Corbyn’s Labour or the SNP, that’s like being asked to choose between dementia and cancer.
Nothing like a bit of poisonous hyperbole to start the day, eh?
Since the SCons look like being relegated to their habitual third, I guess we can put them down as worse than dementia or cancer.
I had a book running on who was going to be the first Nat of the day to respond, so congratulations
Oh, and to be fair it’s lunchtime where I am, I’ll admit I was possibly a little over the top for 7am, but bored waiting for a meeting. Reading back it was a little bit SeanT.
I hope you're not one of those Tories who still snivels about Nye Bevan calling you vermin several hundred years ago.
Edit: lower than vermin!
To be pedantic he didn’t say either; what he said was as far as he was concerned the Tories were. Which implies an acceptance that other people might think differtently.
Incidentally, in the same speech he said of Lord Woolton ' He is a very good salesman. If you are selling shoddy stuff you have to be a good salesman” Might the same be said today of the Foreign Secretary?
English lost heavily in a previous election so at least can hold his head high when he departs the scene this time having won most seats and votes. .
This is a point you frequently make about May as well and I find it interesting.
Legitimacy in democracy doesn't come just from winning more seats and votes than your opponents but it comes from the ability to form a Government and get legislation passed.
In October 1951 and February 1974 the party with most seats didn't get most votes so it doesn't always work.
The point is politics under any and every electoral system (FPTP, AV, MMP, STV or whatever) is about building a Government and passing legislation. That isn't necessarily related to simply having more votes and seats than anyone else if you are bereft of other sources of support while your opponent has or is able to create allies with enough support to get that majority.
There's no legitimacy in being the most popular if you aren't popular enough to govern. If those who are opposed to you can agree on enough to get a majority and you are unable to persuade enough to get a majority on your own, the fact of coming first makes no difference.
If the DUP had shunned May and gone with Corbyn in June (and I'm NOT saying they could, would or should), Corbyn might have been able to muster enough votes to create a majority and the Conservatives, like National, would have to go into Opposition even though by many measures they had "won" the election.
That may not be "fair" or "right" but it's how democracy functions in most plural systems.
I don't disagree, though even in 1951 and 1974 the new governing party won most seats even if not most votes unlike the incoming New Zealand Labour government. It is perfectly possible the Tories could win most seats and votes next time but Corbyn form a government with SNP, LD and Green support but in such circumstances the Tories would be a very strong opposition much as the Nationals will be in New Zealand.
Corbyn stands ready to take on the Brexit negotiations apparently. Corbyn becomes ever more delusional.
It's hard to think how the Labour party could do a worse job negotiating Brexit than this government has done. Starmer or Davis? Absolutely no contest.
1) I have never suggested ignoring the referendum vote. That is a completely incorrect assertion. And in fact I have regularly set out what I think Britain should be done, but I'm not expecting every word of mine to be read as holy writ, so I'll set out my views again.
2) Unlike most Leavers, I have warned at all stages, including well before the vote, that negotiations with the EU would be protracted, difficult and bureaucratic. For this observation I got a fusillade of abuse from many Leavers, none of whom have troubled to apologise for being both wrong and abusive.
3) What should Britain have done? Instead of starting by getting bogged down in the detail, it should have started by inviting the EU to consider the relationship that Britain and the EU should have in 2030 and working backwards from there. It should have painted a big picture - I have my own view of what that should look like but that's scarcely particularly relevant. It should then have made a general proposal based on that. Some gestures to show that Britain intended to remain a member of the decent European society - eg guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens resident on the date of the referendum - at the outset would have been smart too.
4) If the EU refused to respond in kind, Britain should have called them out on that, arguing that the detail could only be determined if the destination was agreed upon.
5) Theresa May half understood this. Britain has already acknowledged the EU's wish to keep structural coherence. But she has made no attempt to get out of the EU what it is trying to achieve. She should also have rejected at the outset the process that the EU put in place as both inconsistent with the terms of Article 50 and an inappropriate framework for a negotiation.
