of contemplating that lemma.
Can we imagine the mood in the government apparatus if Labour call a confidence vote, win, a general election follows, and then the Tories gain a tiny majority, or Labour otherwise fail to achieve a working majority, or Labour take office reliant on Ulster Unionist support? Such a scenario could happen with May still the Tory leader if it happens fast. The term "power vacuum" is overused, but that's what there would be. Reichstag 1918 time. David Davis wouldn't be an option as Tory leader then, even if nobody else could rival him for competence. He's too old. The way would be open for a fresh leader, probably the Mogg. Ridiculous from where some people are standing, but generally viewed as nice (despite his private work in a very hardheaded field) and more importantly as fresh. His chances look excellent in any circumstances in which May resigns having been seen to have cocked up. Which, let's face it, are likely to be the circumstances in which she does go. She's outstayed her welcome and I doubt she'll still be in no.10 by the end of the year.
I have a dutched bet on Davis, Rudd, or Mogg as the next Tory leader.
There's no such thing as a reasonable or unreasonable deal. There are just deals you can reach or deals that you can't. (You can certainly argue that both sides are behaving foolishly in drawing up their negotiating priorities, but that's a different matter entirely.)
Right at the moment, it looks like there isn't a deal to be reached that meets the priorities of the respective sides. So the question then turns to the consequences of non-agreement and whether either or both sides need to revise their negotiating priorities. Those on this thread in practice speak only to the British side of the table. Telling the EU that it needs to revise its negotiating priorities is a bit futile.
Basically, the EU is saying ... Give us the money we ask for, or no deal on trade. Were the UK government to take a stance like that, there would be accusations of 'naked blackmail'. Although I'm not sure what clothed blackmail would look like.
I think the EU is saying "Give us the money we ask for and we'll think about a deal on trade."
Britain's concern is that even if we do pay, we still won't get any deal. It will be the same as giving up the rebate and getting nothing other than warm words about CAP. I think that's a reasonable concern.
There are two possible options:-
1. Setting out the amount of money, taking into account what is owed to us, we think is legally due. Plus what we want by way of a trade deal and what we are prepared to pay for that. Put it on the table and see whether the EU is interested.
Or
2. Say that we will only at this stage pay what is legally owed and that unless the EU agrees to enter into a trade deal - rather than just think about the possibility - though obviously the terms will need to be agreed and be different from membership - we cannot discuss any of the issues integral to such a deal, including payment. This involves hard Brexit obviously and we should anyway be preparing for this.
I would also say that any EU citizens living here now can continue doing so and will have the same rights as British citizens. Anyone coming here after exit will have the rights and obligations under UK law.
1 is generous and risky but may have the advantage of seizing the initiative and, possibly, showing the EU what it may have to lose.
What we appear to be doing now is talking like 1, behaving like 2, not preparing for hard Brexit and being mean to people living here in good faith. Some recalibration required......
1 might be generous - though it is only setting out what we honestly want and might pay for - but it seems the sensible way of dealing with stubborn interlocutors unless we actively want no deal. 2 is just a slower way of getting to 1, realistically.
Given the timescales involved, we need to bring this to some sort of resolution. Set out what we are - and aren't - prepared to do, and put the ball back in their court. Right now we basically have Barnier talking directly to the UK electorate. That is not acceptable - but protesting will get us nowhere.
Can we imagine the mood in the government apparatus if Labour call a confidence vote, win, a general election follows, and then the Tories gain a tiny majority, or Labour otherwise fail to achieve a working majority, or Labour take office reliant on Ulster Unionist support? The term "power vacuum" is overused, but that's what there would be. Reichstag 1918 time. David Davis wouldn't be an option as Tory leader then, even if nobody else could rival him for competence. He's too old. The way would be open for a fresh leader, probably the Mogg. Ridiculous from where some people are standing, but generally viewed as nice (despite his private work in a very hardheaded field) and more importantly as fresh. The same applies in any circumstances in which May resigns having been seen to have cocked up. Which, let's face it, are likely to be the circumstances in which she does go. She's outstayed her welcome and I doubt she'll still be in no.10 by the end of the year.
I have a dutched bet on Davis, Rudd, or Mogg as the next Tory leader.
Boris and Mogg were the clear leaders for next Tory leader with the public and Tories with Survation yesterday
Tangentially off topic. I have discovered a fascinating resource for French family names: http://www.geopatronyme.com/ It reveals on a map of France’s Départements over four 25-year periods how many births were registered with that patronymic. So, for example “Macron” comes from the English Channel départements of Somme, Pas de Calais, and Nord. “Chirac” is heavily concentrated in Corrèze (where he was mayor) and Aveyron. Also from “la France profonde” we find the “Mitterands” in Cher. The Barniers concentrate on the eastern side of the Rhône: Drôme and Isère (where he was born in 1966).
'or Labour take office reliant on Ulster Unionist support?'
De minimus probability, seeing as the UUP have no MPs and are pretty much the NI Tory party in all but name.
Sorry - I meant the DUP.
Not whilst Corbyn (Or McDonnell) are in charge. The DUP won't prop either of them up for historical reasons. They'd consider a confidence arrangement if Labour had an alternative leader with no past IRA musings (Say Thornberry or Starmer).
I think the rump SNP is a more likely bedfellow though for c&s.
42% who voted against Labour do. McDonald's provides cheap food and good starter jobs
'Yes to many so called starter jobs and not enough work where a family can afford a house.My father worked as a site joiner in the 60s and 70s my mother did not work, he had three children.He had a 3 bed semi detached a car and holidays.Today in the same circumstances even if the mother was working they still would not be able to own their own house in York.People are getting pissed of with both working the clock round and paying rent and in their eyes getting nowhere'.
'60% of the country are still homeowners and have a house price for their homes far higher than your parents had, thanks to Osborne's IHT tax cut that value will also pass down in large part to their children'
True, but that doesn’t allow for the fact that in the meantime those children, and especially their adult grandchildren, cannot afford homes. That’s why Equity Release is becoming so popular.
I think we've had two in thirty-eight years, the last being in 1990.
Given the circumstances and the Parliamentary arithmetic it would make sense, but any Tory that didn't back the Government would end their political career.
I hope we have someone abstaining in person again.
I think we've had two in thirty-eight years, the last being in 1990.
Given the circumstances and the Parliamentary arithmetic it would make sense, but any Tory that didn't back the Government would end their political career.
I hope we have someone abstaining in person again.
Given modern politics, if it would make sense, it won't happen.
On topic, this is part of the merry dance of these negotiations. The EU want to send out a clear message: you will pay much more for a worse deal, if you leave. But I'm unclear how much thinking the EU has done beyond that.
It's unclear if the EU are still trying to convince the UK not to Leave, in a belief we might fold at some point in the next 18 months.
That won't happen. What could happen is we stay in transitional limbo for years, until such time as a new EU treaty is proposed, and it's at that point that the debate may heat up again.
What, him having a chat with a young person in a pleasant looking manner about an issue which effects him and other young people?
Historys greatest monster
Nope. We don't need to call people malevolent to beat them. We simply outline how McDonnell's tax and splurge plans will cost working class jobs and middle class wealth.
Except that people wont believe you. That's the problem. They don't believe that Labour will harm working class jobs and middle class wealth because things have been getting steadily worse for many of these people under the Tories and new labour beforehand. Jobs have been getting shittier because of the dominant neoliberal ideology. That's what a lot of people see.
42% who voted against Labour do. McDonald's provides cheap food and good starter jobs
But it isn't about the truth. It is about peoples perceptions of it.
