Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Be careful what you wish for
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Be careful what you wish for
How they chortled. For three months, loyal Conservative Leavers have had to endure the taunts of their opponents, sneering at the way in which Theresa May called an unnecessary election to secure a Brexit mandate and mislaid her majority. And now their nemesis, Angela Merkel, has suffered a similar fate. Despite many months of polls showing them cruising to a healthy win, the CDU and the CSU tallied just a third of the vote.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Let the trumpeting begin.
Looking back the story of my early love life... or lack of it.
BREAKING:
I'm hearing that Ben Stokes intervened to help two gay guys who were being abused by yobs, one of whom was armed with a bottle.
From Zero to Hero? (Not Piers Morgan of course)
The reality is that for decades (since Delors) other people have been initiating the changes to the Community/EU and we have been dragged along as barely willing or unwilling participants. The prime mover who initiates something gets to set the terms of reference.
Right now is our opportunity to be prime movers. To set out our stall of what we want and find a path to get there. If we wait for others to set the terms then they won't get to the destination we want but rather what they want.
What Alastair has described is a cause for institutional paralysis and sclerosis which has long been one of Europe's greatest problems, but if played correctly it could be our strength. We need to be pushing rapidly ahead saying that this is where we want to go and how we get there. The EU's divided leaders with their own time constraints have as Alastair rightly points out little time, inclination or ability to come up with a united alternative so our proposal will ultimately form the basis of the outcome.
Stop messing around and get on with it.
'Theresa May at the Bank of England this morning stated very clearly that we will leave the EU on the 29th March 2019 and the transition should be viewed as an implementation period to provide time for business and government to adjust to the new order.
It is clear she is determined to be out on the 29th March 2019 and the idea that the transition period is just to delay and frustrate Brexit is irrelevant, we will be out.
This is the first time I have heard her say this with such clarity, will please the leavers but frustrate the remainers'
You put your finger on the greatest problem the EU suffers from. It can never speak with one voice until it becomes a fully-fledged political union. It wants to do that, but those pesky voters keep getting in the way.
How do you negotiate with a committee who seldom meet, have 27 different opinions, and only ask for money?
The answer is ... with difficulty.
Obviously, to some Remainers, it's all the Leavers fault for having the wrong type of opinion. I hope they will eventually grow out of it when they mature.
https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/913345584567930880
As was mentioned last night, one of the extra problems is that professional sports people are super fit and generally a lot stronger than your random idiot on the street and as a result can inflict a lot of damage.
In summary
1) Barnier's negotiating mandate dictates that a transition deal can only be discussed in phase 2 of the talks, after the "divorce details" (Ireland, money and citizens rights) have made "sufficient progress."
2) The EU has said that any prolongation of some aspects of membership, such as participation in the single market "would require existing Union [budget, enforcement etc including ECJ] to apply."
3) An agreement on transitional arrangements would require unanimous approval of the EU27, the European Parliament and (presumably) both houses at Westminster. A withdrawal agreement, on the other hand, can be approved by QMV, though it would also need the approval of the European and UK parliaments.
So the legal, practical and political obstacles to any transition arrangement are such that the chances of achieving one in the very short time available are slim.
This fact is not yet fully appreciated in political circles.
7.12 Ministers should take care to ensure that they do not become associated with non-public organisations whose objectives may in any degree conflict with Government policy and
thus give rise to a conflict of interest.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579752/ministerial_code_december_2016.pdf
I got home at 1am last night. I am suffering today.
Why?
I went to the Spectator's EU debate chaired by Andrew Neil at the British museum; "Britain and the EU: two different futures?", together with a very old friend.
Very interesting.
Panel included; Liam Halligan, Anne-Elisabeth Moutet, Frederik Erixon, James Forysth and Chris Darbyshire, CIO of Seven Investment Management.
