It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?
Foster is at least a Unionist and if the Tories get a small majority next time as they did in 2015 English voters can avoid having either Sturgeon or Foster holding the purse strings
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leader
Regarding earlier debate about divorced Prime Ministers, Mrs. Thatcher married a divorcee.
I don't think divorce per se really registers as a problem with the public given that the current divorce rate is about 40%. I think the circumstances of the divorce might be of some bearing though.
As an example I have a very low opinion of Corbyn (outside of his politics) because he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a better school. To me such behaviour is so outrageous that it makes me think very poorly of him as a man.
I agree with that 100%. Both in terms of letting hard left politics dictate his child's education, and going so far as to divorce his wife over such an issue. Being a good husband and father is about willingness to compromise in the best interest of the family and Corbyn demonstrates utter failure on that. Suggesting also that he would make a very bad PM.
Much easier technically yes. But politically we would still be faced with the need to get 27 countries to agree an accession treaty - bearing in mind that every time one of these treaties comes up the countries use it as an excuse to try and tack on other concessions for themselves. And the Lisbon Treaty dictates that under those circumstances we would be signing up to the Euro and Schengen as well.
This is a plausible albeit unlikely scenario I think.
It's March 2020. Britain has Brexited, but continues to apply all EU law and make payments into the EU budget. Public opinion in the UK has turned against Brexit and the government wants to change its mind on Brexit.
The EU countries can choose between us leaving the CU, SM, various trade disruption, filling a hole of debatable size in their budgets, losing the right for their citizens to come and live and work in Britain etc.
OR
Just go back to how things were.
I think they might well choose option 2.
If one country starts tacking on concessions, they all will, and then it won't happen. And they should know that. My suggestion is that we agree the process for this accession in advance as far as possible so that we can fast track the legal side of it.
We cannot agree that process in advance since it is already bound up in the Lisbon Treaty. The EU would have to open new treaty talks and amend the Lisbon Treaty (which again would require unanimity) to put such a process in place.
Given the timescales involved and the fact that there are a number of countries who would be quite happy to block such a change unless they got their own concessions (for example Hungary and Poland on migration) there is no chance at all of the process taking less than several years. It would also be subject to referendums in several countries due to their local laws.
Just dealing with a few of those points as the others, though I may not agree with them, are at least plausible.
The Transition deal is NOT buying time as far as leaving the EU is concerned. It only extends the period after we have left where we remain in the Single Market etc. If she wants to buy time for further dealing with Brexit then the only way that can be done is to apply for an extension to the negotiations under Article 50 and secure the agreement of all 27 other countries. Otherwise come March 2019 we are out.
You are wrong about the opt outs I am afraid. They were not liked by the other EU countries nor the Commission whilst we were still a member and they certainly won't be looking to reapply them if we rejoin. There is a requirement under the Lisbon Treaty for all new members to sign up to the Euro and Schengen and there is nota cat in hells chance of them agreeing to the rebate given how much they have moaned about it before.
Basically if we want to rejoin we will need a new accession and our opt outs will not have a cat in hells chance of staying.
Yes I agree on the transition deal - sorry if my post wasn't clear. The idea I was trying to express is that if we are still in SM, CU, subject to EU rules... from that position (even if technically Brexited) - it would be much easier to rejoin. Much harder if there is a no deal Brexit.
On the opt-outs, I think if tomorrow you offered the EU the chance for Britain to stay in as we are they would all say yes. The opt-outs will still continue to apply during the transition period I presume. So just continue them and keep things simple.
On the rebate - perhaps it would go, perhaps it would be reduced. Doesn't seem insurmountable to me.
Much easier technically yes. But politically we would still be faced with the need to get 27 countries to agree an accession treaty - bearing in mind that every time one of these treaties comes up the countries use it as an excuse to try and tack on other concessions for themselves. And the Lisbon Treaty dictates that under those circumstances we would be signing up to the Euro and Schengen as well.
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
Wake me up when there's a 20 point lead - 60:40 - for Remain.
It's only down to Tory voters that we're not there already, and the Tories are giving them every reason to become demoralised about the whole thing.
Mr Glenn why so bothered about what people think? You made it perfectly clear in the last thread, as far as I could see, that people’s thoughts are of secondary concern.
We cannot agree that process in advance since it is already bound up in the Lisbon Treaty. The EU would have to open new treaty talks and amend the Lisbon Treaty (which again would require unanimity) to put such a process in place.