The predicament of the two strikers in the guardian article were as much a product of their personal circumstances as the terms and conditions of their employment with McDonalds. But this has legs: in the real world people are finding themselves being poorly paid in relation to the cost of living particularly housing, and that employment is hugely insecure. Government have found themselves totally powerless in the face of these problems.
In my view it all comes back to housing (and low interest rates).
Time to build, baby, build.
And crack down massively on illegal sub-letting.
I'd be up from social landlords having the right to make unannounced visits to social housing and if they are illegally sub let the tenancy is immediately void with no appeal while the illegal tenants are treated as intentionally made homeless (and/or detained for deportation)
'60% of the country are still homeowners and have a house price for their homes far higher than your parents had, thanks to Osborne's IHT tax cut that value will also pass down in large part to their children'
True, but that doesn’t allow for the fact that in the meantime those children, and especially their adult grandchildren, cannot afford homes. That’s why Equity Release is becoming so popular.
It's great how the market finds profitable solutions for problems created by the market. When this all comes crumbling down (and I suspect its sooner rather than later when looking in the tea leaves) its really going to come crumbling down....
So Mr Pedley thinks no deal=vote of no confidence. You cannot do a deal with someone who asks the impossible. Corbyn would be no better in fact infinitely worse.
Are they asking for the impossible? We have already agreed to pay an exit bill and that the leaving agreement has to come before talking about trade
I thought the EU needed us more than we needed them.
All we've asked is for Barnier to provide a legal basis for his bill and he's thrown a strop
What, him having a chat with a young person in a pleasant looking manner about an issue which effects him and other young people?
Historys greatest monster
Nope. We don't need to call people malevolent to beat them. We simply outline how McDonnell's tax and splurge plans will cost working class jobs and middle class wealth.
Except that people wont believe you. That's the problem. They don't believe that Labour will harm working class jobs and middle class wealth because things have been getting steadily worse for many of these people under the Tories and new labour beforehand. Jobs have been getting shittier because of the dominant neoliberal ideology. That's what a lot of people see.
42% who voted against Labour do. McDonald's provides cheap food and good starter jobs
But it isn't about the truth. It is about peoples perceptions of it.
The predicament of the two strikers in the guardian article were as much a product of their personal circumstances as the terms and conditions of their employment with McDonalds. But this has legs: in the real world people are finding themselves being poorly paid in relation to the cost of living particularly housing, and that employment is hugely insecure. Government have found themselves totally powerless in the face of these problems.
In my view it all comes back to housing (and low interest rates).
Time to build, baby, build.
And crack down massively on illegal sub-letting.
I'd be up from social landlords having the right to make unannounced visits to social housing and if they are illegally sub let the tenancy is immediately void with no appeal while the illegal tenants are treated as intentionally made homeless (and/or detained for deportation)
The truth is that an awful lot of the gig economy probably depends on illegal sub-letting to immigrants, particularly in London.
It's housing and transport. Both are killers here.
For middle class kids, add student fees on top. We're giving marginal tax rates of over 50% to some for up to 30 years, and that simply won't wash in the long term.
Another parasite. Why do they need 3? Wills should have had the snip after 2.
No, we need to boost our population. These kids are the fruit pickers and bedpan emptiers of the future. Plus they keep any potential Prince Harry dynasty shut safely out.
42% who voted against Labour do. McDonald's provides cheap food and good starter jobs
'Yes to many so called starter jobs and not enough work where a family can afford a house.My father worked as a site joiner in the 60s and 70s my mother did not work, he had three children.He had a 3 bed semi detached a car and holidays.Today in the same circumstances even if the mother was working they still would not be able to own their own house in York.People are getting pissed of with both working the clock round and paying rent and in their eyes getting nowhere'.
'60% of the country are still homeowners and have a house price for their homes far higher than your parents had, thanks to Osborne's IHT tax cut that value will also pass down in large part to their children'
True, but that doesn’t allow for the fact that in the meantime those children, and especially their adult grandchildren, cannot afford homes. That’s why Equity Release is becoming so popular.
I am a bit uncomfortable with Equity Release but understand the reasons if downsizing is not an option and you want to stay near your family.However for many of the 40% they have no possible help from relations I have put a lot of money into helping my two daughters get into the property ladder rather then them paying rent.The resentment of many of the 40% is not good for a so called property owning democracy.
LONDON — The U.K. government has proposed extending the next round of Brexit negotiations on a rolling week-by-week basis until a breakthrough is reached on the contentious issue of Britain’s “exit bill,” according to two U.K. officials familiar with the proposal.
A “very senior” member of Britain’s negotiating team explored the possibility of “continuous negotiations” during talks with an EU counterpart over the last few days, the officials said. The move would see British negotiators camped in Brussels semi-permanently in a bid to break the deadlock over Britain’s financial obligations to the EU.
Mr. Royale, it's possible. Labour has a history of acting in the EU's interest (rebate, Lisbon), reneging on manifesto pledges if necessary to do so.
Keir Starmer hates Brexit, and clearly wants to lead public opinion against it. He can't be trusted.
It's unclear if Corbyn is being diffidently ambivalent for the sake of party unity and discipline (unlikely) or he'd secretly quite a hard Brexit to have the ability to implement a fully socialist programme (a bit more likely).
42% who voted against Labour do. McDonald's provides cheap food and good starter jobs
'Yes to many so called starter jobs and not enough work where a family can afford a house.My father worked as a site joiner in the 60s and 70s my mother did not work, he had three children.He had a 3 bed semi detached a car and holidays.Today in the same circumstances even if the mother was working they still would not be able to own their own house in York.People are getting pissed of with both working the clock round and paying rent and in their eyes getting nowhere'.
'60% of the country are still homeowners and have a house price for their homes far higher than your parents had, thanks to Osborne's IHT tax cut that value will also pass down in large part to their children'
True, but that doesn’t allow for the fact that in the meantime those children, and especially their adult grandchildren, cannot afford homes. That’s why Equity Release is becoming so popular.
I am a bit uncomfortable with Equity Release but understand the reasons if downsizing is not an option and you want to stay near your family.However for many of the 40% they have no possible help from relations I have put a lot of money into helping my two daughters get into the property ladder rather then them paying rent.The resentment of many of the 40% is not good for a so called property owning democracy.
That post went wrong. Forgotten whose post it was that you quoted. For some reason the last ‘block quote' isn’t working.
My part was just ‘ 'True, but that doesn’t allow for the fact that in the meantime those children, and especially their adult grandchildren, cannot afford homes. That’s why Equity Release is becoming so popular.’
And I strongly suspect ER could well be the next PPI.
What, him having a chat with a young person in a pleasant looking manner about an issue which effects him and other young people?
Historys greatest monster
Nope. We don't need to call people malevolent to beat them. We simply outline how McDonnell's tax and splurge plans will cost working class jobs and middle class wealth.
Except that people wont believe you. That's the problem. They don't believe that Labour will harm working class jobs and middle class wealth because things have been getting steadily worse for many of these people under the Tories and new labour beforehand. Jobs have been getting shittier because of the dominant neoliberal ideology. That's what a lot of people see.
42% who voted against Labour do. McDonald's provides cheap food and good starter jobs
But it isn't about the truth. It is about peoples perceptions of it.
The predicament of the two strikers in the guardian article were as much a product of their personal circumstances as the terms and conditions of their employment with McDonalds. But this has legs: in the real world people are finding themselves being poorly paid in relation to the cost of living particularly housing, and that employment is hugely insecure. Government have found themselves totally powerless in the face of these problems.
In my view it all comes back to housing (and low interest rates).
Time to build, baby, build.
And crack down massively on illegal sub-letting.