6) The government has through ineptitude and indecision managed to incinerate Britain's reputation with its negotiating partners. To get anywhere Britain now needs a fresh start. That means Mrs May retiring and her being replaced by a fresh face (almost anyone would do). That fresh face then needs to start again, asking the EU what it is trying to achieve and pointing out that what it is doing seems calculated not to achieve it.
7) I'm expecting no deal and have been for some time. Unlike the headbangers, I see this as catastrophic for the nation. Proper preparation needs to be made for that. This will have to be paid for. The fairest way would be to ensure that it falls on those who were most enthusiastic for Brexit in the first place. Freezing state pensions till future notice would be a good start.
We're too bound up by deals and aren't thinking about relationships. TBF the EU suffers from a lack of broad thinking too, although their ongoing relationship with the UK is a second order concern for them.
Incidentally, in the same speech he said of Lord Woolton ' He is a very good salesman. If you are selling shoddy stuff you have to be a good salesman” Might the same be said today of the Foreign Secretary?
Not exactly.
BoZo was very good at selling shoddy stuff he didn't have.
If that is correct, then there should be no difficulty in the EU or the UK setting out what legally is owed by a departing state. And yet the difficulty seems to be - in part - just that. Why?
Is it, just possibly, because (a) the EU wants the UK to pay sums which are not legally owed but which were discussed and agreed in some general way while the UK was a member; and (b) the UK only wants to pay such sums if it gets something in return.
We're too bound up by deals and aren't thinking about relationships. TBF the EU suffers from a lack of broad thinking too, although their ongoing relationship with the UK is a second order concern for them.
That's the Brexiteer's pitch
They don't want a relationship with the EU, they want a deal (maybe).
Good post, as ever. My only further comment would be about the money, honey.
UK to make a generous offer/gesture of, say, £50bn with a view of settling at £60bn (or whatever), spread over several years to smooth the exit. We are talking aboutr a generational change here and this is but a drop in the ocean compared with the decades to come of EU-free government.
Would the headbangers have a conniption fit? Of course. Is there just about anything short of building a wall along the south coast that they wouldn't have such a fit over? Nope.
Corbyn stands ready to take on the Brexit negotiations apparently. Corbyn becomes ever more delusional.
It's hard to think how the Labour party could do a worse job negotiating Brexit than this government has done. Starmer or Davis? Absolutely no contest.
It appears that an empty UK chair in Brussels would achieve the same outcome as DD is heading for - default WTO exit.
[Edit: As an aside - I heard John Redwood on R4's 10pm news slot last night. I have never heard so much vacuous drivel from anyone in politics. How anyone can take him seriously is beyond me. Even the presenter laughed at him]
Cogently argued, but what is your opinion on the negotiating tactics of Barnier and Juncker?
They've managed to alienate most of the UK population (or those who have an interest). Our lot are sub-optimal, but they shine by comparison to their mixture of threats and bombast.
On topic, I guess the Tories just carry on with their traditional & specialised Scottish skill set; broken promises, riding roughshod over the expressed will of Scottish voters, hypocritical vapourings about 'listening' & 'partnerships' and imposing policies to serve their own interests should keep the SNP vote solid. They'll have to be careful with their own astounding crapness and the dire quality of their Scotch elected members, mind, or they'll be losing seats to the SNP, Labour, or even, gasp, LDs.
Surely things won't get that bad?
Ok, that's me being hyperbolic. The SLDs may move from 3rd to 2nd in 2 or 3 constituencies.
I agree with almost all of that. Perhaps worth pointing out that the Major Government only became a minority administration in its final three months - ie early 1997.
Formally that's true. In practice the whipless wonders almost always voted with the opposition, which is where the informal UUP deal came in.
I also note that "DD of the SS" wasn't chief whip
Simply not true. On almost every issue except the EU they supported the Government.
The problem is of course that from the point of view of parliamentary arithmetic it does not matter whether Labour captures SNP seats, because the SNP would always support Labour against the Tories.
To win power, Labour has to capture Tory held marginals -and this is something Corbyn has proved very bad at doing.
Tosh.
