viewcode - what an extraordinary question to pose - why not another pair of brackets to make all clear - what is the teacher trying to test, mind reading?
The No Deal is kabuki. It simply exists as a sop to Brexiteers as they gurgitate in their echo chamber. Meanwhile the displacement activity takes away from getting on with Brexit.
It's a way of telling the EU that "we are not Greece" by manoeuvring ourselves into a weaker position than Greece was in.
Greece is the world's 50th largest economy and in the Eurozone and with massive borrowing from the EU (principally Germany), the UK is the world's 5th largest economy, not in the Eurozone and with significantly less debt than Greece and less reliance on Germany.
All we are going to get for 50 billion is a two year transition period with no destination. It is madness.
Plus getting to the starting point that's exactly what we get for the tens of billions of euros. We don't have a lot of choice. If we don't think that now, we will definitely think that once we are out.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote to for this madness, as you put it.
Well, this is good news. The Government will get a crap deal, Parliament will reject it and we will end up with no deal.
Do these people have any grasp of reality? Parliament cannot negotiate a treaty, nor can they issue directions to the executive. They can only pass or withhold legislation or form a new Government, which clearly is not an option for Tory MPs.
What do you suggest?
Glad you asked. The only rational decision at this stage is to terminate the negotiations.
Read the great analysis provided by Martin Howe QC. The facts are that the EU CANNOT deliver a trade deal as part of the A50 negotiations. The only outcome of continued negotiations is that we get close to the Brexit date and the EU blackmail us to get whatever they want because at that point we are not prepared for WTO. We cannot lock in a transition period at any time - it will all be up in the air until the last moment. The European Parliament could scupper any deal at the last minute or basically engage in their own last minute blackmail - and who really thinks this won't happen?
The only way that these negotiations would make any sense is if there was a rolling series of signed treaties as we go along - first on citizens rights, then on transition, then on trade. How the hell are we going to deal with the payment of the Brexit bill even if we give in - will the EU ever agree that it is paid years later when the trade deal is actually ratified? Of course not, they will demand the money now and then be able to renege on the trade deal. That this the whole basis of the structure of negotiations and why it has been forced into Phase 1 in the first place. All we are going to get for 50 billion is a two year transition period with no destination. It is madness.
There are only two sensible outcomes - join the EEA (an outcome which would mean that 589 MPs lied to their electorates) or accept that the only way forward is to prepare for WTO, execute Brexit and go back to the EU after this and try to get a trade deal when there is proper time and a sensible process. Hopefully we can get to this point sooner rather than later.
I have to agree. Whatever you think of Brexit, we've got ourselves into a situation where our national interests are severely threatened. Whatever we do next, we've got to get out of where Article 50 has landed us.
Surely the answer to that is to propose a methodology with our own estimates attached. And publish it. Then haggle about the details. Time is running short. The reason this has not been done is nowt to do with high principle or the EU. It is because of internal Tory politics. If it could be agreed within Cabinet, it would have been done by now. As it is it appears not to have even been discussed. Under these circumstances, what Starmer has to say is a matter of no importance.
You should know perfectly well why the UK won't do this. The UK has no legal liability to pay. Therefore, if they concede a methodology they will be agreeing to pay huge sums of money IN RETURN FOR NOTHING. The Cabinet are not actually divided on this at all - everyone knows that the UK will never agree the Brexit bill unless and until they agree a trade deal in return.
To agree to a methodology now would be the most grotesque betrayal of the UK national interest imaginable. Either the EU grow up and accept that they will never get a Brexit Bill unless they make concessions at the same time (eg a trade deal), or there will be no deal and they will get no money. There are no other realistic options.
Sadly, I fear we have reached similar conclusions from opposing starting points. The "negotiations" are an elaborate charade. But it has nothing to do with the EU "growing up." We either want a trade deal, or we do not. If we do we have to make concessions. Legal niceties are irrelevant.
The No Deal is kabuki. It simply exists as a sop to Brexiteers as they gurgitate in their echo chamber. Meanwhile the displacement activity takes away from getting on with Brexit.
It's a way of telling the EU that "we are not Greece" by manoeuvring ourselves into a weaker position than Greece was in.
Greece is the world's 50th largest economy and in the Eurozone and with massive borrowing from the EU (principally Germany), the UK is the world's 5th largest economy, not in the Eurozone and with significantly less debt than Greece and less reliance on Germany
Yes it's quite a feat for the UK to have got itself into this position. You should be ashamed of your party's role in it, and its continuing appeasement of anti-European extremism.
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.
Morning all,
Who is telling him the answer is 9?
My son' maths teacher. And the reason is indeed the application of BODMAS. You deal with the brackets first so that becomes 3 but you then start from the left so you do the 6/2 first before the multiplication.
But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.
Excel says 9.
Which version of Excel? Different versions are well known for doing math(s) differently.
Don't get me started on Excel. The established abbreviation for a Masters of Architecture is MArch. Excel treats it as a date!
Glad you asked. The only rational decision at this stage is to terminate the negotiations.
Read the great analysis provided by Martin Howe QC. The facts are that the EU CANNOT deliver a trade deal as part of the A50 negotiations. The only outcome of continued negotiations is that we get close to the Brexit date and the EU blackmail us to get whatever they want because at that point we are not prepared for WTO. We cannot lock in a transition period at any time - it will all be up in the air until the last moment. The European Parliament could scupper any deal at the last minute or basically engage in their own last minute blackmail - and who really thinks this won't happen?
The only way that these negotiations would make any sense is if there was a rolling series of signed treaties as we go along - first on citizens rights, then on transition, then on trade. How the hell are we going to deal with the payment of the Brexit bill even if we give in - will the EU ever agree that it is paid years later when the trade deal is actually ratified? Of course not, they will demand the money now and then be able to renege on the trade deal. That this the whole basis of the structure of negotiations and why it has been forced into Phase 1 in the first place. All we are going to get for 50 billion is a two year transition period with no destination. It is madness.
There are only two sensible outcomes - join the EEA (an outcome which would mean that 589 MPs lied to their electorates) or accept that the only way forward is to prepare for WTO, execute Brexit and go back to the EU after this and try to get a trade deal when there is proper time and a sensible process. Hopefully we can get to this point sooner rather than later.
Do you really expect the donkeys that lead the UK to understand a sensible option though? They will dither to the end and get the worst case scenario possible, no deal and us ( the plebs ) paying through the nose.
The No Deal is kabuki. It simply exists as a sop to Brexiteers as they gurgitate in their echo chamber. Meanwhile the displacement activity takes away from getting on with Brexit.
It's a way of telling the EU that "we are not Greece" by manoeuvring ourselves into a weaker position than Greece was in.
Greece is the world's 50th largest economy and in the Eurozone and with massive borrowing from the EU (principally Germany), the UK is the world's 5th largest economy, not in the Eurozone and with significantly less debt than Greece and less reliance on Germany
Yes it's quite a feat for the UK to have got itself into this position. You should be ashamed of your party's role in it, and its continuing appeasement of anti-European extremism.