Given the timescales involved and the fact that there are a number of countries who would be quite happy to block such a change unless they got their own concessions (for example Hungary and Poland on migration) there is no chance at all of the process taking less than several years. It would also be subject to referendums in several countries due to their local laws.
If all the countries of the EU and the UK want something to happen - then a way can be found. But I accept it's probably much more difficult than I originally thought.
We cannot agree that process in advance since it is already bound up in the Lisbon Treaty. The EU would have to open new treaty talks and amend the Lisbon Treaty (which again would require unanimity) to put such a process in place.
Given the timescales involved and the fact that there are a number of countries who would be quite happy to block such a change unless they got their own concessions (for example Hungary and Poland on migration) there is no chance at all of the process taking less than several years. It would also be subject to referendums in several countries due to their local laws.
If all the countries of the EU and the UK want something to happen - then a way can be found. But I accept it's probably much more difficult than I originally thought.
If it points, however vaguely, towards ever closer union the EU can be flexible, imaginative, responsive, to a huge degree. Why they will even arrange extra votes for you to bring extra clarity (they like that word - to them it’s synonymous with surrender) to your view.
Show any hint of moving away from the true path of closer union and you will be cast out as a heretic. There shall be no flexibility or imagination.
We cannot agree that process in advance since it is already bound up in the Lisbon Treaty. The EU would have to open new treaty talks and amend the Lisbon Treaty (which again would require unanimity) to put such a process in place.
Given the timescales involved and the fact that there are a number of countries who would be quite happy to block such a change unless they got their own concessions (for example Hungary and Poland on migration) there is no chance at all of the process taking less than several years. It would also be subject to referendums in several countries due to their local laws.
If all the countries of the EU and the UK want something to happen - then a way can be found. But I accept it's probably much more difficult than I originally thought.
What needs to be taken into account is something I said about the ECJ the other day. People in the UK mistakenly view it as a political court. It is not. It gives that appearance sometimes because its remit is to uphold the treaties and to interpret law accordingly. If the Lisbon Treaty says that all new members need to sign up for the Euro and Schengen then the only way around that is to have a new treaty that supersedes Lisbon.
I am reminded of the 4 year lifespan problem that Roy Batty and Tyrell discuss in Bladerunner. No matter which way you approach it there are still basic fundamental issues that prevent things happening the way you might like no matter how much both sides want it to happen. And to be honest in this case I am sure that most countries will be looking to their own vested interest not that of the community.
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?
Foster is at least a Unionist and if the Tories get a small majority next time as they did in 2015 English voters can avoid having either Sturgeon or Foster holding the purse strings
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leader
You are whistling in the wind. A new leader won't benefit the Tories at the next GE any more than Redwood would have improved their performance in 1997. Brexit chaos + a recession due = things can only get worse for the Tories, whoever is leader. And it will give the coming hard left government someone to blame for the failure of their policies for quite a few years.
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?
Foster is at least a Unionist and if the Tories get a small majority next time as they did in 2015 English voters can avoid having either Sturgeon or Foster holding the purse strings
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leader
You are whistling in the wind. A new leader won't benefit the Tories at the next GE any more than Redwood would have improved their performance in 1997. Brexit chaos + a recession due = things can only get worse for the Tories, whoever is leader. And it will give the coming hard left government someone to blame for the failure of their policies for quite a few years.
I remember when coalition with the LDs was going to put the Cons out of office for a generation (and not a Sturgeon generation).
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?
Foster is at least a Unionist and if the Tories get a small majority next time as they did in 2015 English voters can avoid having either Sturgeon or Foster holding the purse strings
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leader
You are whistling in the wind. A new leader won't benefit the Tories at the next GE any more than Redwood would have improved their performance in 1997. Brexit chaos + a recession due = things can only get worse for the Tories, whoever is leader. And it will give the coming hard left government someone to blame for the failure of their policies for quite a few years.
The Tories will fight the next election on Labour's tax rises as they should have done last time and as they won in 1992 despite a recession and when Kinnock expected to win and as the New Zealand Nationals recently beat their Labour party despite being in power for 9 years and trailing in the polls for much of the campaign
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.
A lot of us moderates disagree with the extreme Brexiteers but we equally see a lot of extremists on the other side. Rather than take sides in the extremist wars and be used as cannon fodder, we would rather just engage and elevate other moderates.