I'd be up from social landlords having the right to make unannounced visits to social housing and if they are illegally sub let the tenancy is immediately void with no appeal while the illegal tenants are treated as intentionally made homeless (and/or detained for deportation)
The truth is that an awful lot of the gig economy probably depends on illegal sub-letting to immigrants, particularly in London.
It's housing and transport. Both are killers here.
For middle class kids, add student fees on top. We're giving marginal tax rates of over 50% to some for up to 30 years, and that simply won't wash in the long term.
I suspect so. But if a business can't make an acceptable return for shareholders while paying a decent wage to employees and a fair contribution to society it doesn't deserve to exist
I'm feeling queasy about all this. At some point DD is going to resign spectacularly (you can see it in his eyes) and the whole thing will come crashing down in a big heap.
So Mr Pedley thinks no deal=vote of no confidence. You cannot do a deal with someone who asks the impossible. Corbyn would be no better in fact infinitely worse.
Are they asking for the impossible? We have already agreed to pay an exit bill and that the leaving agreement has to come before talking about trade
I thought the EU needed us more than we needed them.
All we've asked is for Barnier to provide a legal basis for his bill and he's thrown a strop
We are expected to take our punishment willingly, and with good grace.
When the EU says the UK needs to get serious about "negotiating", that's what they mean: agreeing to whatever their terms are.
Another parasite. Why do they need 3? Wills should have had the snip after 2.
No, we need to boost our population. These kids are the fruit pickers and bedpan emptiers of the future. Plus they keep any potential Prince Harry dynasty shut safely out.
Well it would be a pain to have a new House on the throne
42% who voted against Labour do. McDonald's provides cheap food and good starter jobs
'Yes to many so called starter jobs and not enough work where a family can afford a house.My father worked as a site joiner in the 60s and 70s my mother did not work, he had three children.He had a 3 bed semi detached a car and holidays.Today in the same circumstances even if the mother was working they still would not be able to own their own house in York.People are getting pissed of with both working the clock round and paying rent and in their eyes getting nowhere'.
'60% of the country are still homeowners and have a house price for their homes far higher than your parents had, thanks to Osborne's IHT tax cut that value will also pass down in large part to their children'
True, but that doesn’t allow for the fact that in the meantime those children, and especially their adult grandchildren, cannot afford homes. That’s why Equity Release is becoming so popular.
I am a bit uncomfortable with Equity Release but understand the reasons if downsizing is not an option and you want to stay near your family.However for many of the 40% they have no possible help from relations I have put a lot of money into helping my two daughters get into the property ladder rather then them paying rent.The resentment of many of the 40% is not good for a so called property owning democracy.
A straightforward mortgage is generally better value than equity release. In fact, I'd avoid equity release at all costs.
So Mr Pedley thinks no deal=vote of no confidence. You cannot do a deal with someone who asks the impossible. Corbyn would be no better in fact infinitely worse.
Are they asking for the impossible? We have already agreed to pay an exit bill and that the leaving agreement has to come before talking about trade
I thought the EU needed us more than we needed them.
All we've asked is for Barnier to provide a legal basis for his bill and he's thrown a strop
Fundamentally, the EU wants Britain to prove why it does not owe money. The U.K. wants Brussels to prove why it does.
So Mr Pedley thinks no deal=vote of no confidence. You cannot do a deal with someone who asks the impossible. Corbyn would be no better in fact infinitely worse.
Are they asking for the impossible? We have already agreed to pay an exit bill and that the leaving agreement has to come before talking about trade
I thought the EU needed us more than we needed them.
All we've asked is for Barnier to provide a legal basis for his bill and he's thrown a strop
Fundamentally, the EU wants Britain to prove why it does not owe money. The U.K. wants Brussels to prove why it does.
Sounds like the difference in our legal system: in the UK anything is permitted unless it is forbidden; in Europe everything is forbidden unless it is permitted
42% who voted against Labour do. McDonald's provides cheap food and good starter jobs
'Yes to many so called starter jobs and not enough work where a family can afford a house.My father worked as a site joiner in the 60s and 70s my mother did not work, he had three children.He had a 3 bed semi detached a car and holidays.Today in the same circumstances even if the mother was working they still would not be able to own their own house in York.People are getting pissed of with both working the clock round and paying rent and in their eyes getting nowhere'.
'60% of the country are still homeowners and have a house price for their homes far higher than your parents had, thanks to Osborne's IHT tax cut that value will also pass down in large part to their children'
True, but that doesn’t allow for the fact that in the meantime those children, and especially their adult grandchildren, cannot afford homes. That’s why Equity Release is becoming so popular.
I am a bit uncomfortable with Equity Release but understand the reasons if downsizing is not an option and you want to stay near your family.However for many of the 40% they have no possible help from relations I have put a lot of money into helping my two daughters get into the property ladder rather then them paying rent.The resentment of many of the 40% is not good for a so called property owning democracy.
A straightforward mortgage is generally better value than equity release. In fact, I'd avoid equity release at all costs.
What, him having a chat with a young person in a pleasant looking manner about an issue which effects him and other young people?
Historys greatest monster
Nope. We don't need to call people malevolent to beat them. We simply outline how McDonnell's tax and splurge plans will cost working class jobs and middle class wealth.
Except that people see.
42% who voted against Labour do. McDonald's provides cheap food and good starter jobs
But it isn't about the truth. It is about peoples perceptions of it.
The predicament of the two strikers in troblems.
In my view it all comes back to housing (and low interest rates).
Time to build, baby, build.
And crack down massively on illegal sub-letting.
I'd be up from social landlords having the right to make unannounced visits to social housing and if they are illegally sub let the tenancy is immediately void with no appeal while the illegal tenants are treated as intentionally made homeless (and/or detained for deportation)
The truth is that an awful lot of the gig economy probably depends on illegal sub-letting to immigrants, particularly in London.
It's housing and transport. Both are killers here.
For middle class kids, add student fees on top. We're giving marginal tax rates of over 50% to some for up to 30 years, and that simply won't wash in the long term.
I suspect so. But if a business can't make an acceptable return for shareholders while paying a decent wage to employees and a fair contribution to society it doesn't deserve to exist
Which of course brings in in-work benefits too.
The UK may well need a huge rebalancing - education, skills, productivity, housing, external terms of trade, etc. And the electorate have to a lesser or greater extent said: "bring it on" via the Brexit vote.
But the shock is going to be huge. Not to say it's not needed or that I don't think a rebalance should take place. But it will be a rocky ride. Now, those most in need of that rebalance probably won't care too much about that. The difficulty lies in the the unintended consequences and whether we will end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater whereby those most in need of the rebalance, those suffering most from the various inequities, and those least able to cope with any short or medium term economic turmoil, will be negatively affected most.
So Mr Pedley thinks no deal=vote of no confidence. You cannot do a deal with someone who asks the impossible. Corbyn would be no better in fact infinitely worse.
Are they asking for the impossible? We have already agreed to pay an exit bill and that the leaving agreement has to come before talking about trade
I thought the EU needed us more than we needed them.
All we've asked is for Barnier to provide a legal basis for his bill and he's thrown a strop
Fundamentally, the EU wants Britain to prove why it does not owe money. The U.K. wants Brussels to prove why it does.
Sounds like the difference in our legal system: in the UK anything is permitted unless it is forbidden; in Europe everything is forbidden unless it is permitted
I think that was then. Today, it seems that most everything in the UK is both monitored and probably not allowed.
I'm feeling queasy about all this. At some point DD is going to resign spectacularly (you can see it in his eyes) and the whole thing will come crashing down in a big heap.