I know you are an EU Federalist ideologue which is a perfectly valid position to hold but it is not and I doubt ever will be the position of the majority of British people, they were prepared to have a 'Common Market' relationship with the EU which is why they voted to leave EFTA for the EEC in 1975. Once it became a political project with its own currency, Parliament, court, President and probably army they said no more.
Around 35% of Labour voters voted Leave, without those Leave would not have won, it was not just the majority of Tories and UKIP voters who won it for Brexit
Well, this is good news. The Government will get a crap deal, Parliament will reject it and we will end up with no deal.
Do these people have any grasp of reality? Parliament cannot negotiate a treaty, nor can they issue directions to the executive. They can only pass or withhold legislation or form a new Government, which clearly is not an option for Tory MPs.
What do you suggest?
Glad you asked. The only rational decision at this stage is to terminate the negotiations.
Read the great analysis provided by Martin Howe QC. The facts are that the EU CANNOT deliver a trade deal as part of the A50 negotiations. The only outcome of continued negotiations is that we get close to the Brexit date and the EU blackmail us to get whatever they want because at that point we are not prepared for WTO. We cannot lock in a transition period at any time - it will all be up in the air until the last moment. The European Parliament could scupper any deal at the last minute or basically engage in their own last minute blackmail - and who really thinks this won't happen?
The only way that these negotiations would make any sense is if there was a rolling series of signed treaties as we go along - first on citizens rights, then on transition, then on trade. How the hell are we going to deal with the payment of the Brexit bill even if we give in - will the EU ever agree that it is paid years later when the trade deal is actually ratified? Of course not, they will demand the money now and then be able to renege on the trade deal. That this the whole basis of the structure of negotiations and why it has been forced into Phase 1 in the first place. All we are going to get for 50 billion is a two year transition period with no destination. It is madness.
There are only two sensible outcomes - join the EEA (an outcome which would mean that 589 MPs lied to their electorates) or accept that the only way forward is to prepare for WTO, execute Brexit and go back to the EU after this and try to get a trade deal when there is proper time and a sensible process. Hopefully we can get to this point sooner rather than later.
I have to agree. Whatever you think of Brexit, we've got ourselves into a situation where our national interests are severely threatened. Whatever we do next, we've got to get out of where Article 50 has landed us.
Start building sheds at ports , fence of NI , etc PDQ. Show a bit of backbone instead of snivelling and ar*e licking. If they are going to do it do it properly , EU have no intention of making it easy , it will be hard or hard.
I know you are an EU Federalist ideologue which is a perfectly valid position to hold but it is not and I doubt ever will be the position of the majority of British people, they were prepared to have a 'Common Market' relationship with the EU which is why they voted to leave EFTA for the EEC in 1975. Once it became a political project with its own currency, Parliament, court, President and probably army they said no more.
It had it's own parliament, court and commission before we joined. It didn't 'become a political project' subsequently. This is not opinion but fact.
Surely the answer to that is to propose a methodology with our own estimates attached. And publish it. Then haggle about the details. Time is running short. The reason this has not been done is nowt to do with high principle or the EU. It is because of internal Tory politics. If it could be agreed within Cabinet, it would have been done by now. As it is it appears not to have even been discussed. Under these circumstances, what Starmer has to say is a matter of no importance.
You should know perfectly well why the UK won't do this. The UK has no legal liability to pay. Therefore, if they concede a methodology they will be agreeing to pay huge sums of money IN RETURN FOR NOTHING. The Cabinet are not actually divided on this at all - everyone knows that the UK will never agree the Brexit bill unless and until they agree a trade deal in return.
To agree to a methodology now would be the most grotesque betrayal of the UK national interest imaginable. Either the EU grow up and accept that they will never get a Brexit Bill unless they make concessions at the same time (eg a trade deal), or there will be no deal and they will get no money. There are no other realistic options.
Sadly, I fear we have reached similar conclusions from opposing starting points. The "negotiations" are an elaborate charade. But it has nothing to do with the EU "growing up." We either want a trade deal, or we do not. If we do we have to make concessions. Legal niceties are irrelevant.
You have completely missed the point. The EU cannot legally agree a trade deal as part of the a50 negotiations. If we make concessions we get nothing other than a huge bill that needs to be paid now and a vague promise of a trade deal that we cannot enforce. They will spend the whole two years of the transition period bullying the UK and forcing another cliffedge. The structure of these talks cannot lead to an agreement that is reasonable for the UK. Time to face reality.
Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers
If you are serious about Brexit you pay the money and move on. It's the price of Brexit and one that's worth the money if you support it. I have said all the long the government should get the payment out of the way early. If they had done so they might have been able to haggle the amount down. The government hasn't done so because they are not willing to be level with the British people over the very major costs of Brexit.
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
I may be overanswering this, but
Option 1: applying BODMAS ================ 6/2(1+2) = 6 divided by 2 multiplied by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket = 6 divided by 2 multiplied by 3 = 3 multiplied by 3 = 9
Option 2: write out the equation in pen on paper ============================= Recall that prior to spreadsheets and LaTex and Word equations, people used to write maths down on paper with pens/pencil. It would have been depicted as 6/2(1+2) = 6 on top of horizontal line above 2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line = 3 multipled by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line = 3 multiplied by 3 = 9
Option 3: various computer languages ====================== I'm not going to go into depth with this, particularly since these days the younger crowd think only R and Python exist, but the answer would be 9 or 1 dependent on which language/software you use. This is why I would write this as [6/2]*[1+2], to resolve the ambiguity.
I hope this is helpful
More just wrong. You offer the reading "6 on top of horizontal line above 2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line" when there is no reason to privilege this interpretation over "6 on top of horizontal line above (2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket) all on on bottom line." We just can't tell.
Fair enough, but that's why I wrote " It would have been depicted as". In these days of typing things out and using things like "/" and "*", you are correct. But if this had been written out on a piece of paper using things like "_" and "x" instead, then the placement of the "(1+2)" (top line or bottom line?) would have enabled us to privilege one interpretation.
The irony is, of course, that I am typing this out. If I wrote it on a piece of paper, scanned it in, and posted it online, it would be clearer...
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
Good luck to Labour trying to sell any more than that!
Voters are bad at understanding many things, including whether £40bn is a large sum of money in the context of what it gets us
Perhaps
That will be relatively easy if we are living with the consequences of a No Deal Brexit. If we aren't, it will not be an issue.
I doubt that Labour will be that interested in returning to the single market once we are out of it. I completely agree that the Tories will own the consequences of Brexit, but there is probably a small window of opportunity to call a red, white and blue election on the back of a No Deal and a new PM - one that might secure them a small majority. It would be the last general election the Tories win for a very long time.
Labour would have to agree to such an election.The changed Parliamentary arithmetic would make it more difficult than was the case last April - particularly if the DUP did not fancy an election and was inclined to abstain.Of course, Corbyn might be up for it!
Surely the answer to that is to propose a methodology with our own estimates attached. And publish it. Then haggle about the details. Time is running short. The reason this has not been done is nowt to do with high principle or the EU. It is because of internal Tory politics. If it could be agreed within Cabinet, it would have been done by now. As it is it appears not to have even been discussed. Under these circumstances, what Starmer has to say is a matter of no importance.