James Forsyth's view was very much on the British politics and cabinet splits. CETA+ v. EEA-minus. His view was that EEA-minus wouldn't happen, because the EU wouldn't allow the UK to set a precedent that you can have effective single market membership w/o free movement, plus in the UK it wouldn't work for us to just copy & paste all EU regulation. Divergence is inevitable, because the UK and EU will go in different directions politically, and therefore economically.
Halligan was a bit more dogmatic. He is strongly for Leave, and robustly defends its opportunities. I expected this and his main role was to challenge doom. He doesn't see no deal as a problem, and free-trade deals are a nice-to-have but not essential. He believes Poland and Hungary will Leave soon.
Chris Darbyshire was from the firm that sponsored the event. He set out a fairly standard London firm anti-Brexit pitch (bad idea, wrong time, not what we need) and then said the EU would fudge it, together with the UK, as always. We'd end up with something similar to the status quo. It was also very clear he wants this.
Frederik Erixon was interesting. He said that (unlike 15 years ago) other than Juncker and Macron there is no consensus or drive for further EU integration, and he thinks the EU status quo will bumble along, with different power blocs emerging in the EU. He thought it possible in 10-15 years two or three other countries could also leave the EU. However, he also said he thought free trade deals between countries like Switzerland and China didn't matter very much, and other countries in Europe that had no trade deal with China were doing even more trade with China, and growing faster. He didn't do the parallel: that it might also be true of the UK-EU. Do free trade deals matter, or don't they? Somewhere in between, but he didn't explore it.
But the most revealing comment of the night, for me, was that of Anne-Elisabeth - a French journalist and EU commentator. By her own admission she had done no preparation (only knew the questions 30 minutes in advance) so was more instinctive.
She said she was in Brussels the night of Dave's deal. Everyone she spoke to (insiders) were shocked at how much the EU had given to the UK, and couldn't believe the UK had got away with it. She didn't explore (or compare) to the UK reaction, which was I felt instructive. Now, the UK has left, "they" are sad, but, if the UK does Leave, they are sparing virtually no thought for it. She had nothing to say on the future of the EU, and couldn't offer any thoughts on it when probed by Andrew Neil. Also instructive
My takeaway was that the EU doesn't know where its going, the UK is split, and the UK and EU both (still) fundamentally misunderstand each other's politics. In the UK there's
still little consensus on what our long-term relationship with the EU should be, and the EU haven't even bothered to think about it all, thinking the UK doesn't really matter anymore and just wanting to avoid setting a precedent. It's just one of several major problems the EU has.
Therefore, I'm afraid to say, I came away thinking no deal is even more likely than when I went in.
(PS. Afterwards, we got a photo together with Andrew Neil, had a few jars and so I feel rougher than Angela Merkel's political career today.)
Still I do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. The UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership.
Strong speech by Jeremy Corbyn yesterday. We are at the start of a minimum four year Parliament so the difficult stuff can wait a little. I liked the idea of developers having their land banks taxed. There's plenty of land which they could be building on and getting the houses constructed we need.
I also like the idea of going after the FOBTs and Paddy Power have conceded a £10 maximum stake will still be viable. That means we ought to be going much further down to £2. The relationship between the Conservative Party and some bookmakers acts as a block on meaningful progress.
On matters Europe, yes we are "leaving" the EU on 29/3/19 but trying to spin this as some kind of victory for the Prime Minister I'll leave to her advisers and apologists.
For 24 months after that date we will effectively still be governed by the rules of the club though without any say. During that period, which we can but hope won't be wasted by internal Conservative Party machinations and pointless elections, we will be able to crack on with shaping our post-EU economic and trading relationship with the rest of the world. The US as an example will be moving into a Presidential election cycle by the spring of 19.
"There was no way a jury in Liverpool was ever going to find Steven Gerrard guilty of anything."
As with Ken Dodd. As he explains in his show ... a simple mistake, he was going on the tax-rate when he was a lad - tuppence in the pound. Still, the jury accepted that HMRC had made a genuine mistake.