This is exactly how the Conservative government has treated the EU since 23rd June 2016 (and before that, of course), so it's hardly a surprise.
It is also exactly how the EU has treated the UK
Yep - all those concessions given to the UK that no-one else got.
No concessions on immigration despite Blair agreeing to free movement without transition controls in 2004 unlike most EU nations. The UK had therefore controls still 'banked' effectively
Denmark and Sweden are still not in the Euro either, nor are many Eastern European nations. Ireland is not in Schengen too
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?
Foster is at least a Unionist and if the Tories get a small majority next time as they did in 2015 English voters can avoid having either Sturgeon or Foster holding the purse strings
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leader
You are whistling in the wind. A new leader won't benefit the Tories at the next GE any more than Redwood would have improved their performance in 1997. Brexit chaos + a recession due = things can only get worse for the Tories, whoever is leader. And it will give the coming hard left government someone to blame for the failure of their policies for quite a few years.
The Tories have ceased to be a conservative party. the hard Brexiteers have become latter day Leninists, determined to destroy the existing system in order - they hope - that a new and better one will rise in its place. Against this background Corbyn & Co can seem quite moderate.
Do they talk about the price they’d extract for membership? Kiss goodbye to the pound sterling, and the rebate!
Things fall into two categories: those where the treaties would need to be changed, and those where they would not.
I think if we changed our mind today (which we're not going to do), then they would probably accept it, and we would wave goodbye to the rebate (which is not in the treaties).
But I don't believe for a second the EU would be able to go through the complicated process of getting a new treaty signed by all 28 member states to get us in to the Euro. Firstly, because new treaties are always a can of worms. Secondly, because us joining the Euro would guarantee that Frankfurt would never be the centre of European finance. Thirdly, because they have enough trouble keeping the Euro together already.
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.
A lot of us moderates disagree with the extreme Brexiteers but we equally see a lot of extremists on the other side. Rather than take sides in the extremist wars and be used as cannon fodder, we would rather just engage and elevate other moderates.
If you can't stand up and condemn nutjobs who think that Britain is at war with the EU and who think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you haven't earned the right to call yourself a moderate.
This is exactly how the Conservative government has treated the EU since 23rd June 2016 (and before that, of course), so it's hardly a surprise.
It is also exactly how the EU has treated the UK
Yep - all those concessions given to the UK that no-one else got.
No concessions on immigration despite Blair agreeing to free movement without transition controls in 2004 unlike most EU nations. The UK had therefore controls still 'banked' effectively
The Blair government giving up on part of the rebate for nothing in return and opening up full immigration without controls is a large reason why the UK voted for Brexit in 2016. Actions have consequences.
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.
A lot of us moderates disagree with the extreme Brexiteers but we equally see a lot of extremists on the other side. Rather than take sides in the extremist wars and be used as cannon fodder, we would rather just engage and elevate other moderates.
If you can't stand up and condemn nutjobs who think that Britain is at war with the EU and who think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you haven't earned the right to call yourself a moderate.
They are idiots but there's not much point in concentrating on them. You just give them the oxygen of publicity. It's the same reason I ignore many of your more visceral posts.
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.
This confusion annoys the shit out of me.
Switzerland, for example, voted by referendum to join Schengen and abolish passport controls. (And Schengen is popular there because people go in and out Switzerland all the time, and passport controls waste a lot of time for a lot of people.)
But Switzerland also voted by referendum to limit the number of people allowed to work in the country.
They are happy with no passport checks. (Or rather they think the economic costs outweigh the loss of control.) But they don't want unfettered immigration. Just because you cross the border from France to Switzerland without a passport does not mean you are able to live or work in Switzerland.
(And, indeed, the Swiss actually have some very sensible policies that make it almost impossible for illegal immigrants to work or live in the country.)
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.
A lot of us moderates disagree with the extreme Brexiteers but we equally see a lot of extremists on the other side. Rather than take sides in the extremist wars and be used as cannon fodder, we would rather just engage and elevate other moderates.
If you can't stand up and condemn nutjobs who think that Britain is at war with the EU and who think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you haven't earned the right to call yourself a moderate.
They are idiots but there's not much point in concentrating on them. You just give them the oxygen of publicity. It's the same reason I ignore many of your more visceral posts.
There is a lot of point in concentrating on them. These are the people who are setting the tone and mood music of negotiations.