You should know perfectly well why the UK won't do this. The UK has no legal liability to pay. Therefore, if they concede a methodology they will be agreeing to pay huge sums of money IN RETURN FOR NOTHING. The Cabinet are not actually divided on this at all - everyone knows that the UK will never agree the Brexit bill unless and until they agree a trade deal in return.
To agree to a methodology now would be the most grotesque betrayal of the UK national interest imaginable. Either the EU grow up and accept that they will never get a Brexit Bill unless they make concessions at the same time (eg a trade deal), or there will be no deal and they will get no money. There are no other realistic options.
Sadly, I fear we have reached similar conclusions from opposing starting points. The "negotiations" are an elaborate charade. But it has nothing to do with the EU "growing up." We either want a trade deal, or we do not. If we do we have to make concessions. Legal niceties are irrelevant.
You have completely missed the point. The EU cannot legally agree a trade deal as part of the a50 negotiations. If we make concessions we get nothing other than a huge bill that needs to be paid now and a vague promise of a trade deal that we cannot enforce. They will spend the whole two years of the transition period bullying the UK and forcing another cliffedge. The structure of these talks cannot lead to an agreement that is reasonable for the UK. Time to face reality.
I fear you have missed me making exactly your point, but in a different way, from a different starting point. Maybe that is because I don't see the EU as "bullying" anyone. Merely negotiating from a position of strength. So yes it is time to face reality, I agree.
Well, this is good news. The Government will get a crap deal, Parliament will reject it and we will end up with no deal.
Do these people have any grasp of reality? Parliament cannot negotiate a treaty, nor can they issue directions to the executive. They can only pass or withhold legislation or form a new Government, which clearly is not an option for Tory MPs.
What do you suggest?
Glad you asked. The only rational decision at this stage is to terminate the negotiations.
Read the great analysis provided by Martin Howe QC. The facts are that the EU CANNOT deliver a trade deal as part of the A50 negotiations. The only outcome of continued negotiations is that we get close to the Brexit date and the EU blackmail us to get whatever they want because at that point we are not prepared for WTO. We cannot lock in a transition period at any time - it will all be up in the air until the last moment. The European Parliament could scupper any deal at the last minute or basically engage in their own last minute blackmail - and who really thinks this won't happen?
The only way that these negotiations would make any sense is if there was a rolling series of signed treaties as we go along - first on citizens rights, then on transition, then on trade. How the hell are we going to deal with the payment of the Brexit bill even if we give in - will the EU ever agree that it is paid years later when the trade deal is actually ratified? Of course not, they will demand the money now and then be able to renege on the trade deal. That this the whole basis of the structure of negotiations and why it has been forced into Phase 1 in the first place. All we are going to get for 50 billion is a two year transition period with no destination. It is madness.
There are only two sensible outcomes - join the EEA (an outcome which would mean that 589 MPs lied to their electorates) or accept that the only way forward is to prepare for WTO, execute Brexit and go back to the EU after this and try to get a trade deal when there is proper time and a sensible process. Hopefully we can get to this point sooner rather than later.
I have to agree. Whatever you think of Brexit, we've got ourselves into a situation where our national interests are severely threatened. Whatever we do next, we've got to get out of where Article 50 has landed us.
The UK set up EFTA 13 yrs before it joined the EEC, 32 yrs before the Maastricht Treaty turned the EEC into the EU. WTO wasn't on the ballot paper. The ballot paper said leave the EU, not go back to c.1955.
Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers
If you are serious about Brexit you pay the money and move on. It's the price of Brexit and one that's worth the money if you support it. I have said all the long the government should get the payment out of the way early. If they had done so they might have been able to haggle the amount down. The government hasn't done so because they are not willing to be level with the British people over the very major costs of Brexit.
The whole point of Brexit for many Leave voters was to get back money from the EU and reduce immigration, they are not going to back 50 to 100 Euros to the EU
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
I may be overanswering this, but
Option 1: applying BODMAS ================ 6/2(1+2) = 6 divided by 2 multiplied by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket = 6 divided by 2 multiplied by 3 = 3 multiplied by 3 = 9
Option 2: write out the equation in pen on paper ============================= Recall that prior to spreadsheets and LaTex and Word equations, people used to write maths down on paper with pens/pencil. It would have been depicted as 6/2(1+2) = 6 on top of horizontal line above 2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line = 3 multipled by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line = 3 multiplied by 3 = 9
Option 3: various computer languages ====================== I'm not going to go into depth with this, particularly since these days the younger crowd think only R and Python exist, but the answer would be 9 or 1 dependent on which language/software you use. This is why I would write this as [6/2]*[1+2], to resolve the ambiguity.
I hope this is helpful
More just wrong. You offer the reading "6 on top of horizontal line above 2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line" when there is no reason to privilege this interpretation over "6 on top of horizontal line above (2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket) all on on bottom line." We just can't tell.
Fair enough, but that's why I wrote " It would have been depicted as". In these days of typing things out and using things like "/" and "*", you are correct. But if this had been written out on a piece of paper using things like "_" and "x" instead, then the placement of the "(1+2)" (top line or bottom line?) would have enabled us to privilege one interpretation.
The irony is, of course, that I am typing this out. If I wrote it on a piece of paper, scanned it in, and posted it online, it would be clearer...
It makes you think what a great man Donald Knuth was.
The UK set up EFTA 13 yrs before it joined the EEC, 32 yrs before the Maastricht Treaty turned the EEC into the EU. WTO wasn't on the ballot paper. The ballot paper said leave the EU, not go back to c.1955.
We didn't just join the EEC. We joined Euratom and the ECSC at the same time - they had already merged into the European Community under shared political institutions.
But if you rule it out and the EU want £100bn, what then?
Edited extra bit: Mr. L, you're spot on about housing.
The alternative is to withdraw article 50 and come up with a 10 to 15 year plan to disengage Britain from the EU. There is no reason Britain shouldn't be able to survive and even thrive outside of the EU. The problem is trying to run the leave project too quickly. But of course, if you run it over several general elections the probability is that people will swing back to supporting remaining in.
Why would the EU agree to that?
It would piss them off mightily. And that is obviously bad. But I thought leavers were rebels who didn't care about that kind of thing.
But it's not in our power to unilaterally withdraw A50. So, the agreement of each of the 27 States would be needed.
We just announce it. They'd have to accept it our throw us out. Presumably at the very least Ireland would veto our expulsion.
They don't have to take any positive steps.
It's like dismissing an employee, or exercising a break clause in a lease. Even if you change your mind, the other party is entitled to take you at your word. You can only withdraw your notice if the other party positively agrees.
The whole point of Brexit for many Leave voters was to get back money from the EU and reduce immigration, they are not going to back 50 to 100 Euros to the EU
They should do a Brexit special on the 'Pointless' gameshow, although finding the pointless answers might be too easy.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
Good luck to Labour trying to sell any more than that!
Voters are bad at understanding many things, including whether £40bn is a large sum of money in the context of what it gets us
Perhaps
That will be relatively easy if we are living with the consequences of a No Deal Brexit. If we aren't, it will not be an issue.