Corbyn not only captured Tory marginals in 2017, he also created a very efficient path to a Labour majority gov't, and a VERY low swing path to a Labour government with the aid of left helper parties (SNP, Plaid, Greens).
Efficiency of overall vote was an area Corbyn massively outperformed expectations.
Cogently argued, but what is your opinion on the negotiating tactics of Barnier and Juncker?
They've managed to alienate most of the UK population (or those who have an interest). Our lot are sub-optimal, but they shine by comparison to their mixture of threats and bombast.
M Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker don't need to worry about what the UK population think of them. They aren't looking for their approval.
The people whose approval they need seem happy enough.
Except the fabrication was done in Norway. Why have some of the sites where oil rigs were built and refurbished not been adapted to this? It has considerable potential although the unit costs are still on the high side.
None of that matters - it's a proof of principle. What it does mean is that - with a fair degree of patience - an putative independent Scotland might have a replacement for their oilfields. In maybe a decade's time.
English lost heavily in a previous election so at least can hold his head high when he departs the scene this time having won most seats and votes. .
This is a point you frequently make about May as well and I find it interesting.
Legitimacy in democracy doesn't come just from winning more seats and votes than your opponents but it comes from the ability to form a Government and get legislation passed.
In October 1951 and February 1974 the party with most seats didn't get most votes so it doesn't always work.
The point is politics under any and every electoral system (FPTP, AV, MMP, STV or whatever) is about building a Government and passing legislation. That isn't necessarily related to simply having more votes and seats than anyone else if you are bereft of other sources of support while your opponent has or is able to create allies with enough support to get that majority.
There's no legitimacy in being the most popular if you aren't popular enough to govern. If those who are opposed to you can agree on enough to get a majority and you are unable to persuade enough to get a majority on your own, the fact of coming first makes no difference.
If the DUP had shunned May and gone with Corbyn in June (and I'm NOT saying they could, would or should), Corbyn might have been able to muster enough votes to create a majority and the Conservatives, like National, would have to go into Opposition even though by many measures they had "won" the election.
That may not be "fair" or "right" but it's how democracy functions in most plural systems.
I don't disagree, though even in 1951 and 1974 the new governing party won most seats even if not most votes unlike the incoming New Zealand Labour government. It is perfectly possible the Tories could win most seats and votes next time but Corbyn form a government with SNP, LD and Green support but in such circumstances the Tories would be a very strong opposition much as the Nationals will be in New Zealand.
You last sentence is Ok as far as the word ‘but’. It is highly unlikely ta the Tory party in its present state will be a ‘strong’ in any reasonable definition of the word.
I think, yet again, Lamy and others misjudge the British as a nation. They will be amazed at the level of self harm many will countenance in the pursuit of what they see as an equitable outcome.
A hypothesis that needs testing. I don't see the evidence for it. The referendum was carried by a tiny margin on the prospectus that there would be no harm. Since then there has been a slight drift away from the proposition.
The bigger point, though, is that harm is Brexit failure. Surely Leavers, and Remainers now the decision has been made, would insist on success?
Edit. Maybe the population don't get a say. The Brexit ultras in the Conservative Party will subject the country to harm willy-nilly.
The question is - if there is going to be no trade deal, then why pay? Surely that is just capitulation. And what happens to a government that agrees to pay, then still doesn't secure a deal because it's played its only card badly?
I suppose the difference is between an agreed transition to WTO terms and payments, or a hostle brexit with no transition. It is the difference between an amicable disolution of our trade partnership and active hostility and isolation from the EU.
Give us money and we'll be nice seems pretty hostile to me!
If that is correct, then there should be no difficulty in the EU or the UK setting out what legally is owed by a departing state. And yet the difficulty seems to be - in part - just that. Why?
Is it, just possibly, because (a) the EU wants the UK to pay sums which are not legally owed but which were discussed and agreed in some general way while the UK was a member; and (b) the UK only wants to pay such sums if it gets something in return.