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?
Foster is at least a Unionist and if the Tories get a small majority next time as they did in 2015 English voters can avoid having either Sturgeon or Foster holding the purse strings
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leader
You are whistling in the wind. A new leader won't benefit the Tories at the next GE any more than Redwood would have improved their performance in 1997. Brexit chaos + a recession due = things can only get worse for the Tories, whoever is leader. And it will give the coming hard left government someone to blame for the failure of their policies for quite a few years.
The Tories have ceased to be a conservative party. the hard Brexiteers have become latter day Leninists, determined to destroy the existing system in order - they hope - that a new and better one will rise in its place. Against this background Corbyn & Co can seem quite moderate.
If by "hard Brexit" you mean any Brexit which ends outside the single market, this is ridiculous. There could obviously be a tough transition but the ultimate destination of being a nation state without political union is a tried and tested one. Far left socialism is also tried and tested, but with universally dire results.
This is exactly how the Conservative government has treated the EU since 23rd June 2016 (and before that, of course), so it's hardly a surprise.
It is also exactly how the EU has treated the UK
Yep - all those concessions given to the UK that no-one else got.
No concessions on immigration despite Blair agreeing to free movement without transition controls in 2004 unlike most EU nations. The UK had therefore controls still 'banked' effectively
The Blair government giving up on part of the rebate for nothing in return and opening up full immigration without controls is a large reason why the UK voted for Brexit in 2016. Actions have consequences.
This is exactly how the Conservative government has treated the EU since 23rd June 2016 (and before that, of course), so it's hardly a surprise.
It is also exactly how the EU has treated the UK
Yep - all those concessions given to the UK that no-one else got.
No concessions on immigration despite Blair agreeing to free movement without transition controls in 2004 unlike most EU nations. The UK had therefore controls still 'banked' effectively
The Blair government giving up on part of the rebate for nothing in return and opening up full immigration without controls is a large reason why the UK voted for Brexit in 2016. Actions have consequences.
Absolutely. And add to that Gordon’s sneaking in the back door to sign Lisbon having reneged on a promised referendum.
Juncker's position here is very reasonable. Paying for our commitments under the last budget agreements (the buying a round analogy) is a fair enough position. What is unreasonable is paying for things we haven't agreed to already like unfunded liabilities. Or demand an EU court to have ongoing jurisdiction but no reciprocity.
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.
A lot of us moderates disagree with the extreme Brexiteers but we equally see a lot of extremists on the other side. Rather than take sides in the extremist wars and be used as cannon fodder, we would rather just engage and elevate other moderates.
If you can't stand up and condemn nutjobs who think that Britain is at war with the EU and who think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you haven't earned the right to call yourself a moderate.
They are idiots but there's not much point in concentrating on them. You just give them the oxygen of publicity. It's the same reason I ignore many of your more visceral posts.
There is a lot of point in concentrating on them. These are the people who are setting the tone and mood music of negotiations.
They are only setting the tone because people keep on elevating what they are saying. May and Davis are speaking in very conciliatory and positive tones. They are the ones we should focus on.
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.
A lot of us moderates disagree with the extreme Brexiteers but we equally see a lot of extremists on the other side. Rather than take sides in the extremist wars and be used as cannon fodder, we would rather just engage and elevate other moderates.
If you can't stand up and condemn nutjobs who think that Britain is at war with the EU and who think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you haven't earned the right to call yourself a moderate.
Nut jobs like Hammond who call the EU "the enemy" ?
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.
This confusion annoys the shit out of me.
Glad its not just me then. It happens so often I’m starting to feel it must be deliberate, especially in the heat of the discussions about the NI border.
Echoes of similar “confusion” between debt and deficit in the aftermath of the last recession, which were equally annoying coming from people who should have known a lot better.
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.
A lot of us moderates disagree with the extreme Brexiteers but we equally see a lot of extremists on the other side. Rather than take sides in the extremist wars and be used as cannon fodder, we would rather just engage and elevate other moderates.
If you can't stand up and condemn nutjobs who think that Britain is at war with the EU and who think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you haven't earned the right to call yourself a moderate.
They are idiots but there's not much point in concentrating on them. You just give them the oxygen of publicity. It's the same reason I ignore many of your more visceral posts.
There is a lot of point in concentrating on them. These are the people who are setting the tone and mood music of negotiations.