I doubt that Labour will be that interested
Labour would have to agree to such an election.The changed Parliamentary arithmetic would make it more difficult than was the case last April - particularly if the DUP did not fancy an election and was inclined to abstain.Of course, Corbyn might be up for it!
The Tories would only need one other party from SNP, LDs or the DUP to back a 2019 or 2020 general election for it to be called, they could call it without Labour backing, even a handful of Labour MPs abstaining or backing it would be enough (eg to get a mandate to stop a no deal Brexit) and as you say Corbyn might support one anyway
I know you are an EU Federalist ideologue which is a perfectly valid position to hold but it is not and I doubt ever will be the position of the majority of British people, they were prepared to have a 'Common Market' relationship with the EU which is why they voted to leave EFTA for the EEC in 1975. Once it became a political project with its own currency, Parliament, court, President and probably army they said no more.
It had it's own parliament, court and commission before we joined. It didn't 'become a political project' subsequently. This is not opinion but fact.
We joined the Common Market (pre the Euro, pre free movement, pre a European army etc), we left the European Union
Gah, either hopelessly naive, unicorn loving utiopianists or embittered, poisonous cybernats, we cannae win.
We actually now live in the age of bitter winners; the sourest were Glasgow Yoons until the Brexiteers came along (quite a lot of crossover in these two groups I'd imagine).
I know you are an EU Federalist ideologue which is a perfectly valid position to hold but it is not and I doubt ever will be the position of the majority of British people, they were prepared to have a 'Common Market' relationship with the EU which is why they voted to leave EFTA for the EEC in 1975. Once it became a political project with its own currency, Parliament, court, President and probably army they said no more.
It had it's own parliament, court and commission before we joined. It didn't 'become a political project' subsequently. This is not opinion but fact.
We joined the Common Market (pre the Euro, pre free movement, pre a European army etc), we left the European Union
Free movement is in the Treaty of Rome.
It's unbelievable that you are so obtuse about this given that you apparently voted Remain. Do you think it serves your party somehow?
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie
Yep -
Perhaps
That will be relatively easy if we are living with the consequences of a No Deal Brexit. If we aren't, it will not be an issue.
I doubt that Labour will be that interested
Labour would have to agree to such an election.The changed Parliamentary arithmetic would make it more difficult than was the case last April - particularly if the DUP did not fancy an election and was inclined to abstain.Of course, Corbyn might be up for it!
The Tories would only need one other party from SNP, LDs or the DUP to back a 2019 or 2020 general election for it to be called, they could call it without Labour backing, even a handful of Labour MPs abstaining or backing it would be enough (eg to get a mandate to stop a no deal Brexit) and as you say Corbyn might support one anyway
Well Corbyn could have blocked the election last April by denying May the 434 votes needed under the FTA for an early Dissolution. He chose not to do so - and might take the same view again.However, unlike last April there is at least now the possibility of an alternative Government being formed from the existing House of Commons - depending on the attitude of the DUP and possible by election defeats for the Government in the interim.
Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers
If you are serious about Brexit you pay the money and move on. It's the price of Brexit and one that's worth the money if you support it. I have said all the long the government should get the payment out of the way early. If they had done so they might have been able to haggle the amount down. The government hasn't done so because they are not willing to be level with the British people over the very major costs of Brexit.
The whole point of Brexit for many Leave voters was to get back money from the EU and reduce immigration, they are not going to back 50 to 100 Euros to the EU
Maybe confront Leavers with some home truths then. If the government doesn't do it now, it will hit them later when the conseqquences will be graver.
What do you want?
A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year. B. Pay the fee and move on. C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU
"ENKOPING, Sweden — The discovery of Arabic characters that spell “Allah” and “Ali” on Viking funeral costumes in boat graves in Sweden has raised questions about the influence of Islam in Scandinavia."
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
I may be overanswering this, but
Option 1: applying BODMAS ================ 6/2(1+2) = 6 divided by 2 multiplied by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket = 6 divided by 2 multiplied by 3 = 3 multiplied by 3 = 9
Option 2: write out the equation in pen on paper ============================= Recall that prior to spreadsheets and LaTex and Word equations, people used to write maths down on paper with pens/pencil. It would have been depicted as 6/2(1+2) = 6 on top of horizontal line above 2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line = 3 multipled by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line = 3 multiplied by 3 = 9
Option 3: various computer languages ====================== I'm not going to go into depth with this, particularly since these days the younger crowd think only R and Python exist, but the answer would be 9 or 1 dependent on which language/software you use. This is why I would write this as [6/2]*[1+2], to resolve the ambiguity.
I hope this is helpful
Many thanks for that. I did understand how it got to 9. The point I was making was that when I did my higher maths the answer would have been 1. The method has changed and the answer has changed with it.
I know you are an EU Federalist ideologue which is a perfectly valid position to hold but it is not and I doubt ever will be the position of the majority of British people, they were prepared to have a 'Common Market' relationship with the EU which is why they voted to leave EFTA for the EEC in 1975. Once it became a political project with its own currency, Parliament, court, President and probably army they said no more.
It had it's own parliament, court and commission before we joined. It didn't 'become a political project' subsequently. This is not opinion but fact.
We joined the Common Market (pre the Euro, pre free movement, pre a European army etc), we left the European Union
Free movement is in the Treaty of Rome.
It's unbelievable that you are so obtuse about this given that you apparently voted Remain. Do you think it serves your party somehow?
It was the EEA agreement in 1994 which enabled freedom of movement to take up residence in another nation and it was the accession of Eastern European nations in 2004 and their free movement which increased the problem for Leave voters, admittedly it was Blair's fault for failing to impose transition controls which compounded the problem.
I voted to Remain with reservations and the position as is, had it meant joining the Euro I would have voted Leave. Most Tory voters are Leave voters, if the Tories abandon Brexit they will go the way of the Progresssive Conservatives in Canada and be overtaken on the right by UKIP
dixiedean - I guess we want to sell financial services into the EU. But the longer the delay those companies that are affected will have moved anyway. So... I don't see any great value on a free trade agreement for goods - that the EU has a great advantage in - that we should pay anything for. Give the EU citizens here a two year visa to give them a breathing space and at the end of the time apply Australian rules to see if they can renew.
Most Tory voters are Leave voters, if the Tories abandon Brexit they will go the way of the Progresssive Conservatives in Canada and be overtaken on the right by UKIP
Do you think Tory voters are incapable of understanding home truths? It's your party's cowardice when faced with the growth of wrong-headed ideas within its ranks that has got us in this mess. If it is incapable of facing them down, then that fate is exactly what it deserves.
"ENKOPING, Sweden — The discovery of Arabic characters that spell “Allah” and “Ali” on Viking funeral costumes in boat graves in Sweden has raised questions about the influence of Islam in Scandinavia."
Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers
If you are serious about Brexit you pay the money and move on. It's the price of Brexit and one that's worth the money if you support it. I have said all the long the government should get the payment out of the way early. If they had done so they might have been able to haggle the amount down. The government hasn't done so because they are not willing to be level with the British people over the very major costs of Brexit.
The whole point of Brexit for many Leave voters was to get back money from the EU and reduce immigration, they are not going to back 50 to 100 Euros to the EU
Maybe confront Leavers with some home truths then. If the government doesn't do it now, it will hit them later when the conseqquences will be graver.