I'm feeling queasy about all this. At some point DD is going to resign spectacularly (you can see it in his eyes) and the whole thing will come crashing down in a big heap.
I'm feeling queasy about all this. At some point DD is going to resign spectacularly (you can see it in his eyes) and the whole thing will come crashing down in a big heap.
What make you think DD is going to resign?
Watch his facial ticks and mannerisms in the Marr interview yesterday. This is a man under extreme stress.
I'm feeling queasy about all this. At some point DD is going to resign spectacularly (you can see it in his eyes) and the whole thing will come crashing down in a big heap.
What make you think DD is going to resign?
History.
Of 1 instance? Or are there more that I am unaware of?
I'm feeling queasy about all this. At some point DD is going to resign spectacularly (you can see it in his eyes) and the whole thing will come crashing down in a big heap.
What make you think DD is going to resign?
Edit reply to William comments glitch.
Watch his facial ticks and mannerisms in the Marr interview yesterday. This is a man under extreme stress.
Your TV must be flickering. Get an engineer to check it.
I thought the accusation was he was too chilled out and only working 3 days a week.
You don’t believe that the Brexit decision should be reversed by parliament or a second referendum… There are some European countries like the Republic of Ireland and France where, as it were, the electorates may be prepared to countenance being given a second chance to resit the exam and come up with the “right” answer. With the UK, the referendum was regarded at the time as being definitive by the majority of the country. To return to it risks seeming like a stab in the back by the elite.
I'm feeling queasy about all this. At some point DD is going to resign spectacularly (you can see it in his eyes) and the whole thing will come crashing down in a big heap.
What make you think DD is going to resign?
History.
Of 1 instance? Or are there more that I am unaware of?
When the going gets tough, Davis is nowhere to be seen.
1997 offered a shadow cabinet job to help the Tories recover, he declines.
Pretends to be a civil libertarian but supports the death penalty and opposes same sex marriage.
You don’t believe that the Brexit decision should be reversed by parliament or a second referendum… There are some European countries like the Republic of Ireland and France where, as it were, the electorates may be prepared to countenance being given a second chance to resit the exam and come up with the “right” answer. With the UK, the referendum was regarded at the time as being definitive by the majority of the country. To return to it risks seeming like a stab in the back by the elite.
Am I missing something? Why is a motion of no confidence by the Labour Party of any consequence whatsoever? With the government having the support of the DUP such a motion will inevitably fail even if Labour could line up all the other opposition parties (which is by no means certain).
There are some European countries like the Republic of Ireland and France where, as it were, the electorates may be prepared to countenance being given a second chance to resit the exam and come up with the “right” answer. With the UK, the referendum was regarded at the time as being definitive by the majority of the country. To return to it risks seeming like a stab in the back by the elite.
It's curious that when countries voted again, the usual suspects whined about it, but there was no insurrection.
We can't vote again because anarchy and riots, right?
Mr. Song, as Grand Admiral Thrawn taught us, getting something wrong is an error. Refusing to correct it is a mistake.
There are serious pitfalls associated with a second referendum. For a start, refusing another for Scotland looks rather worse. Secondly, why not hold a third? Why does a second referendum Remain count as definitive when a first referendum Leave is not?
We're very politically polarised now. A second referendum, especially one that led to Remain, would be a fantastic way to entrench that situation.
You don’t believe that the Brexit decision should be reversed by parliament or a second referendum… There are some European countries like the Republic of Ireland and France where, as it were, the electorates may be prepared to countenance being given a second chance to resit the exam and come up with the “right” answer. With the UK, the referendum was regarded at the time as being definitive by the majority of the country. To return to it risks seeming like a stab in the back by the elite.
If you make a mistake, even when it becomes obvious it's a bad mistake, you mustn't be given the chance to ameliorate or reverse it.
The question of whether it is a mistake or not will only ever be a matter of opinion. Many, if not most, of those who voted Leave did so for reasons other than economic. As such it will never be 'obvious' that it has been a mistake and certainly no decision on that should be taken until we have actually left and spent some years outside the EU.
So reversing the Brexit decision - as in nullifying it before we leave - can certainly not be justified. Of course you are quite at liberty to campaign for us to rejoin again after a suitable period once we have left. I doubt you will have much luck with that.
What, him having a chat with a young person in a pleasant looking manner about an issue which effects him and other young people?
Historys greatest monster
Nope. We don't need to call people malevolent to beat them. We simply outline how McDonnell's tax and splurge plans will cost working class jobs and middle class wealth.
Except that people see.
42% who voted against Labour do. McDonald's provides cheap food and good starter jobs
But it isn't about the truth. I
In my view it all comes back to housing (and low interest rates).
Time to build, baby, build.
And crack down massively on illegal sub-letting.
I'd be up from social landlords having the right to make unannounced visits to social housing and if they are illegally sub let the tenancy is immediately void with no appeal while the illegal tenants are treated as intentionally made homeless (and/or detained for deportation)
The truth is that an awful lot of the gig economy probably depends on illegal sub-letting to immigrants, particularly in London.
It's housing and transport. Both are killers here.
For middle class kids, add student fees on top. We're giving marginal tax rates of over 50% to some for up to 30 years, and that simply won't wash in the long term.
I suspect so. But if a business can't make an acceptable return for shareholders while paying a decent wage to employees and a fair contribution to society it doesn't deserve to exist
Which of course brings in in-work benefits too.
The UK may well need a huge rebalancing - education, skills, productivity, housing, external terms of trade, etc. And the electorate have to a lesser or greater extent said: "bring it on" via the Brexit vote.
But the shock is going to be huge. Not to say it's not needed or that I don't think a rebalance should take place. But it will be a rocky ride. Now, those most in need of that rebalance probably won't care too much about that. The difficulty lies in the the unintended consequences and whether we will end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater whereby those most in need of the rebalance, those suffering most from the various inequities, and those least able to cope with any short or medium term economic turmoil, will be negatively affected most.
Yes, but it needs to be done. Brown has a huge amount to answer for. Osborne did some but, with hindsight, not enough. I think in work benefits are a huge part of the problem
So in all but name, the government has lined up continued membership of the customs union, the single market including free movement of people (almost — the finessing job of extending ECJ jurisdiction is unfinished), and the membership fee. What Churchill apocryphally said about the Americans may apply to the current British government: it looks like it will end up doing the right thing after trying everything else, at least on the short-term policy. The problems are twofold. Labour got there first, and will earn the political rewards. And much more importantly: the government has wasted a lot of time for everyone by taking so long.
Mr. Song, as Grand Admiral Thrawn taught us, getting something wrong is an error. Refusing to correct it is a mistake.
There are serious pitfalls associated with a second referendum. For a start, refusing another for Scotland looks rather worse. Secondly, why not hold a third? Why does a second referendum Remain count as definitive when a first referendum Leave is not?
We're very politically polarised now. A second referendum, especially one that led to Remain, would be a fantastic way to entrench that situation.
I think your Star Wars reference may be a little too obscure for most on here. Besides, apparently that universe has been wiped now and we are not allowed to reference it any more :-(
I think there is broad agreement here that the exit bill, as a list of what assets transfer and what obligations continue, is heavily dependent on the future relationship and cannot be finalized without it.
I don't think the EU were wrong to insist on spending some time discussing exit priorities upfront, but whether they are being reasonable to me hinges on whether "sufficient progress" means agreeing the principles of what the bill might have in scope and how likely trade deals might affect that, or whether they are trying to finalize the cash number.
Whilst the UK is still arguing the basic underpinnings of an exit bill, I don't blame the EU for not moving on, though I hope they view today's suggestion to intensify negotiations favourably.