Unless it goes to arbitration, which would unacceptably delay the thing, the legality is a red herring. The EU wants to money, because it wants the money and because it wants to make a point about the obligations of membership. We are only prepared to pay if we get something. The negotiation is around that. The problem is that what the UK wants for the money - a comprehensive trade deal - isn't available. The question is whether we still think it worth paying for other reasons - to get a smoother transition, to save grief down the line, or simply as a pay to play.
Edit. Although the EU has been criticised for the inflexibility of its sequencing there is nothing stopping the UK making a conditional offer, eg we pay €X to get Y. Implicitly Theresa May has done that by offering €20 billion for a two year extension. The EU wants more than that to move on.
Good post, as ever. My only further comment would be about the money, honey.
UK to make a generous offer/gesture of, say, £50bn with a view of settling at £60bn (or whatever), spread over several years to smooth the exit. We are talking aboutr a generational change here and this is but a drop in the ocean compared with the decades to come of EU-free government.
Would the headbangers have a conniption fit? Of course. Is there just about anything short of building a wall along the south coast that they wouldn't have such a fit over? Nope.
On this I disagree. Again, I think Theresa May has got this half-right. The government should be giving warm words about respecting our obligations and not actually offering a sou until the EU starts focussing on the longterm relationship with Britain that it wants. The government has offered tepid words.
I think, yet again, Lamy and others misjudge the British as a nation. They will be amazed at the level of self harm many will countenance in the pursuit of what they see as an equitable outcome.
A hypothesis that needs testing. I don't see the evidence for it. The referendum was carried by a tiny margin on the prospectus that there would be no harm. Since then there has been a slight drift away from the proposition.
The bigger point, though, is that harm is Brexit failure. Surely Leavers, and Remainers now the decision has been made, would insist on success?
Edit. Maybe the population don't get a say. The Brexit ultras in the Conservative Party will subject the country to harm willy-nilly.
The question is - if there is going to be no trade deal, then why pay? Surely that is just capitulation. And what happens to a government that agrees to pay, then still doesn't secure a deal because it's played its only card badly?
I suppose the difference is between an agreed transition to WTO terms and payments, or a hostle brexit with no transition. It is the difference between an amicable disolution of our trade partnership and active hostility and isolation from the EU.
Give us money and we'll be nice seems pretty hostile to me!
There are reasons why the negotiations have taken on a hostile character - and they are not entirely down to the EU's stance (though my own view is that they've behaved every bit as badly as us).
Mr. Observer, easy to get an agreement when you're armed with a white flag.
This is what the 52% voted for - a negotiation in which the other side holds all the cards. It is the will of the people.
Had our government worked that out twelve months ago, and acted accordingly, we'd likely be in a far better negotiating position.
The government cannot acknowledge it because of who is in the government and the rump of right-wing Brexit fundamentalist loons that sit on the backbenches. The issue is that what is best for the UK is the worst for the Conservative party. This is a purely political problem.
English lost heavily in a previous election so at least can hold his head high when he departs the scene this time having won most seats and votes. .
This is a point you frequently make about May as well and I find it interesting.
Legitimacy in democracy doesn't come just from winning more seats and votes than your opponents but it comes from the ability to form a Government and get legislation passed.
In October 1951 and February 1974 the party with most seats didn't get most votes so it doesn't always work.
The point is politics under any and every electoral system (FPTP, AV, MMP, STV or whatever) is about building a Government and passing legislation. That isn't necessarily related to simply having more votes and seats than anyone else if you are bereft of other sources of support while your opponent has or is able to create allies with enough support to get that majority.
There's no legitimacy in being the most popular if you aren't popular enough to govern. If those who are opposed to you can agree on enough to get a majority and you are unable to persuade enough to get a majority on your own, the fact of coming first makes no difference.
If the DUP had shunned May and gone with Corbyn in June (and I'm NOT saying they could, would or should), Corbyn might have been able to muster enough votes to create a majority and the Conservatives, like National, would have to go into Opposition even though by many measures they had "won" the election.
That may not be "fair" or "right" but it's how democracy functions in most plural systems.
I don't disagree, though even in 1951 and 1974 the new governing party won most seats even if not most votes unlike the incoming New Zealand Labour government. It is perfectly possible the Tories could win most seats and votes next time but Corbyn form a government with SNP, LD and Green support but in such circumstances the Tories would be a very strong opposition much as the Nationals will be in New Zealand.