What do you want?
A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year. B. Pay the fee and move on. C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU
I'd go for B. We owe them something, and it will help negotiations.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie
Yep -
Perhaps
That will be relatively easy if we are living with the consequences of a No Deal Brexit. If we aren't, it will not be an issue.
I doubt that Labour will be that interested
Labour would have to agree to .Of course, Corbyn might be up for it!
The Tories would only need one other party from SNP,
Well Corbyn could have blocked the election last April by denying May the 434 votes needed under the FTA for an early Dissolution. He chose not to do so - and might take the same view again.However, unlike last April there is at least now the possibility of an alternative Government being formed from the existing House of Commons - depending on the attitude of the DUP and possible by election defeats for the Government in the interim.
The Tories would only call a general election if they had a clear poll lead after refusing to give 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU, if Corbyn then refused a general election they might even allow him to try and cobble together a deal with the DUP/SNP and the LDs and Greens (the only way he could form a government, albeit DUP support for him would be unlikely) and leave him with the aftermath of Brexit for the remainder of the Parliament and become the only effective party of opposition.
There seems to have been a mystique around "no deal" as in the UK resolutely walks away from the table, takes its EU money with it and we're all fine. But in detailed reality it won't be fine. And that detail now needs to be exposed.
The cost and disruption of a no-deal Brexit will cause uproar amongst the masses who voted leave for good reason. So lets tell them exactly what no deal means - hours in passport queues going abroad, a 20% increase in food prices coupled with a reduction in choice, a significant loss of jobs in all of the industries that used to reply on the just in time supply route from Europe now closed to us.
HYUFD said it below - many people voted on immigration grounds and getting money back. So lets offer that to them - the "I'm fucked you're fucked the country's fucked" WTO option, or less payment and restrictions on migration rejoining EFTA retaining our EEA/CU membership. EFTA members pay less than full EU members, so thats a saving to go and sell. And we impose the restrictions on movement always allowed but ignored here - the anti-migration people will delight in stories of EU migrants having to register at the town hall and being told to leave in 3 months if they can't support themselves.
There are many people from all parties - myself included - could could see a better future than what we faced as the EU evolves ever closer to being a federation. But voting to leave the EU was ONLY a vote to leave the EU - the question on the ballot paper. Not to cripple ourselves with the vacuous fuckwittery of WTO rules badly implemented by a country not understanding what this practically means.
Everyone seems to agree that we need a plan by the end of November. The EU negotiations are basically deadlocked, so I expect shortly to hear detail about how we would implement WTO. And then hear the details from the people on the ground as to just how crippling and disastrous and impossible to do in time that will be. And then - hopefully - we can have a sensible debate about the only remaining options - EFTA, or forget the whole thing and rescind A50.
Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers
If you are serious about Brexit you pay the money and move on. It's the price of Brexit and one that's worth the money if you support it. I have said all the long the government should get the payment out of the way early. If they had done so they might have been able to haggle the amount down. The government hasn't done so because they are not willing to be level with the British people over the very major costs of Brexit.
The whole point of Brexit for many Leave voters was to get back money from the EU and reduce immigration, they are not going to back 50 to 100 Euros to the EU
Maybe confront Leavers with some home truths then. If the government doesn't do it now, it will hit them later when the conseqquences will be graver.
What do you want?
A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year. B. Pay the fee and move on. C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU
A All hypothetical and could not be seen for years if not a decade or more B As I said that would involve 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU which the voters would not accept C Involves free movement unchecked and more payments to the EU which again the voters won't accept and even Corbyn accepts there has to be Brexit
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie
Yep -
Perhaps
That will be relatively easy if we are living with the consequences of a No Deal Brexit. If we aren't, it will not be an issue.
I doubt that Labour will be that interested
Labour would have to agree to .Of course, Corbyn might be up for it!
The Tories would only need one other party from SNP,
Well Corbyn could have blocked the election last April by denying May the 434 votes needed under the FTA for an early Dissolution. He chose not to do so - and might take the same view again.However, unlike last April there is at least now the possibility of an alternative Government being formed from the existing House of Commons - depending on the attitude of the DUP and possible by election defeats for the Government in the interim.
The Tories would only call a general election if they had a clear poll lead after refusing to give 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU, if Corbyn then refused a general election they might even allow him to try and cobble together a deal with the DUP/SNP and the LDs and Greens (the only way he could form a government, albeit DUP support for him would be unlikely) and leave him with the aftermath of Brexit for the remainder of the Parliament and become the only effective party of opposition.
I am not sure that quite so much faith would be placed in poll leads after what happened this year.
Most Tory voters are Leave voters, if the Tories abandon Brexit they will go the way of the Progresssive Conservatives in Canada and be overtaken on the right by UKIP
Do you think Tory voters are incapable of understanding home truths? It's your party's cowardice when faced with the growth of wrong-headed ideas within its ranks that has got us in this mess. If it is incapable of facing them down, then that fate is exactly what it deserves.
Do I think Tory voters are as ideologically opposed to the UK being a part of a Federal EU as you are ideologically committed to the UK being a part of a Federal EU? Yes, absolutely.
Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers
If you are serious about Brexit you pay the money and move on. It's the price of Brexit and one that's worth the money if you support it. I have said all the long the government should get the payment out of the way early. If they had done so they might have been able to haggle the amount down. The government hasn't done so because they are not willing to be level with the British people over the very major costs of Brexit.
The whole point of Brexit for many Leave voters was to get back money from the EU and reduce immigration, they are not going to back 50 to 100 Euros to the EU
Maybe confront Leavers with some home truths then. If the government doesn't do it now, it will hit them later when the conseqquences will be graver.
What do you want?
A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year. B. Pay the fee and move on. C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU
I'd go for B. We owe them something, and it will help negotiations.
Sensible man! The other Brexiteers are sabotaging their own project.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie
Yep -
Perhaps
That will be relatively easy if we are living with the consequences of a No Deal Brexit. If we aren't, it will not be an issue.
I doubt that Labour will be that interested
Labour would have to agree to .Of course, Corbyn might be up for it!
The Tories would only need one other party from SNP,
Well Corbyn could have blocked the election last April by denying May the 434 votes needed under the FTA for an early Dissolution. He chose not to do so - and might take the same view again.However, unlike last April there is at least now the possibility of an alternative Government being formed from the existing House of Commons - depending on the attitude of the DUP and possible by election defeats for the Government in the interim.
The Tories would only call a general election if they had a clear poll lead after refusing to give 50 to 100 billion euros to .
I am not sure that quite so much faith would be placed in poll leads after what happened this year.
This time it really would be a referendum on Brexit in such circumstances, 50 to 100 billion euros for a deal with the EU or not and the dementia tax has now been dumped
The UK set up EFTA 13 yrs before it joined the EEC, 32 yrs before the Maastricht Treaty turned the EEC into the EU. WTO wasn't on the ballot paper. The ballot paper said leave the EU, not go back to c.1955.
We didn't just join the EEC. We joined Euratom and the ECSC at the same time - they had already merged into the European Community under shared political institutions.