As to DD possibly walking out - it would change little. Thankfully, WTO is now being viewed as the nuclear option it is (something we should contingency plan for, then do our damnedest to avoid), so HMG would just parachute someone else (Gove?) in and all would carry on pretty rapidly.
I suspect so. But if a business can't make an acceptable return for shareholders while paying a decent wage to employees and a fair contribution to society it doesn't deserve to exist
Which of course brings in in-work benefits too.
The UK may well need a huge rebalancing - education, skills, productivity, housing, external terms of trade, etc. And the electorate have to a lesser or greater extent said: "bring it on" via the Brexit vote.
But the shock is going to be huge. Not to say it's not needed or that I don't think a rebalance should take place. But it will be a rocky ride. Now, those most in need of that rebalance probably won't care too much about that. The difficulty lies in the the unintended consequences and whether we will end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater whereby those most in need of the rebalance, those suffering most from the various inequities, and those least able to cope with any short or medium term economic turmoil, will be negatively affected most.
Yes, but it needs to be done. Brown has a huge amount to answer for. Osborne did some but, with hindsight, not enough. I think in work benefits are a huge part of the problem
In work benefits are an alternative to mass unemployment as they allow those who could not earn an economic wage which would allow them to maintain themselves and their dependents to work. The difference between the virtual full employment we have now and the mass unemployment of the 80s is stark and very much to the credit of the government.
Of course, there is an argument that they positively encourage low wages and subsidise employers taking a loan but these issues are capable of being addressed in a market where the supply of labour is less elastic than it has been with free movement. Once labour becomes less elastic competition for it should increase the price.
My concern about in wage benefits is not so much the concept but the price. How much of a good thing can we actually afford?
I'm feeling queasy about all this. At some point DD is going to resign spectacularly (you can see it in his eyes) and the whole thing will come crashing down in a big heap.
What make you think DD is going to resign?
History.
He resigned once because he couldn't stand working for the Posh Boys (and they were probably getting ready to sack/demote him anyway)
He is now doing a job that will reshape the nations future for the next Century. And doing a good job at it as well IMO.
I suspect so. But if a business can't make an acceptable return for shareholders while paying a decent wage to employees and a fair contribution to society it doesn't deserve to exist
Which of course brings in in-work benefits too.
The UK may well need a huge rebalancing - education, skills, productivity, housing, external terms of trade, etc. And the electorate have to a lesser or greater extent said: "bring it on" via the Brexit vote.
But the shock is going to be huge. Not to say it's not needed or that I don't think a rebalance should take place. But it will be a rocky ride. Now, those most in need of that rebalance probably won't care too much about that. The difficulty lies in the the unintended consequences and whether we will end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater whereby those most in need of the rebalance, those suffering most from the various inequities, and those least able to cope with any short or medium term economic turmoil, will be negatively affected most.
Yes, but it needs to be done. Brown has a huge amount to answer for. Osborne did some but, with hindsight, not enough. I think in work benefits are a huge part of the problem
In work benefits are an alternative to mass unemployment as they allow those who could not earn an economic wage which would allow them to maintain themselves and their dependents to work. The difference between the virtual full employment we have now and the mass unemployment of the 80s is stark and very much to the credit of the government.
Of course, there is an argument that they positively encourage low wages and subsidise employers taking a loan but these issues are capable of being addressed in a market where the supply of labour is less elastic than it has been with free movement. Once labour becomes less elastic competition for it should increase the price.
My concern about in wage benefits is not so much the concept but the price. How much of a good thing can we actually afford?
I think they allow employers to suppress wages by relying on the state, and in combination with free immigration, skimping on capital investment and training because they don't need to improve labour productivity. When you factor in the housing benefit element it helps drive up housing costs for everyone.
It was an ill thought through attempt to plaster over a problem (and to increase public spending while pretending not to) rather than solve the fundamental issues.
I suspect so. But if a business can't make an acceptable return for shareholders while paying a decent wage to employees and a fair contribution to society it doesn't deserve to exist
Which of course brings in in-work benefits too.
The UK may well need a huge rebalancing - education, skills, productivity, housing, external terms of trade, etc. And the electorate have to a lesser or greater extent said: "bring it on" via the Brexit vote.
But the shock is going to be hil, will be negatively affected most.
Yes, but it needs to be done. Brown has a huge amount to answer for. Osborne did some but, with hindsight, not enough. I think in work benefits are a huge part of the problem
In work benefits are an alternative to mass unemployment as they allow those who could not earn an economic wage which would allow them to maintain themselves and their dependents to work. The difference between the virtual full employment we have now and the mass unemployment of the 80s is stark and very much to the credit of the government.
Of course, there is an argument that they positively encourage low wages and subsidise employers taking a loan but these issues are capable of being addressed in a market where the supply of labour is less elastic than it has been with free movement. Once labour becomes less elastic competition for it should increase the price.
My concern about in wage benefits is not so much the concept but the price. How much of a good thing can we actually afford?
It is a government transfer from the taxpayer to the corporations so the taxpayers can have their bogofs and twofers. OK so that is a pretty strange system and it is entrenched in our way of life. People scream blue murder at increased prices and the supermarket wars are particularly competitive.
My point was that I dislike that transfer and a rebalance might see the end of it. But how? And at what cost to whom? It needs to be managed carefully across a long time frame.The irony is that Brexit is being seen as the catalyst to grasp this nettle but it is likely to mean the can is kicked further down the road instead*.
86% of McDonald's staff choose flexible (=zero hours) contracts in preference to fixed contracts. Whod've guessed it?
That might be misleading -- a lot of McDonalds staff will be students and the like doing a few hours a week, rather than people who see it as a permanent job.
I don't understand why so many people are upset about the "Brexit Bill". As far as I'm aware all the EU is asking for is money we had previously said we would pay, as part of our role as a member state. We have spent the last few years exerting our political pressure, with our directly and indirectly elected members, to sway how money gets spent. During that time we assured we would pay our part. There is nothing punitive about paying for things we shaped and agreed to.
Imagine going to a restaurant with 27 friends, ordering shared starters, shared mains, shared deserts and bottles of wine. You said you'd share a plate of X but only if it had no mayo, a plate of Y, but with added kale, etc. etc. After the first two courses and a few drinks you decide you don't like these people, (justified or not), so decide to leave before desert and more booze. But you had a hand in ordering the desert and booze for yourself, and some of it you can even take home in a doggy bag. Should you be able to get away without paying your part of the bill? And if you had previously said you'd pay a part of someone else's dinner (because you earn more, and your mates, and that's the kind of thing mates do sometimes) should you not pay that?
The EU is not mates a dinner, it's a business agreement between dozens of countries with different needs and drives. We are (were) a partner in that business agreement. We had clout in the decisions made. We shaped policy. It is only right that we continue to pay our share of the policy we shaped.
So in all but name, the government has lined up continued membership of the customs union, the single market including free movement of people (almost — the finessing job of extending ECJ jurisdiction is unfinished), and the membership fee. What Churchill apocryphally said about the Americans may apply to the current British government: it looks like it will end up doing the right thing after trying everything else, at least on the short-term policy. The problems are twofold. Labour got there first, and will earn the political rewards. And much more importantly: the government has wasted a lot of time for everyone by taking so long.
I suspect so. But if a business can't make an acceptable return for shareholders while paying a decent wage to employees and a fair contribution to society it doesn't deserve to exist
Which of course brings in in-work benefits too.
The UK may well need a huge rebalancing - education, skills, productivity, housing, external terms of trade, etc. And the electorate have to a lesser or greater extent said: "bring it on" via the Brexit vote.