(Sorry to hear you feel rough today; being the PB correspondent at events like this is a tough gig, but someone has to do it.)
If the EU continue as they are and there is no prospect of an agreement Theresa May will just have to make an announcement from Downing Street that the UK government is not prepared to be blackmailed, and despite her conciliatory tone and offer to the EU, they are not listening and accordingly the UK Government will be withdrawing from the talks and will take the necessary action to defend the Country's interests in the time leading up to the 29th March 2019.
I do believe she could get the backing of the voters in these circumstances but of course it is not the preferred route
Not as simple as that is it.
Having said all that, the mood music from the Barnier/Davis press conference seems quite positive, so perhaps the logjam is slowly clearing.
Ken was on TV talking about Hitler again this morning.
https://order-order.com/2017/09/28/ken-anti-semitism-fake-news/
His case was mentioned in law textbooks, as an example of what can go wrong with a jury trial. The prosecutors of Gerrard should have had the case moved out of Liverpool.
Are Labour really criticising Theresa May for not being close enough/friendlier with Donald Trump?
We would have to exit to outer space and then attempt to stick it back together again. If it happens at all - the EU has more preferential trade agreements than anyone else but it has gaps, including with the USA, China and India - it will happen much later. We don't know at the start what would be in this agreement, but it would be certainly be much less than what we had as members. In the meantime, arrangements with other countries would be in abeyance while we sorted out our main EU one. Real Brexit therefore would see years of uncertainty and be very costly and painful.
If the fact of leaving the EU were the most important thing to people, we would take the massive hit and move on. The Leave vote however was carried on the tiniest margins on the promise that there would be no significant cost to it. There isn't the mandate or probably the will for real Brexit.
The alternatives are pretend Brexit or no Brexit at all. We aim to keep as much as possible of the current arrangements. Now that we are a third country, the extent to which are able to do that and on what terms is at the discretion of the EU, who don't owe us any favours.
Boris Johnson, who has a prime ministerial career to promote, charges headlong into this delicate debacle. I am not sure how it's going to play out.
Tories were not prepared for snap election, says Theresa May
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/government-and-public-sector/news/89351/excl-tories-were-not-prepared-snap-election-says
Now, whether that is a reason to leave or not to leave, I'm not 100% sure.
https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/913352652666425344
Remains to be seen if charges will be pressed. Could be difficult to come forward if you happened to be carrying a bottle at the time.
Good comments from @Casino_Royale, sounds like it was a fun night.
It is an absolute tragedy that the UK decided to leave the EU, with all the attendant political and economic collateral damage, just at the time when we'd finally huge strides in reshaping the relationship to something much more palatable.
They might try and argue that the Govt. negotaitions have been a fiasco, but Labour's own position has been a fiasco - and May has gone to Florence and offered the olive branch. If the EU want to cover it in oil and set fire to it, then I believe the voters will see who has acted with bad faith. Those who voted Leave will be determined as having done the right thing in leaving; those who believed the EU a well-intentioned club of which we should be members will just have to gaze at their shoes.
"As good as could be obtained" I can believe - but as good as could be obtained was quite frankly not very good. What "huge strides" were taken?
If you asked me today if I'd have taken it if it were still on offer, maybe
I suggest that, coupled with the Bombadier shenanigans, this should some British politicians pause for thought; our interests are not the most important issue on the planet.
However Brexit turns out, this govt will be blamed, and blamed for years to come. Slight blip in quarterly GDP? Brexit/Tories. Employment ticks down, even only seasonally? Brexit/Tories. Etc, etc.
Delusional.
And some clearly would like to punish , it's silly to pretend otherwise. Hopefully those people are not leading things.
But clearly they have already upped the bill from initial comments which shows what are our actual obligations is unclear. So discussing amounts is not intransigence from us either.
The very fact its their job is precisely why we need to take what they say with a pinch of salt.