You last sentence is Ok as far as the word ‘but’. It is highly unlikely ta the Tory party in its present state will be a ‘strong’ in any reasonable definition of the word.
If the Tories are the main opposition party after the next general election and almost all the other parties are in government apart from the DUP and the Tories have most seats that would be a pretty strong position on any definition to oppose a weak Corbyn government.
I think, yet again, Lamy and others misjudge the British as a nation. They will be amazed at the level of self harm many will countenance in the pursuit of what they see as an equitable outcome.
A hypothesis that needs testing. I don't see the evidence for it. The referendum was carried by a tiny margin on the prospectus that there would be no harm. Since then there has been a slight drift away from the proposition.
The bigger point, though, is that harm is Brexit failure. Surely Leavers, and Remainers now the decision has been made, would insist on success?
Edit. Maybe the population don't get a say. The Brexit ultras in the Conservative Party will subject the country to harm willy-nilly.
The question is - if there is going to be no trade deal, then why pay? Surely that is just capitulation. And what happens to a government that agrees to pay, then still doesn't secure a deal because it's played its only card badly?
The Article 50 talks are simply an opportunity to agree stuff while we are members and on a simplified and accelerated ratification schedule. If we leave without agreement, we simply push the problem back. Unless we are going to have no meaningful relationship with the continent we are a part of - ever - we need to do a deal with the EU and the money issue won't go away. Equally, if we do have a Withdrawal Agreeement that just enables subsequent talks about relationships once we leave.
The money is pay to play. Or, if you will, the cost of Brexit. If you think Brexit is worth doing and making a relative success of, it's worth the money. The problem was that Leave was sold on a very slim margin on there being no cost to Brexit. The government is not willing to face reality or to present that reality to the electorate. The EU sees no benefit to making the cost less for the UK government. They want the money and they also want people throughout the EU to see the value of membership.
I think, yet again, Lamy and others misjudge the British as a nation. They will be amazed at the level of self harm many will countenance in the pursuit of what they see as an equitable outcome.
A hypothesis that needs testing. I don't see the evidence for it. The referendum was carried by a tiny margin on the prospectus that there would be no harm. Since then there has been a slight drift away from the proposition.
The bigger point, though, is that harm is Brexit failure. Surely Leavers, and Remainers now the decision has been made, would insist on success?
Edit. Maybe the population don't get a say. The Brexit ultras in the Conservative Party will subject the country to harm willy-nilly.
The question is - if there is going to be no trade deal, then why pay? Surely that is just capitulation. And what happens to a government that agrees to pay, then still doesn't secure a deal because it's played its only card badly?
I suppose the difference is between an agreed transition to WTO terms and payments, or a hostle brexit with no transition. It is the difference between an amicable disolution of our trade partnership and active hostility and isolation from the EU.
Give us money and we'll be nice seems pretty hostile to me!
Especially when the EU has no intention of being nice even if it receives the money.
I think, yet again, Lamy and others misjudge the British as a nation. They will be amazed at the level of self harm many will countenance in the pursuit of what they see as an equitable outcome.
A hypothesis that needs testing. I don't see the evidence for it. The referendum was carried by a tiny margin on the prospectus that there would be no harm. Since then there has been a slight drift away from the proposition.
The bigger point, though, is that harm is Brexit failure. Surely Leavers, and Remainers now the decision has been made, would insist on success?
Edit. Maybe the population don't get a say. The Brexit ultras in the Conservative Party will subject the country to harm willy-nilly.
The question is - if there is going to be no trade deal, then why pay? Surely that is just capitulation. And what happens to a government that agrees to pay, then still doesn't secure a deal because it's played its only card badly?
The Article 50 talks are simply an opportunity to agree stuff while we are members and on a simplified and accelerated ratification schedule. If we leave without agreement, we simply push the problem back. Unless we are going to have no meaningful relationship with the continent we are a part of - ever - we need to do a deal with the EU and the money issue won't go away. Equally, if we do have a Withdrawal Agreeement that just enables subsequent talks about relationships once we leave.