But the shock is going to be huge. Not to say it's not needed or that I don't think a rebalance should take place. But it will be a rocky ride. Now, those most in need of that rebalance probably won't care too much about that. The difficulty lies in the the unintended consequences and whether we will end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater whereby those most in need of the rebalance, those suffering most from the various inequities, and those least able to cope with any short or medium term economic turmoil, will be negatively affected most.
Yes, but it needs to be done. Brown has a huge amount to answer for. Osborne did some but, with hindsight, not enough. I think in work benefits are a huge part of the problem
In work benefits are an alternative to mass unemployment as they allow those who could not earn an economic wage which would allow them to maintain themselves and their dependents to work. The difference between the virtual full employment we have now and the mass unemployment of the 80s is stark and very much to the credit of the government.
Of course, there is an argument that they positively encourage low wages and subsidise employers taking a loan but these issues are capable of being addressed in a market where the supply of labour is less elastic than it has been with free movement. Once labour becomes less elastic competition for it should increase the price.
My concern about in wage benefits is not so much the concept but the price. How much of a good thing can we actually afford?
I think they allow employers to suppress wages by relying on the state, and in combination with free immigration, skimping on capital investment and training because they don't need to improve labour productivity. When you factor in the housing benefit element it helps drive up housing costs for everyone.
It was an ill thought through attempt to plaster over a problem (and to increase public spending while pretending not to) rather than solve the fundamental issues.
I doubt simply increasing public spending was the aim but would agree that benefits are often just a subsidy to bad employers and landlords.
Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on their news, so we will have a new royal baby next year which will provide some break in Brexit tedium
#1 It's still very early days. #2 These sorts of negotiations are always a bit pantomime, It suits both sides to be Drama Queens for domestic consumption. #3 We're negotiating with an economy 9 times our size. A good degree of this isn't things going badly it just the economic fundamentals playing out now the political narratives of the referendum are facing and reality reasserts it's self. #4 Yes the talks are going badly but that's only because most of the presuppositions of the Leave campaign are turning out to be untrue, their was no plan, the government is divided, A50 invocation was rushed then the GE... Brexit is a Crock of ****. It's not a competency issue. No one could successfully negotiate a good Brexit from this starting point. #5 I go back to it being early days. The creative genius/fatal flaw of the EU is being able to craft last minute fudges which kick the can down the road. And we still have 18 months which s an eternity in politics. A deal can be done.
Though I increasingly go back to my Brexit Paradox. " Brexit can only happen in international circumstances which prevent it succeeding. "
I don't understand why so many people are upset about the "Brexit Bill". As far as I'm aware all the EU is asking for is money we had previously said we would pay, as part of our role as a member state. We have spent the last few years exerting our political pressure, with our directly and indirectly elected members, to sway how money gets spent. During that time we assured we would pay our part. There is nothing punitive about paying for things we shaped and agreed to.
Imagine going to a restaurant with 27 friends, ordering shared starters, shared mains, shared deserts and bottles of wine. You said you'd share a plate of X but only if it had no mayo, a plate of Y, but with added kale, etc. etc. After the first two courses and a few drinks you decide you don't like these people, (justified or not), so decide to leave before desert and more booze. But you had a hand in ordering the desert and booze for yourself, and some of it you can even take home in a doggy bag. Should you be able to get away without paying your part of the bill? And if you had previously said you'd pay a part of someone else's dinner (because you earn more, and your mates, and that's the kind of thing mates do sometimes) should you not pay that?
The EU is not mates a dinner, it's a business agreement between dozens of countries with different needs and drives. We are (were) a partner in that business agreement. We had clout in the decisions made. We shaped policy. It is only right that we continue to pay our share of the policy we shaped.
I would never order kale in the first place.
But on the analogy (where oh where is @kle4?) you are of course absolutely right.
#1 It's still very early days. #2 These sorts of negotiations are always a bit pantomime, It suits both sides to be Drama Queens for domestic consumption. #3 We're negotiating with an economy 9 times our size. A good degree of this isn't things going badly it just the economic fundamentals playing out now the political narratives of the referendum are facing and reality reasserts it's self. #4 Yes the talks are going badly but that's only because most of the presuppositions of the Leave campaign are turning out to be untrue, their was no plan, the government is divided, A50 invocation was rushed then the GE... Brexit is a Crock of ****. It's not a competency issue. No one could successfully negotiate a good Brexit from this starting point. #5 I go back to it being early days. The creative genius/fatal flaw of the EU is being able to craft last minute fudges which kick the can down the road. And we still have 18 months which s an eternity in politics. A deal can be done.
Though I increasingly go back to my Brexit Paradox. " Brexit can only happen in international circumstances which prevent it succeeding. "
The analogy here is with Arsenal football club. Time was, not so long ago, when we strode the world as a top team. We reached the Champions League final, and weren't that far away a few more times, and at least got there to give it a go. Premiership titles? By the handful, and if we didn't win it we were pipped for it usually in the last week or two.
And now? We seem to have given all that up. Top four is a huge aspiration and not guaranteed. We can dream of the Champions League and I fear for our performance in the Europa Cup. We have become if not a minnow, then a second, perhaps third tier player and our relationship to the world of football has deteriorated accordingly.
And THAT, my friends, is the correct analogy for the UK and Brexit.
I don't understand why so many people are upset about the "Brexit Bill". As far as I'm aware all the EU is asking for is money we had previously said we would pay, as part of our role as a member state. We have spent the last few years exerting our political pressure, with our directly and indirectly elected members, to sway how money gets spent. During that time we assured we would pay our part. There is nothing punitive about paying for things we shaped and agreed to.
Imagine going to a restaurant with 27 friends, ordering shared starters, shared mains, shared deserts and bottles of wine. You said you'd share a plate of X but only if it had no mayo, a plate of Y, but with added kale, etc. etc. After the first two courses and a few drinks you decide you don't like these people, (justified or not), so decide to leave before desert and more booze. But you had a hand in ordering the desert and booze for yourself, and some of it you can even take home in a doggy bag. Should you be able to get away without paying your part of the bill? And if you had previously said you'd pay a part of someone else's dinner (because you earn more, and your mates, and that's the kind of thing mates do sometimes) should you not pay that?
The EU is not mates a dinner, it's a business agreement between dozens of countries with different needs and drives. We are (were) a partner in that business agreement. We had clout in the decisions made. We shaped policy. It is only right that we continue to pay our share of the policy we shaped.
I think there is a site rule against analogies, and if there isn't, your post makes me think perhaps there should be. You are right up to a point, but a. if we have a share of the liabilities we should also have a share of the assets (not to take away, but to set off their value against liabilities), b. there should be a distinction between specific contractual liabilities, and proposals which we have merely agreed to be good ideas in principle, c. to the extent that we are talking about future pensions, these should be discounted on a time value of money basis, and it isn't clear whether they have been.
I don't understand why so many people are upset about the "Brexit Bill"...
Imagine going to a restaurant with 27 friends...
The EU is not mates a dinner, it's a business agreement between dozens of countries with different needs and drives. We are (were) a partner in that business agreement. We had clout in the decisions made. We shaped policy. It is only right that we continue to pay our share of the policy we shaped.
The reason for the upset is not the 'bill' per se, it is the demand to settle it to the satisfaction of the EU before they will even discuss the possiblity of a continued 'business relationship'.
As for dinner, club, divorce and any other similes/metaphors/analogies, they are not illuminating or explicatory; they serve only to appeal to the emotions. Any arguments based on them are utterly futile.