OK. I think the ECSC appeared in 1950, so to justify current UK policy, under the usual contract between voters and politicians, 52% of the electorate should have ticked a box on the ballot paper that said
'... go back to 1949.'
Funnily, I only saw the words leave, remain and EU when I ticked my box to remain.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie
Yep -
Perhaps
I doubt that Labour will be that interested
Labour would have to agree to .Of course, Corbyn might be up for it!
The Tories would only need one other party from SNP,
Well Corbyn could have blocked the election last April by denying May the 434 votes needed under the FTA for an early Dissolution. He chose not to do so - and might take the same view again.However, unlike last April there is at least now the possibility of an alternative Government being formed from the existing House of Commons - depending on the attitude of the DUP and possible by election defeats for the Government in the interim.
The Tories would only call a general election if they had a clear poll lead after refusing to give 50 to 100 billion euros to .
I am not sure that quite so much faith would be placed in poll leads after what happened this year.
This time it really would be a referendum on Brexit in such circumstances, 50 to 100 billion euros for a deal with the EU or not and the dementia tax has now been dumped
No PM can dictate the issues which sway an election - as Theresa May and Ted Heath both discovered!
Maybe confront Leavers with some home truths then. If the government doesn't do it now, it will hit them later when the conseqquences will be graver.
What do you want?
A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year. B. Pay the fee and move on. C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU
----
A All hypothetical and could not be seen for years if not a decade or more B As I said that would involve 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU which the voters would not accept C Involves free movement unchecked and more payments to the EU which again the voters won't accept and even Corbyn accepts there has to be Brexit
The consequences will be clear by this time next year.
dixiedean - I guess we want to sell financial services into the EU. But the longer the delay those companies that are affected will have moved anyway. So... I don't see any great value on a free trade agreement for goods - that the EU has a great advantage in - that we should pay anything for. Give the EU citizens here a two year visa to give them a breathing space and at the end of the time apply Australian rules to see if they can renew.
The Home Office would need to start the process of who can stay immediately. There is absolutely no evidence they could do that in two years for 3 million people. (see asylum backlogs). Re:: trade agreement. No such fantasy agreement exists which could pass muster within the Conservative Party. It is therefore time to face reality. There won't be one.
Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers
If you are serious about Brexit you pay the money and move on. It's the price of Brexit and one that's worth the money if you support it. I have said all the long the government should get the payment out of the way early. If they had done so they might have been able to haggle the amount down. The government hasn't done so because they are not willing to be level with the British people over the very major costs of Brexit.
The whole point of Brexit for many Leave voters was to get back money from the EU and reduce immigration, they are not going to back 50 to 100 Euros to the EU
Maybe confront Leavers with some home truths then. If the government doesn't do it now, it will hit them later when the conseqquences will be graver.
What do you want?
A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year. B. Pay the fee and move on. C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU
I'd go for B. We owe them something, and it will help negotiations.
Sensible man! The other Brexiteers are sabotaging their own project.
Our GDP is £2 trn. Whether the exit bill is £40 bn or £50 bn (payable over some years in any case) is not that important in the scheme of things. There are far bigger fish to fry.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
Corbyn also backs Brexit and May tried fiscal responsibility last time
As it happens, the Conservatives do still have a big lead over Labour on the economy.
And, millions of voters are very keen on Brexit. You win some voters, and you lose others.
Almost 80% of 2017 Tory voters now back Leave
Well yes, because lots of those 2015 Remain Tory voters decamped to Labour. You'd expect that. The Tories increased their vote share by taking the majority of the UKIP vote, so you'd expect them to be much more devoted to leave. I'm not sure of the relevance to my points which are that they're in an electoral bind because, firstly some leave voters saw the referendum as a one off, and didn't vote in the GE (and probably won't again - I'm sure people have met them on doorsteps, angry and mistrustful of any authority). And secondly, because working class voters so devoted to leave they'll go Tory aren't in very helpful places in FPTP - they helped the Tories nibble away at Labour in the north, but won them only a handful of seats compared to disgruntled remainers who voted Tory in 2015 but switched in 2017. Why? The only plausible explanation is that economic responsibility lost its salience as an issue for them in 2017 due to Brexit.
It may be impossible to win a majority at a general election off the back of a Brexit platform as politics currently stands - with both leave and remain voters fairly intransigent as to whether it's a good idea or not. Somehow, a government pursuing Brexit has to shift that in its favour. As it currently stands, both sides are getting angrier as they view the other as betraying the national interest, but remainers may well have more electoral clout in a general election than an in-out referendum. That's not going to happen with either a bad, or a no deal, and Brexit will likely have paved the way for Corbyn.
Many thanks for that. I did understand how it got to 9. The point I was making was that when I did my higher maths the answer would have been 1. The method has changed and the answer has changed with it.
Your "Higher Maths" teacher should have been taken out and shot. BODMAS is integral to algebraic mathematics and algebra can be traced back to the babylonians > persians > arabic world. The original name Al-Jabr is arabic in origin.
Brexit is the most perfectly designed political doomsday machine there has ever been, and the irony is that it was the Brexiteers who built it before they locked themselves in and threw away the key. Every possible move they could make from here just leads to their inevitable self-destruction.
Brexit is the most perfectly designed political doomsday machine there has ever been, and the irony is that it was the Brexiteers who built it before they locked themselves in and threw away the key. Every possible move they could make from here just leads to their inevitable self-destruction.
"From Suez to Brexit: the death throes of British power, 1956-2016".
MJW - I suspect the middle class remainer has been much more in evidence - and the working class who voted exit doesn't like the look of them much. So, they will vote Corbyn to take the smiles off their faces, and get exit anyway.
DavidL - I have heard that the Scottish Government is putting some Maths questions (GCSE) in Gaelic. Is that really true? I feel it must be a leg pull.
Brexit is the most perfectly designed political doomsday machine there has ever been, and the irony is that it was the Brexiteers who built it before they locked themselves in and threw away the key. Every possible move they could make from here just leads to their inevitable self-destruction.
That's just hyperbole. The EU's own treaties provide for secession. It's not the act of rebellion that you think it is.
DavidL - I have heard that the Scottish Government is putting some Maths questions (GCSE) in Gaelic. Is that really true? I feel it must be a leg pull.
You can be sure it is illiterate bollox from some halfwitted unionist tw**
I know you are an EU Federalist ideologue which is a perfectly valid position to hold but it is not and I doubt ever will be the position of the majority of British people, they were prepared to have a 'Common Market' relationship with the EU which is why they voted to leave EFTA for the EEC in 1975. Once it became a political project with its own currency, Parliament, court, President and probably army they said no more.
It had it's own parliament, court and commission before we joined. It didn't 'become a political project' subsequently. This is not opinion but fact.
We joined the Common Market (pre the Euro, pre free movement, pre a European army etc), we left the European Union
And prior to joining we were in EFTA which is now anathema to Leavers.