They are only setting the tone because people keep on elevating what they are saying. May and Davis are speaking in very conciliatory and positive tones. They are the ones we should focus on.
Contemptible. Time and again those who claim to be moderate Leavers find themselves incapable of criticising even the most outrageous statements that senior Leavers make. No wonder they are floundering so badly.
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?
Foster is at least a Unionist and if the Tories get a small majority next time as they did in 2015 English voters can avoid having either Sturgeon or Foster holding the purse strings
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leader
You are whistling in the wind. A new leader won't benefit the Tories at the next GE any more than Redwood would have improved their performance in 1997. Brexit chaos + a recession due = things can only get worse for the Tories, whoever is leader. And it will give the coming hard left government someone to blame for the failure of their policies for quite a few years.
The Tories have ceased to be a conservative party. the hard Brexiteers have become latter day Leninists, determined to destroy the existing system in order - they hope - that a new and better one will rise in its place. Against this background Corbyn & Co can seem quite moderate.
If by "hard Brexit" you mean any Brexit which ends outside the single market, this is ridiculous. There could obviously be a tough transition but the ultimate destination of being a nation state without political union is a tried and tested one. Far left socialism is also tried and tested, but with universally dire results.
By "hard Brexit" I mean the cliff edge that looms ever closer. I'm not sure any other form of Brexit is now possible - the nutjobs on the Tory backbenches have almost succeeded in their aim of closing off all other options.
Juncker's position here is very reasonable. Paying for our commitments under the last budget agreements (the buying a round analogy) is a fair enough position. What is unreasonable is paying for things we haven't agreed to already like unfunded liabilities. Or demand an EU court to have ongoing jurisdiction but no reciprocity.
Indeed. We’re not being asked to stand our round as we leave, we’re being asked to leave a blank cheque behind the bar when the landlord has already suggested an all night lock-in.
@SkyNewsBreak: Downing St sources have reiterated PM's support of Chancellor Philip Hammond following his comment on the European Union being the "enemy"
Juncker's position here is very reasonable. Paying for our commitments under the last budget agreements (the buying a round analogy) is a fair enough position. What is unreasonable is paying for things we haven't agreed to already like unfunded liabilities. Or demand an EU court to have ongoing jurisdiction but no reciprocity.
Buying a round , I would not consider 28.Six would be my preferred number.
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.
Exactly. That is why it is perfectly reasonable to be in favour of freedom of movement but opposed to Schengen.
Another day, another loads of remainers calling anyone with a different opinion "nutjobs".
And they wonder why they lost the referendum.
If you think that Britain is at war with the EU or you think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you should only be trusted with plastic cutlery. These are actively dangerous beliefs and have no place in political debate.
Only a year ago, an MP was murdered because a nutjob believed her to be a traitor.
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.
Exactly. That is why it is perfectly reasonable to be in favour of freedom of movement but opposed to Schengen.
Or indeed, the other way around, in the case of Switzerland.
They are two separate things, each with their advantages and disadvantages.
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.
Exactly. That is why it is perfectly reasonable to be in favour of freedom of movement but opposed to Schengen.
In practice the only real inconvenience of not being in Schengen is for those non-EU citizens resident in either the UK/Ireland or the Schengen zone who need visas to travel to the other bit of the EU.
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.
Exactly. That is why it is perfectly reasonable to be in favour of freedom of movement but opposed to Schengen.
In practice the only real inconvenience of not being in Schengen is for those non-EU citizens resident in either the UK/Ireland or the Schengen zone who need visas to travel to the other bit of the EU.
Obviously because of us being an island it is not quite the same as for other countries as there is already some delay and inconvenience when travelling to the rest of Europe. But if I was living in France or Germany I would definitely prefer Schengen on one level. It is just that it does seem to remove a very useful and important set of checks against the free movement of criminals and weapons which is why I think it is flawed.
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.
Exactly. That is why it is perfectly reasonable to be in favour of freedom of movement but opposed to Schengen.
In practice the only real inconvenience of not being in Schengen is for those non-EU citizens resident in either the UK/Ireland or the Schengen zone who need visas to travel to the other bit of the EU.
That’s one example. Another issue is that any country within the Schengen zone can object to a visa, even if it’s not where you’re actually going.