#1 It's still very early days. #2 These sorts of negotiations are always a bit pantomime, It suits both sides to be Drama Queens for domestic consumption. #3 We're negotiating with an economy 9 times our size. A good degree of this isn't things going badly it just the economic fundamentals playing out now the political narratives of the referendum are facing and reality reasserts it's self. #4 Yes the talks are going badly but that's only because most of the presuppositions of the Leave campaign are turning out to be untrue, their was no plan, the government is divided, A50 invocation was rushed then the GE... Brexit is a Crock of ****. It's not a competency issue. No one could successfully negotiate a good Brexit from this starting point. #5 I go back to it being early days. The creative genius/fatal flaw of the EU is being able to craft last minute fudges which kick the can down the road. And we still have 18 months which s an eternity in politics. A deal can be done.
Though I increasingly go back to my Brexit Paradox. " Brexit can only happen in international circumstances which prevent it succeeding. "
The analogy here is with Arsenal football club. Time was, not so long ago, when we strode the world as a top team. We reached the Champions League final, and weren't that far away a few more times, and at least got there to give it a go. Premiership titles? By the handful, and if we didn't win it we were pipped for it usually in the last week or two.
And now? We seem to have given all that up. Top four is a huge aspiration and not guaranteed. We can dream of the Champions League and I fear for our performance in the Europa Cup. We have become if not a minnow, then a second, perhaps third tier player and our relationship to the world of football has deteriorated accordingly.
And THAT, my friends, is the correct analogy for the UK and Brexit.
(sorry Sam is not here to agree..)
At least you are not Spurs , who can not win a cup .Finishing second in the premier league is an improvement but as with England and the so called golden generation it grates eventually .
I don't understand why so many people are upset about the "Brexit Bill". As far as I'm aware all the EU is asking for is money we had previously said we would pay, as part of our role as a member state. We have spent the last few years exerting our political pressure, with our directly and indirectly elected members, to sway how money gets spent. During that time we assured we would pay our part. There is nothing punitive about paying for things we shaped and agreed to.
Imagine going to a restaurant with 27 friends, ordering shared starters, shared mains, shared deserts and bottles of wine. You said you'd share a plate of X but only if it had no mayo, a plate of Y, but with added kale, etc. etc. After the first two courses and a few drinks you decide you don't like these people, (justified or not), so decide to leave before desert and more booze. But you had a hand in ordering the desert and booze for yourself, and some of it you can even take home in a doggy bag. Should you be able to get away without paying your part of the bill? And if you had previously said you'd pay a part of someone else's dinner (because you earn more, and your mates, and that's the kind of thing mates do sometimes) should you not pay that?
The EU is not mates a dinner, it's a business agreement between dozens of countries with different needs and drives. We are (were) a partner in that business agreement. We had clout in the decisions made. We shaped policy. It is only right that we continue to pay our share of the policy we shaped.
Well the EU should be able to itemise the bill then shouldn't they? But it's more like we said "Ok for a couple of bottles of red" and they'd like to interpret that as anything up to Petrus Grand Cru 1982 at £4K a bottle.
Anyway we paid for 12% of the restaurant we're sitting in.
You don’t believe that the Brexit decision should be reversed by parliament or a second referendum… There are some European countries like the Republic of Ireland and France where, as it were, the electorates may be prepared to countenance being given a second chance to resit the exam and come up with the “right” answer. With the UK, the referendum was regarded at the time as being definitive by the majority of the country. To return to it risks seeming like a stab in the back by the elite.
Although I am not proposing a second referendum and there is no sign yet of a collective change of heart, but if the country DID change its mind on leaving the EU wouldn't it be UNDEMOCRATIC to ignore it?
#1 It's still very early days. #2 These sorts of negotiations are always a bit pantomime, It suits both sides to be Drama Queens for domestic consumption. #3 We're negotiating with an economy 9 times our size. A good degree of this isn't things going badly it just the economic fundamentals playing out now the political narratives of the referendum are facing and reality reasserts it's self. #4 Yes the talks are going badly but that's only because most of the presuppositions of the Leave campaign are turning out to be untrue, their was no plan, the government is divided, A50 invocation was rushed then the GE... Brexit is a Crock of ****. It's not a competency issue. No one could successfully negotiate a good Brexit from this starting point. #5 I go back to it being early days. The creative genius/fatal flaw of the EU is being able to craft last minute fudges which kick the can down the road. And we still have 18 months which s an eternity in politics. A deal can be done.
Though I increasingly go back to my Brexit Paradox. " Brexit can only happen in international circumstances which prevent it succeeding. "
The analogy here is with Arsenal football club. Time was, not so long ago, when we strode the world as a top team. We reached the Champions League final, and weren't that far away a few more times, and at least got there to give it a go. Premiership titles? By the handful, and if we didn't win it we were pipped for it usually in the last week or two.
And now? We seem to have given all that up. Top four is a huge aspiration and not guaranteed. We can dream of the Champions League and I fear for our performance in the Europa Cup. We have become if not a minnow, then a second, perhaps third tier player and our relationship to the world of football has deteriorated accordingly.
And THAT, my friends, is the correct analogy for the UK and Brexit.
(sorry Sam is not here to agree..)
except of course that you got there by refusing to change direction and stuck with a clapped out continental manager
Comments
We will definitively leave the EU. It won't be LINO. It probably won't be a disaster, but it will probably be a mitigated and compromised Brexit that no-one wanted.
I have a dutched bet on Davis, Rudd, or Mogg as the next Tory leader.
Right at the moment, it looks like there isn't a deal to be reached that meets the priorities of the respective sides. So the question then turns to the consequences of non-agreement and whether either or both sides need to revise their negotiating priorities. Those on this thread in practice speak only to the British side of the table. Telling the EU that it needs to revise its negotiating priorities is a bit futile.
2 is just a slower way of getting to 1, realistically.
Given the timescales involved, we need to bring this to some sort of resolution. Set out what we are - and aren't - prepared to do, and put the ball back in their court.
Right now we basically have Barnier talking directly to the UK electorate. That is not acceptable - but protesting will get us nowhere.
I have discovered a fascinating resource for French family names:
http://www.geopatronyme.com/
It reveals on a map of France’s Départements over four 25-year periods how many births were registered with that patronymic.
So, for example “Macron” comes from the English Channel départements of Somme, Pas de Calais, and Nord.
“Chirac” is heavily concentrated in Corrèze (where he was mayor) and Aveyron. Also from “la France profonde” we find the “Mitterands” in Cher. The Barniers concentrate on the eastern side of the Rhône: Drôme and Isère (where he was born in 1966).
They'd consider a confidence arrangement if Labour had an alternative leader with no past IRA musings (Say Thornberry or Starmer).
I think the rump SNP is a more likely bedfellow though for c&s.
True, but that doesn’t allow for the fact that in the meantime those children, and especially their adult grandchildren, cannot afford homes. That’s why Equity Release is becoming so popular.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/04/jacob-rees-mogg-lined-ministerial-job-preparation-higher-office/
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/904634207523262464
I think we've had two in thirty-eight years, the last being in 1990.
Given the circumstances and the Parliamentary arithmetic it would make sense, but any Tory that didn't back the Government would end their political career.
I hope we have someone abstaining in person again.
It's unclear if the EU are still trying to convince the UK not to Leave, in a belief we might fold at some point in the next 18 months.
That won't happen. What could happen is we stay in transitional limbo for years, until such time as a new EU treaty is proposed, and it's at that point that the debate may heat up again.
Time to build, baby, build.
And crack down massively on illegal sub-letting.
I'd be up from social landlords having the right to make unannounced visits to social housing and if they are illegally sub let the tenancy is immediately void with no appeal while the illegal tenants are treated as intentionally made homeless (and/or detained for deportation)
It's housing and transport. Both are killers here.