"Ailsa 'n' Catriona fin' three tartan bunnets in thair faither's bedroom. Wan o' the bunnets wis blue an' the ither twa wur rid. Aw o' a sudden, the lecky goes aff in the hoose - the lassies are left in pure pitch black. Baith of them grab a bunnet, whap it oan and huv a donner ootside. Ailsa heids oot furst so Catriona spots the colour o' Ailsa's bunnet. Afore Ailsa even turns roon, Catriona pipes up 'Ah dinnae ken whit colour mah bunnet is'. Ailsa replies 'That means ah ken the colour o' mine!' Whit colour is Ailsa's bunnet? Explain how ye ken."
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
Corbyn also backs Brexit and May tried fiscal responsibility last time
As it happens, the Conservatives do still have a big lead over Labour on the economy.
And, millions of voters are very keen on Brexit. You win some voters, and you lose others.
Almost 80% of 2017 Tory voters now back Leave
Well yes, because lots of those 2015 Remain Tory voters decamped to Labour. You'd expect that. The Tories increased their vote share by taking the majority of the UKIP vote, so you'd expect them to be much more devoted to leave. I'm not sure of the relevance to my points which are that they're in an electoral bind because, firstly some leave voters saw the referendum as a one off, and didn't vote in the GE (and probably won't again - I'm sure people have met them on doorsteps, angry and mistrustful of any authority). And secondly, because working class voters so devoted to leave they'll go Tory aren't in very helpful places in FPTP - they helped the Tories nibble away at Labour in the north, but won them only a handful of seats compared to disgruntled remainers who voted Tory in 2015 but switched in 2017. Why? The only plausible explanation is that economic responsibility lost its salience as an issue for them in 2017 due to Brexit.
It may be impossible to win a majority at a general election off the back of a Brexit platform as politics currently stands - with both leave and remain voters fairly intransigent as to whether it's a good idea or not. Somehow, a government pursuing Brexit has to shift that in its favour. As it currently stands, both sides are getting angrier as they view the other as betraying the national interest, but remainers may well have more electoral clout in a general election than an in-out referendum. That's not going to happen with either a bad, or a no deal, and Brexit will likely have paved the way for Corbyn.
Possibly, small working class towns in the Midlands and North will vote like their US counterparts, and take the Conservatives over the line. It doesn't matter where your support comes from, so long as it is enough to win.
Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers
If you are serious about Brexit you pay the money and move on. It's the price of Brexit and one that's worth the money if you support it. I have said all the long the government should get the payment out of the way early. If they had done so they might have been able to haggle the amount down. The government hasn't done so because they are not willing to be level with the British people over the very major costs of Brexit.
The whole point of Brexit for many Leave voters was to get back money from the EU and reduce immigration, they are not going to back 50 to 100 Euros to the EU
Maybe confront Leavers with some home truths then. If the government doesn't do it now, it will hit them later when the conseqquences will be graver.
What do you want?
A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year. B. Pay the fee and move on. C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU
I'd go for B. We owe them something, and it will help negotiations.
Sensible man! The other Brexiteers are sabotaging their own project.
Our GDP is £2 trn. Whether the exit bill is £40 bn or £50 bn (payable over some years in any case) is not that important in the scheme of things. There are far bigger fish to fry.
Indeed, let's get things over with. Norway's terms, plus a few adjustments.
Pay the bill in 84 easy instalments over 7 years, £500-600 million per month. As a gesture of goodwill, pay the EU a few percent interest on the debt, given that public sector borrowing rates are low. A headline settlement of £600 million per month seem considerably less threatening.
Or ask for the A50 timescale to be suspended - not lengthened - and go to international arbitration.
The BBC says the Sunday Times reports the budget may include cancellation of student loans. If so, there will need to be some industrial strength reverse ferreting from Tories who warned it would cost elebenty squillion pounds when Jeremy Corbyn mentioned the possibility. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-41625390
It won't gain the Tories a single vote, but it will significantly weaken their attacks on Labour. They really don't know what they're doing, do they?
The Tories aren't going to win by trying to ape Labour. They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
You don't believe that younger voters don't want that already? I've not met anyone who doesn't want that around my age group.
The problem for the Conservative Party is that they aren't seen as the party who will enable young people to be able to achieve that. Labour is seen as the party who will create a society where young people can own their own home, get a decent job, and have a prosperous future among younger voters, in my experience.
Spent weekend with my French connection. Few titbits:
- Macron is not getting involved in Brexit ("I don't give a f***. Angela tells me hard Brexit is good for her so let her have it") - France has clearly communicated that a deal will be done over Ireland. No one wants to jeopardise the peace process - France doesn't want a deal on residency rights. They want to kick out 300k expensive Brits and get back 1.4 taxpayers. It's worth at least 500m eur per year - France also believes that constitutionally they can't do a deal on residency. Equality of all citizens is fundamental. Giving 1.4m citizens preferential access to a second (v g) jobs market is preferential - Merkel thinks hard Brexit is worth 1pp off her unemployment rate and 0.5pp off her NAIRU. She thinks that full employment will solve the AfD issue. - the price for trade talks is eur 50bn
Our GDP is £2 trn. Whether the exit bill is £40 bn or £50 bn (payable over some years in any case) is not that important in the scheme of things. There are far bigger fish to fry.
The biggest fish of all is that the Conservatives have lost any claim they had to economic competence. Why did they choose to sacrifice our economy on the altar of Brexit? They are just so stupid....
I know you are an EU Federalist ideologue which is a perfectly valid position to hold but it is not and I doubt ever will be the position of the majority of British people, they were prepared to have a 'Common Market' relationship with the EU which is why they voted to leave EFTA for the EEC in 1975. Once it became a political project with its own currency, Parliament, court, President and probably army they said no more.
It had it's own parliament, court and commission before we joined. It didn't 'become a political project' subsequently. This is not opinion but fact.
We joined the Common Market (pre the Euro, pre free movement, pre a European army etc), we left the European Union
And prior to joining we were in EFTA which is now anathema to Leavers.
Some leavers not all, especially once we get immigration under control
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
Corbyn also backs Brexit and May tried fiscal responsibility last time
As it happens, the Conservatives do still have a big lead over Labour on the economy.
And, millions of voters are very keen on Brexit. You win some voters, and you lose others.
Almost 80% of 2017 Tory voters now back Leave
Well yes, because lots of those 2015 Remain Tory voters decamped to Labour. You'd expect that. The Tories increased their vote share by taking the majority of the UKIP vote, so you'd expect them to be much more devoted to leave. I'm not sure of the relevance to my points which are that they're in an electoral bind because, firstly some leave voters saw the referendum as a one off, and didn't vote in the GE (and probably won't again - I'm sure people have met them on doorsteps, angry and mistrustful of any authority). And secondly, because working class voters so devoted to leave they'll go Tory aren't in very helpful places in FPTP - they helped the Tories nibble away at Labour in the north, but won them only a handful of seats compared to disgruntled remainers who voted Tory in 2015 but switched in 2017. Why? The only plausible explanation is that economic responsibility lost its salience as an issue for them in 2017 due to Brexit.
It may be impossible to win a majority at a general election off the back of a Brexit platform as politics currently stands - with both leave and remain voters fairly intransigent as to whether it's a good idea or not. Somehow, a government pursuing Brexit has to shift that in its favour. As it currently stands, both sides are getting angrier as they view the other as betraying the national interest, but remainers may well have more electoral clout in a general election than an in-out referendum. That's not going to happen with either a bad, or a no deal, and Brexit will likely have paved the way for Corbyn.