Anecdote: had dinner last night with Jordanian businessman, based in Dubai, who was recently refused a Schengen visa despite his return flight being booked and going to meet with a quango in one country. He doesn’t know who objected, except that it wasn’t the country he was planning to visit. Annoying for him and his customer. Anyone with a Syrain passport, even if resident in Dubai, now finds it impossible to travel to Schengen countries - but UK is still fine for them.
@SkyNewsBreak: Downing St sources have reiterated PM's support of Chancellor Philip Hammond following his comment on the European Union being the "enemy"
So that's all good...
But they are now. They certainly are not our friends.
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.
That’s a surprising list of countries, that’s changed rapidly in the last few years as the oil price has come down.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries: United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016) Ireland: $5.3 billion Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion Singapore: $3.8 billion United States: $1.3 billion Hong Kong: $1.1 billion Macedonia: $832.3 million Egypt: $780.3 million Qatar: $688.9 million Oman: $539.3 million http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.
The current lot are putting ideology before country.
Indefensible.
The time has come for a strong and stable labour government in the national interest.
I'm unsure a Labour party obsessed (and funded by) unions, and who want to nationalise everything they can think of, is in any way non-ideological or is interested in the national interest ...
The current lot are putting ideology before country.
Indefensible.
The time has come for a strong and stable labour government in the national interest.
I'm unsure a Labour party obsessed (and funded by) unions, and who want to nationalise everything they can think of, is in any way non-ideological or is interested in the national interest ...
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.
That’s a surprising list of countries, that’s changed rapidly in the last few years as the oil price has come down.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries: United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016) Ireland: $5.3 billion Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion Singapore: $3.8 billion United States: $1.3 billion Hong Kong: $1.1 billion Macedonia: $832.3 million Egypt: $780.3 million Qatar: $688.9 million Oman: $539.3 million http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.
Surely a lot of those surpluses are our gun-running to Middle East absolutists, on top of the other things that you mention.
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.
11)
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leader
The Tories have ceased to be a conservative party. the hard Brexiteers have become latter day Leninists, determined to destroy the existing system in order - they hope - that a new and better one will rise in its place. Against this background Corbyn & Co can seem quite moderate.
If by "hard Brexit" you mean any Brexit which ends outside the single market, this is ridiculous. There could obviously be a tough transition but the ultimate destination of being a nation state without political union is a tried and tested one. Far left socialism is also tried and tested, but with universally dire results.
By "hard Brexit" I mean the cliff edge that looms ever closer. I'm not sure any other form of Brexit is now possible - the nutjobs on the Tory backbenches have almost succeeded in their aim of closing off all other options.
This is clearly talking points that bear no connection to the actual negotiation positions. The UK has been concessionary, both increasing the amount they have been willing to pay and coming up with an innovative legal proposal on citizens' rights. Meanwhile the EU has said "no concessions" on any of the three sticking points, including one which is completely unreasonable, and won't talk about other issues.
The current lot are putting ideology before country.
Indefensible.
The time has come for a strong and stable labour government in the national interest.
I'm unsure a Labour party obsessed (and funded by) unions, and who want to nationalise everything they can think of, is in any way non-ideological or is interested in the national interest ...
I'll put you down as undecided.
With the current shower of incompetents in all parties at a national level, I'll be forced to vote even more than usual by local candidate. Shame there isn't usually a raving loony party candidate around here...
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.
That’s a surprising list of countries, that’s changed rapidly in the last few years as the oil price has come down.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries: United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016) Ireland: $5.3 billion Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion Singapore: $3.8 billion United States: $1.3 billion Hong Kong: $1.1 billion Macedonia: $832.3 million Egypt: $780.3 million Qatar: $688.9 million Oman: $539.3 million http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.
Surely a lot of those surpluses are our gun-running to Middle East absolutists, on top of the other things that you mention.
In fairness UAE, Singapore, USA, and SArabia from that list are good markets for our engineering products- all nothing to do with arms I’m pleased to say. I’m sure we are not untypical.
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.
That’s a surprising list of countries, that’s changed rapidly in the last few years as the oil price has come down.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries: United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016) Ireland: $5.3 billion Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion Singapore: $3.8 billion United States: $1.3 billion Hong Kong: $1.1 billion Macedonia: $832.3 million Egypt: $780.3 million Qatar: $688.9 million Oman: $539.3 million http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.
Surely a lot of those surpluses are our gun-running to Middle East absolutists, on top of the other things that you mention.