For middle class kids, add student fees on top. We're giving marginal tax rates of over 50% to some for up to 30 years, and that simply won't wash in the long term.
I am a bit uncomfortable with Equity Release but understand the reasons if downsizing is not an option and you want to stay near your family.However for many of the 40% they have no possible help from relations I have put a lot of money into helping my two daughters get into the property ladder rather then them paying rent.The resentment of many of the 40% is not good for a so called property owning democracy.
A “very senior” member of Britain’s negotiating team explored the possibility of “continuous negotiations” during talks with an EU counterpart over the last few days, the officials said. The move would see British negotiators camped in Brussels semi-permanently in a bid to break the deadlock over Britain’s financial obligations to the EU.
http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-seeks-open-ended-talks-to-propel-brexit-resolution/amp/
It's unclear if Corbyn is being diffidently ambivalent for the sake of party unity and discipline (unlikely) or he'd secretly quite a hard Brexit to have the ability to implement a fully socialist programme (a bit more likely).
That post went wrong. Forgotten whose post it was that you quoted. For some reason the last ‘block quote' isn’t working.
My part was just ‘
'True, but that doesn’t allow for the fact that in the meantime those children, and especially their adult grandchildren, cannot afford homes. That’s why Equity Release is becoming so popular.’
And I strongly suspect ER could well be the next PPI.
When the EU says the UK needs to get serious about "negotiating", that's what they mean: agreeing to whatever their terms are.
A straightforward mortgage is generally better value than equity release. In fact, I'd avoid equity release at all costs.
E=mc2
Means 'Europe= my country too’
(Sorry can’t do superscript. And anyway off on my daily hospital trip!)
Yes that was my thoughts Sean.
The UK may well need a huge rebalancing - education, skills, productivity, housing, external terms of trade, etc. And the electorate have to a lesser or greater extent said: "bring it on" via the Brexit vote.
But the shock is going to be huge. Not to say it's not needed or that I don't think a rebalance should take place. But it will be a rocky ride. Now, those most in need of that rebalance probably won't care too much about that. The difficulty lies in the the unintended consequences and whether we will end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater whereby those most in need of the rebalance, those suffering most from the various inequities, and those least able to cope with any short or medium term economic turmoil, will be negatively affected most.
Watch his facial ticks and mannerisms in the Marr interview yesterday. This is a man under extreme stress.
Your TV must be flickering. Get an engineer to check it.
I thought the accusation was he was too chilled out and only working 3 days a week.
You don’t believe that the Brexit decision should be reversed by parliament or a second referendum…
There are some European countries like the Republic of Ireland and France where, as it were, the electorates may be prepared to countenance being given a second chance to resit the exam and come up with the “right” answer. With the UK, the referendum was regarded at the time as being definitive by the majority of the country. To return to it risks seeming like a stab in the back by the elite.
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/03/mark-thompson-observer-interview-trump-brexit
1997 offered a shadow cabinet job to help the Tories recover, he declines.
Pretends to be a civil libertarian but supports the death penalty and opposes same sex marriage.
We can't vote again because anarchy and riots, right?
There are serious pitfalls associated with a second referendum. For a start, refusing another for Scotland looks rather worse. Secondly, why not hold a third? Why does a second referendum Remain count as definitive when a first referendum Leave is not?
We're very politically polarised now. A second referendum, especially one that led to Remain, would be a fantastic way to entrench that situation.
So reversing the Brexit decision - as in nullifying it before we leave - can certainly not be justified. Of course you are quite at liberty to campaign for us to rejoin again after a suitable period once we have left. I doubt you will have much luck with that.
So in all but name, the government has lined up continued membership of the customs union, the single market including free movement of people (almost — the finessing job of extending ECJ jurisdiction is unfinished), and the membership fee. What Churchill apocryphally said about the Americans may apply to the current British government: it looks like it will end up doing the right thing after trying everything else, at least on the short-term policy. The problems are twofold. Labour got there first, and will earn the political rewards. And much more importantly: the government has wasted a lot of time for everyone by taking so long.
https://www.ft.com/content/de8ce6e4-8f23-11e7-9084-d0c17942ba93
I don't think the EU were wrong to insist on spending some time discussing exit priorities upfront, but whether they are being reasonable to me hinges on whether "sufficient progress" means agreeing the principles of what the bill might have in scope and how likely trade deals might affect that, or whether they are trying to finalize the cash number.
Whilst the UK is still arguing the basic underpinnings of an exit bill, I don't blame the EU for not moving on, though I hope they view today's suggestion to intensify negotiations favourably.
As to DD possibly walking out - it would change little. Thankfully, WTO is now being viewed as the nuclear option it is (something we should contingency plan for, then do our damnedest to avoid), so HMG would just parachute someone else (Gove?) in and all would carry on pretty rapidly.
Of course, there is an argument that they positively encourage low wages and subsidise employers taking a loan but these issues are capable of being addressed in a market where the supply of labour is less elastic than it has been with free movement. Once labour becomes less elastic competition for it should increase the price.
My concern about in wage benefits is not so much the concept but the price. How much of a good thing can we actually afford?
He is now doing a job that will reshape the nations future for the next Century. And doing a good job at it as well IMO.
He won't walk.
It was an ill thought through attempt to plaster over a problem (and to increase public spending while pretending not to) rather than solve the fundamental issues.
Whod've guessed it?
My point was that I dislike that transfer and a rebalance might see the end of it. But how? And at what cost to whom? It needs to be managed carefully across a long time frame.The irony is that Brexit is being seen as the catalyst to grasp this nettle but it is likely to mean the can is kicked further down the road instead*.
*apologies for plethora of metaphors.
https://www.treehugger.com/lawn-garden/farm-box-produces-acres-worth-crops-shipping-container.html
Imagine going to a restaurant with 27 friends, ordering shared starters, shared mains, shared deserts and bottles of wine. You said you'd share a plate of X but only if it had no mayo, a plate of Y, but with added kale, etc. etc. After the first two courses and a few drinks you decide you don't like these people, (justified or not), so decide to leave before desert and more booze. But you had a hand in ordering the desert and booze for yourself, and some of it you can even take home in a doggy bag. Should you be able to get away without paying your part of the bill? And if you had previously said you'd pay a part of someone else's dinner (because you earn more, and your mates, and that's the kind of thing mates do sometimes) should you not pay that?
The EU is not mates a dinner, it's a business agreement between dozens of countries with different needs and drives. We are (were) a partner in that business agreement. We had clout in the decisions made. We shaped policy. It is only right that we continue to pay our share of the policy we shaped.
Though I increasingly go back to my Brexit Paradox. " Brexit can only happen in international circumstances which prevent it succeeding. "
But on the analogy (where oh where is @kle4?) you are of course absolutely right.
https://www.wired.com/2017/07/ahmed-best-jar-jar-binks-new-podcast/
And now? We seem to have given all that up. Top four is a huge aspiration and not guaranteed. We can dream of the Champions League and I fear for our performance in the Europa Cup. We have become if not a minnow, then a second, perhaps third tier player and our relationship to the world of football has deteriorated accordingly.
And THAT, my friends, is the correct analogy for the UK and Brexit.
(sorry Sam is not here to agree..)
As for dinner, club, divorce and any other similes/metaphors/analogies, they are not illuminating or explicatory; they serve only to appeal to the emotions.
Any arguments based on them are utterly futile.
the UK thinks
oooh lovely baby - middle classes
will colleen stay ? - working classes
only sad anoraks think polls are important
Anyway we paid for 12% of the restaurant we're sitting in.