That is the whole point - we already had a very good range of opt-outs on many key problem areas, and Dave's deal added to that excellent protection for the City (more than we'll get under any conceivable Brexit arrangement, incidentally), and, crucially, a formal recognition that we're not signed up to ever-closer union. The latter was an amazing concession given the EU's quasi-religious stance on this; the practical result of it would have been that we would have effectively become an Associate Member in all but name - but with full voting rights. Ever-closer union would have continued in the Eurozone, no doubt, but we would have been able to stand aside from it.
Sadly, all that was thrown away.
But free markets ARE an ideology. It may be one she agrees with, but it is an ideology.
If she merely views it as the natural order and not an ideology, how do you make a case for it?That would be like making a case for gravity.
A "huge stride" would have been as suggested during the renegotiations "double QMV" that required a QMV of both those nations in the Eurozone and out of it for a new rule to apply to the whole union rather than only the Eurozone. But that didn't happen.
A statement to confirm what was already confirmed by the Maastricht Treaty is utterly, utterly meaningless and hold zero significance let alone being a huge stride.
Physics is science and gravity is a part of it. Economics is a social science. Free markets are not simply an ideology.
As it is, I fully expect this to be the straw that breaks the Hungarian back, the Czech back, the ......
Also, that Brexit matters even more (economically) to EIRE than the UK.
Now of course we are unprotected against the EU deciding to introduce rules damaging to the City, so there is no doubt that we've gone backwards on that by voting to leave.
House building needs available land to be used.
There may be other ways of incentivising building rather than taxation. Penalties could be included as planning conditions, where the penalty has a greater value than a bit of taxation on the land, (which ultimately the consumer pays on the price of the house or the government funds as it has less corporation tax in the end) .
Successful applications could come with a start and completion date for the development. Failure to comply (or extended prevarication and alterations to the plans) and the development is put out to tender for other developers to do the build. Do this for developments of over 30 bedrooms?
You could have a formula that linked the time the land has been owned and vacant / empty / derelict / before planning permission was applied for (and therefore sitting there gaining value) and the Council demand for Social Content increasing as the vacant time lengthens.
Green Belt land could be used. There is lots of it, just move the boundaries of towns out by a mile or two and designate more green belt. You don't have to reduce the total amount of Green Belt.
FOBTs, I think the Conservative Party have begun to move on these. I'm not heavily into control, but they are evil and £2 stake is more accepable.
I don't think many people fail to understand that a transition largely requires the rules to be complied with. Some on the outer edge think transition is bad and the thin end of the wedge. But there are views at both ends of the spectrum.
I don't have an issue with Credit Card interest limits, to pick another topic of Labour conference. Just because you can lend money and charge interest it doesn't mean you should. I do find borrower in chief, John MacDonald, fighting for protection from high interest charges slightly oxymoronic.
Capitalism needs to have a greater social conscience, it needs to be more morally aware. Maximising profit is not the be all and end all. We had the greed of the 1980s, and the greed of the 2000s. The later was worse and more excessive than the former (as all new incarnations ore bigger and better than the previous), resulting in more extreme differentiation between the haves and have nots. Jeremy Corbyn is not the answer, but that does not make all of his views wrong.
The real problem is the Irish border. If either side doesn't want to think outside the current framework, it's irresoluble. There must be a hard border if the rules on the Single Market are to be enforced and the UK is out - as the the government has said it wants to be. On the other hand, the EU wants to maintain the current open border. Unless some fundamental shift takes place on one of those three points (membership of the SM, application of the rules, or the acceptability of a hard border), the circle can't be squared.
As Alastair says, however, Barnier's hands are tied by the Council, and the Council has a lot of internal politics to distract it from revising Barnier's guidance.
Saying we were not signed up when the QMV powers have already been handed over and we have gained no new ones is like saying the barn door won't be opened after the horse has already bolted and we can see the door is already open.
It’s possible that if he hadn’t made the Bloomberg speech originally, he might have won the referendum. By failing to meet expectations he lost my vote.