Well the BAe Systems and RAF marketing departments are currently touring nine red Hawks around the region, if that’s what you mean
More Jaguars, McLarens, JCBs and oil diggers though - and lots of financial services.
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.
That’s a surprising list of countries, that’s changed rapidly in the last few years as the oil price has come down.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries: United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016) Ireland: $5.3 billion Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion Singapore: $3.8 billion United States: $1.3 billion Hong Kong: $1.1 billion Macedonia: $832.3 million Egypt: $780.3 million Qatar: $688.9 million Oman: $539.3 million http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.
Surely a lot of those surpluses are our gun-running to Middle East absolutists, on top of the other things that you mention.
Well the BAe Systems and RAF marketing departments are currently touring nine red Hawks around the region, if that’s what you mean
More Jaguars, McLarens, JCBs and oil diggers though - and lots of financial services.
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.
That’s a surprising list of countries, that’s changed rapidly in the last few years as the oil price has come down.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries: United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016) Ireland: $5.3 billion Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion Singapore: $3.8 billion United States: $1.3 billion Hong Kong: $1.1 billion Macedonia: $832.3 million Egypt: $780.3 million Qatar: $688.9 million Oman: $539.3 million http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.
Surely a lot of those surpluses are our gun-running to Middle East absolutists, on top of the other things that you mention.
Well the BAe Systems and RAF marketing departments are currently touring nine red Hawks around the region, if that’s what you mean
More Jaguars, McLarens, JCBs and oil diggers though - and lots of financial services.
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.
That’s a surprising list of countries, that’s changed rapidly in the last few years as the oil price has come down.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries: United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016) Ireland: $5.3 billion Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion Singapore: $3.8 billion United States: $1.3 billion Hong Kong: $1.1 billion Macedonia: $832.3 million Egypt: $780.3 million Qatar: $688.9 million Oman: $539.3 million http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.
Surely a lot of those surpluses are our gun-running to Middle East absolutists, on top of the other things that you mention.
Well the BAe Systems and RAF marketing departments are currently touring nine red Hawks around the region, if that’s what you mean
More Jaguars, McLarens, JCBs and oil diggers though - and lots of financial services.
Sandpit, you're forgetting all the Cadbury's ...
Ah yes, although I think my wife single handedly accounts for a measurable amount of the UAE’s chocolate sales!
And the visitors from the US, who can’t get the proper stuff there any more.
Another day, another loads of remainers calling anyone with a different opinion "nutjobs".
And they wonder why they lost the referendum.
If you think that Britain is at war with the EU or you think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you should only be trusted with plastic cutlery. These are actively dangerous beliefs and have no place in political debate.
Only a year ago, an MP was murdered because a nutjob believed her to be a traitor.
If you continually have to find the most extreme statements of people you disagree with then it shows how weak your argument actually is.
Juncker's position here is very reasonable. Paying for our commitments under the last budget agreements (the buying a round analogy) is a fair enough position. What is unreasonable is paying for things we haven't agreed to already like unfunded liabilities. Or demand an EU court to have ongoing jurisdiction but no reciprocity.
Yes, we don't mind paying for the last round... but funding Juncker's bar tab for the next decade is well beyond what should be expected of anyone.
With Hammond accused of being a traitor by some, and talk of Theresa May acquiring "Henry VIII" powers, I bet he's hoping the Tower of London has got central heating by now.
Another day, another loads of remainers calling anyone with a different opinion "nutjobs".
And they wonder why they lost the referendum.
If you think that Britain is at war with the EU or you think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you should only be trusted with plastic cutlery. These are actively dangerous beliefs and have no place in political debate.
Only a year ago, an MP was murdered because a nutjob believed her to be a traitor.
If you continually have to find the most extreme statements of people you disagree with then it shows how weak your argument actually is.
You complained about my use of the word nutjob. I used it in relation to such people. It appears that you share my opinion.
Unfortunately, what you describe as extreme are direct quotes from the editorial of a major national newspaper and a leading Leaver. It's about time Leavers with pretensions to being moderate stood up to the dangerous idiots who speak in their name.
Juncker's position here is very reasonable. Paying for our commitments under the last budget agreements (the buying a round analogy) is a fair enough position. What is unreasonable is paying for things we haven't agreed to already like unfunded liabilities. Or demand an EU court to have ongoing jurisdiction but no reciprocity.
Yes, we don't mind paying for the last round... but funding Juncker's bar tab for the next decade is well beyond what should be expected of anyone.