The money is pay to play. Or, if you will, the cost of Brexit. If you think Brexit is worth doing and making a relative success of, it's worth the money. The problem was that Leave was sold on a very slim margin on there being no cost to Brexit. The government is not willing to face reality or to present that reality to the electorate. The EU sees no benefit to making the cost less for the UK government. They want the money and they also want people throughout the EU to see the value of membership.
Good post, as ever. My only further comment would be about the money, honey.
UK to make a generous offer/gesture of, say, £50bn with a view of settling at £60bn (or whatever), spread over several years to smooth the exit. We are talking aboutr a generational change here and this is but a drop in the ocean compared with the decades to come of EU-free government.
Would the headbangers have a conniption fit? Of course. Is there just about anything short of building a wall along the south coast that they wouldn't have such a fit over? Nope.
On this I disagree. Again, I think Theresa May has got this half-right. The government should be giving warm words about respecting our obligations and not actually offering a sou until the EU starts focussing on the longterm relationship with Britain that it wants. The government has offered tepid words.
we want this problem to go away. The only way I can see us breaking the deadlock that we appear to be in is to throw money at it. Would they grin and ask for more? Perhaps. Is it iniquitous? Probably. But again, to echo the words of a friend of mine then their marriage ended, for any divorce to work both sides have to be unnecessarily generous.
I think, yet again, Lamy and others misjudge the British as a nation. They will be amazed at the level of self harm many will countenance in the pursuit of what they see as an equitable outcome.
A hypothesis that needs testing. I don't see the evidence for it. The referendum was carried by a tiny margin on the prospectus that there would be no harm. Since then there has been a slight drift away from the proposition.
The bigger point, though, is that harm is Brexit failure. Surely Leavers, and Remainers now the decision has been made, would insist on success?
Edit. Maybe the population don't get a say. The Brexit ultras in the Conservative Party will subject the country to harm willy-nilly.
The question is - if there is going to be no trade deal, then why pay? Surely that is just capitulation. And what happens to a government that agrees to pay, then still doesn't secure a deal because it's played its only card badly?
The Article 50 talks are simply an opportunity to agree stuff while we are members and on a simplified and accelerated ratification schedule. If we leave without agreement, we simply push the problem back. Unless we are going to have no meaningful relationship with the continent we are a part of - ever - we need to do a deal with the EU and the money issue won't go away. Equally, if we do have a Withdrawal Agreeement that just enables subsequent talks about relationships once we leave.
The money is pay to play. Or, if you will, the cost of Brexit. If you think Brexit is worth doing and making a relative success of, it's worth the money. The problem was that Leave was sold on a very slim margin on there being no cost to Brexit. The government is not willing to face reality or to present that reality to the electorate. The EU sees no benefit to making the cost less for the UK government. They want the money and they also want people throughout the EU to see the value of membership.
Which other countries pay for an FTA?
We will only pay if we think it's worth it.We will end up paying it anyway. It's also worth pointing out the EU countries do think we owe that money. We don't apparently. They are not necessarily more unreasonable than we are.
1) I have never suggested ignoring the referendum vote. That is a completely incorrect assertion. And in fact I have regularly set out what I think Britain should be done, but I'm not expecting every word of mine to be read as holy writ, so I'll set out my views again.
2) Unlike most Leavers, I have warned at all stages, including well before the vote, that negotiations with the EU would be protracted, difficult and bureaucratic. For this observation I got a fusillade of abuse from many Leavers, none of whom have troubled to apologise for being both wrong and abusive.
3) What should Britain have done? Instead of starting by getting bogged down in the detail, it should have started by inviting the EU to consider the relationship that Britain and the EU should have in 2030 and working backwards from there. It should have painted a big picture - I have my own view of what that should look like but that's scarcely particularly relevant. It should then have made a general proposal based on that. Some gestures to show that Britain intended to remain a member of the decent European society - eg guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens resident on the date of the referendum - at the outset would have been smart too.