Corbyn could not win last time with Remainers because he is not a true Remainer but his backing for Brexit did help him win a number of UKIP voters and keep Labour Leavers
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie
Yep -
Perhaps
I doubt that Labour will be that interested
Labour would have to agree to .Of course, Corbyn might be up for it!
The Tories would only need one other party from SNP,
Well Corbyn could have blocked the election last April by denying May the 434 votes needed under the FTA for an early Dissolution. He chose n the interim.
The Tories would only call a general election if they had a clear poll lead after refusing to give 50 to 100 billion euros to .
I am not sure that quite so much faith would be placed in poll leads after what happened this year.
This time it really would be a referendum on Brexit in such circumstances, 50 to 100 billion euros for a deal with the EU or not and the dementia tax has now been dumped
No PM can dictate the issues which sway an election - as Theresa May and Ted Heath both discovered!
They can if they have party opinion overwhelmingly on their side as is the case for not paying more to the EU and was not the case over the dementia tax in 2017 and nor for Heath over taking the unions in 1974, though it was for Thatcher in 1979
Maybe confront Leavers with some home truths then. If the government doesn't do it now, it will hit them later when the conseqquences will be graver.
What do you want?
A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year. B. Pay the fee and move on. C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU
----
A All hypothetical and could not be seen for years if not a decade or more B As I said that would involve 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU which the voters would not accept C Involves free movement unchecked and more payments to the EU which again the voters won't accept and even Corbyn accepts there has to be Brexit
The consequences will be clear by this time next year.
Comments
The two are not comparable.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote to for this madness, as you put it.
The "negotiations" are an elaborate charade.
But it has nothing to do with the EU "growing up."
We either want a trade deal, or we do not.
If we do we have to make concessions.
Legal niceties are irrelevant.
Around 35% of Labour voters voted Leave, without those Leave would not have won, it was not just the majority of Tories and UKIP voters who won it for Brexit
The irony is, of course, that I am typing this out. If I wrote it on a piece of paper, scanned it in, and posted it online, it would be clearer...
Maybe that is because I don't see the EU as "bullying" anyone. Merely negotiating from a position of strength.
So yes it is time to face reality, I agree.
It's like dismissing an employee, or exercising a break clause in a lease. Even if you change your mind, the other party is entitled to take you at your word. You can only withdraw your notice if the other party positively agrees.
We actually now live in the age of bitter winners; the sourest were Glasgow Yoons until the Brexiteers came along (quite a lot of crossover in these two groups I'd imagine).
It's unbelievable that you are so obtuse about this given that you apparently voted Remain. Do you think it serves your party somehow?
What do you want?
A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year.
B. Pay the fee and move on.
C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU
"ENKOPING, Sweden — The discovery of Arabic characters that spell “Allah” and “Ali” on Viking funeral costumes in boat graves in Sweden has raised questions about the influence of Islam in Scandinavia."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/world/europe/vikings-allah-sweden.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&contentPlacement=2&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/world/europe/vikings-allah-sweden.html&eventName=Watching-article-click
I voted to Remain with reservations and the position as is, had it meant joining the Euro I would have voted Leave. Most Tory voters are Leave voters, if the Tories abandon Brexit they will go the way of the Progresssive Conservatives in Canada and be overtaken on the right by UKIP
With a bit of luck.
The cost and disruption of a no-deal Brexit will cause uproar amongst the masses who voted leave for good reason. So lets tell them exactly what no deal means - hours in passport queues going abroad, a 20% increase in food prices coupled with a reduction in choice, a significant loss of jobs in all of the industries that used to reply on the just in time supply route from Europe now closed to us.
HYUFD said it below - many people voted on immigration grounds and getting money back. So lets offer that to them - the "I'm fucked you're fucked the country's fucked" WTO option, or less payment and restrictions on migration rejoining EFTA retaining our EEA/CU membership. EFTA members pay less than full EU members, so thats a saving to go and sell. And we impose the restrictions on movement always allowed but ignored here - the anti-migration people will delight in stories of EU migrants having to register at the town hall and being told to leave in 3 months if they can't support themselves.
There are many people from all parties - myself included - could could see a better future than what we faced as the EU evolves ever closer to being a federation. But voting to leave the EU was ONLY a vote to leave the EU - the question on the ballot paper. Not to cripple ourselves with the vacuous fuckwittery of WTO rules badly implemented by a country not understanding what this practically means.
Everyone seems to agree that we need a plan by the end of November. The EU negotiations are basically deadlocked, so I expect shortly to hear detail about how we would implement WTO. And then hear the details from the people on the ground as to just how crippling and disastrous and impossible to do in time that will be. And then - hopefully - we can have a sensible debate about the only remaining options - EFTA, or forget the whole thing and rescind A50.
B As I said that would involve 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU which the voters would not accept
C Involves free movement unchecked and more payments to the EU which again the voters won't accept and even Corbyn accepts there has to be Brexit
'... go back to 1949.'
Funnily, I only saw the words leave, remain and EU when I ticked my box to remain.
Re:: trade agreement.
No such fantasy agreement exists which could pass muster within the Conservative Party.
It is therefore time to face reality. There won't be one.
It may be impossible to win a majority at a general election off the back of a Brexit platform as politics currently stands - with both leave and remain voters fairly intransigent as to whether it's a good idea or not. Somehow, a government pursuing Brexit has to shift that in its favour. As it currently stands, both sides are getting angrier as they view the other as betraying the national interest, but remainers may well have more electoral clout in a general election than an in-out referendum. That's not going to happen with either a bad, or a no deal, and Brexit will likely have paved the way for Corbyn.
Good title for a book; you should write it!
Pay the bill in 84 easy instalments over 7 years, £500-600 million per month. As a gesture of goodwill, pay the EU a few percent interest on the debt, given that public sector borrowing rates are low. A headline settlement of £600 million per month seem considerably less threatening.
Or ask for the A50 timescale to be suspended - not lengthened - and go to international arbitration.
I swear this isn't a Daily Mash story.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/919548417705000961
The problem for the Conservative Party is that they aren't seen as the party who will enable young people to be able to achieve that. Labour is seen as the party who will create a society where young people can own their own home, get a decent job, and have a prosperous future among younger voters, in my experience.
- Macron is not getting involved in Brexit ("I don't give a f***. Angela tells me hard Brexit is good for her so let her have it")
- France has clearly communicated that a deal will be done over Ireland. No one wants to jeopardise the peace process
- France doesn't want a deal on residency rights. They want to kick out 300k expensive Brits and get back 1.4 taxpayers. It's worth at least 500m eur per year
- France also believes that constitutionally they can't do a deal on residency. Equality of all citizens is fundamental. Giving 1.4m citizens preferential access to a second (v g) jobs market is preferential
- Merkel thinks hard Brexit is worth 1pp off her unemployment rate and 0.5pp off her NAIRU. She thinks that full employment will solve the AfD issue.
- the price for trade talks is eur 50bn
NEW THREAD