Juncker is a serious embarrassment and in this country wouldn't have been left in place as chairman of the local Rotary Club. The fact that he is where he is in the EU is one of the best arguments for leaving.
Comments
Given the timescales involved and the fact that there are a number of countries who would be quite happy to block such a change unless they got their own concessions (for example Hungary and Poland on migration) there is no chance at all of the process taking less than several years. It would also be subject to referendums in several countries due to their local laws.
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
https://twitter.com/PhilipHammondUK/status/918864997668872192
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/918865378717196288
But I accept it's probably much more difficult than I originally thought.
Show any hint of moving away from the true path of closer union and you will be cast out as a heretic. There shall be no flexibility or imagination.
I am reminded of the 4 year lifespan problem that Roy Batty and Tyrell discuss in Bladerunner. No matter which way you approach it there are still basic fundamental issues that prevent things happening the way you might like no matter how much both sides want it to happen. And to be honest in this case I am sure that most countries will be looking to their own vested interest not that of the community.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/918866478702592000
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
Denmark and Sweden are still not in the Euro either, nor are many Eastern European nations. Ireland is not in Schengen too
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.
I think if we changed our mind today (which we're not going to do), then they would probably accept it, and we would wave goodbye to the rebate (which is not in the treaties).
But I don't believe for a second the EU would be able to go through the complicated process of getting a new treaty signed by all 28 member states to get us in to the Euro. Firstly, because new treaties are always a can of worms. Secondly, because us joining the Euro would guarantee that Frankfurt would never be the centre of European finance. Thirdly, because they have enough trouble keeping the Euro together already.
The Blair government giving up on part of the rebate for nothing in return and opening up full immigration without controls is a large reason why the UK voted for Brexit in 2016. Actions have consequences.
Brace yourselves!
Switzerland, for example, voted by referendum to join Schengen and abolish passport controls. (And Schengen is popular there because people go in and out Switzerland all the time, and passport controls waste a lot of time for a lot of people.)
But Switzerland also voted by referendum to limit the number of people allowed to work in the country.
They are happy with no passport checks. (Or rather they think the economic costs outweigh the loss of control.) But they don't want unfettered immigration. Just because you cross the border from France to Switzerland without a passport does not mean you are able to live or work in Switzerland.
(And, indeed, the Swiss actually have some very sensible policies that make it almost impossible for illegal immigrants to work or live in the country.)
Echoes of similar “confusion” between debt and deficit in the aftermath of the last recession, which were equally annoying coming from people who should have known a lot better.
So that's all good...
Mr. Sandpit, it's faintly ridiculous that the EU is demanding we pay up, but don't actually say how much, or for what.
And they wonder why they lost the referendum.
Only a year ago, an MP was murdered because a nutjob believed her to be a traitor.
They are two separate things, each with their advantages and disadvantages.
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/brexit-philip-hammond-bezeichnet-eu-als-den-feind-a-1172862.html
Anecdote: had dinner last night with Jordanian businessman, based in Dubai, who was recently refused a Schengen visa despite his return flight being booked and going to meet with a quango in one country. He doesn’t know who objected, except that it wasn’t the country he was planning to visit. Annoying for him and his customer. Anyone with a Syrain passport, even if resident in Dubai, now finds it impossible to travel to Schengen countries - but UK is still fine for them.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries:
United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016)
Ireland: $5.3 billion
Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion
Singapore: $3.8 billion
United States: $1.3 billion
Hong Kong: $1.1 billion
Macedonia: $832.3 million
Egypt: $780.3 million
Qatar: $688.9 million
Oman: $539.3 million
http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.
Indefensible.
The time has come for a strong and stable labour government in the national interest.
Ooooooh Jeremy Corbyn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41613314
Oh, f**k.
More Jaguars, McLarens, JCBs and oil diggers though - and lots of financial services.
And the visitors from the US, who can’t get the proper stuff there any more.
I see empty factories, grounded aircraft and tumbleweed rolling through the City of London.
Both might be extreme views, but at least mine has at least a grain of possibility about it!
(Perhaps inappropriate on Friday 13th)
Unfortunately, what you describe as extreme are direct quotes from the editorial of a major national newspaper and a leading Leaver. It's about time Leavers with pretensions to being moderate stood up to the dangerous idiots who speak in their name.
Is this Conservative Party unity in action?