4) If the EU refused to respond in kind, Britain should have called them out on that, arguing that the detail could only be determined if the destination was agreed upon.
5) Theresa May half understood this. Britain has already acknowledged the EU's wish to keep structural coherence. But she has made no attempt to get out of the EU what it is trying to achieve. She should also have rejected at the outset the process that the EU put in place as both inconsistent with the terms of Article 50 and an inappropriate framework for a negotiation.
6) The government has through ineptitude and indecision managed to incinerate Britain's reputation with its negotiating partners. To get anywhere Britain now needs a fresh start. That means Mrs May retiring and her being replaced by a fresh face (almost anyone would do). That fresh face then needs to start again, asking the EU what it is trying to achieve and pointing out that what it is doing seems calculated not to achieve it.
7) I'm expecting no deal and have been for some time. Unlike the headbangers, I see this as catastrophic for the nation. Proper preparation needs to be made for that. This will have to be paid for. The fairest way would be to ensure that it falls on those who were most enthusiastic for Brexit in the first place. Freezing state pensions till future notice would be a good start.
Agree with all of that, except 6 ... Is there any likely replacement for May with the skills to pull this off ?
Mr. Observer, easy to get an agreement when you're armed with a white flag.
This is what the 52% voted for - a negotiation in which the other side holds all the cards. It is the will of the people.
The UK has had 40 years of negotiating with a side which held all the cards.
Hence the humilation and failure of Blair and Cameron in their negotiations.
Leaving the EU allows the UK to change that relationship.
It does. We could change it by inflicting immense, long-term damage on living standards across the country; or we could change it by paying over some money and coming to a new, amicable arrangement. Clearly, the latter option is best for the UK. Unfortunately, the former seems to be the only way the Conservative party stays together.
I think, yet again, Lamy and others misjudge the British as a nation. They will be amazed at the level of self harm many will countenance in the pursuit of what they see as an equitable outcome.
A hypothesis that needs testing. I don't see the evidence for it. The referendum was carried by a tiny margin on the prospectus that there would be no harm. Since then there has been a slight drift away from the proposition.
The bigger point, though, is that harm is Brexit failure. Surely Leavers, and Remainers now the decision has been made, would insist on success?
Edit. Maybe the population don't get a say. The Brexit ultras in the Conservative Party will subject the country to harm willy-nilly.
The question is - if there is going to be no trade deal, then why pay? Surely that is just capitulation. And what happens to a government that agrees to pay, then still doesn't secure a deal because it's played its only card badly?
I suppose the difference is between an agreed transition to WTO terms and payments, or a hostle brexit with no transition. It is the difference between an amicable disolution of our trade partnership and active hostility and isolation from the EU.
Give us money and we'll be nice seems pretty hostile to me!
Nice export market - would be a shame if something happened to it
I think, yet again, Lamy and others misjudge the British as a nation. They will be amazed at the level of self harm many will countenance in the pursuit of what they see as an equitable outcome.
A hypothesis that needs testing. I don't see the evidence for it. The referendum was carried by a tiny margin on the prospectus that there would be no harm. Since then there has been a slight drift away from the proposition.
The bigger point, though, is that harm is Brexit failure. Surely Leavers, and Remainers now the decision has been made, would insist on success?
Edit. Maybe the population don't get a say. The Brexit ultras in the Conservative Party will subject the country to harm willy-nilly.
The question is - if there is going to be no trade deal, then why pay? Surely that is just capitulation. And what happens to a government that agrees to pay, then still doesn't secure a deal because it's played its only card badly?
The Article 50 talks are simply an opportunity to agree stuff while we are members and on a simplified and accelerated ratification schedule. If we leave without agreement, we simply push the problem back. Unless we are going to have no meaningful relationship with the continent we are a part of - ever - we need to do a deal with the EU and the money issue won't go away. Equally, if we do have a Withdrawal Agreeement that just enables subsequent talks about relationships once we leave.
The money is pay to play. Or, if you will, the cost of Brexit. If you think Brexit is worth doing and making a relative success of, it's worth the money. The problem was that Leave was sold on a very slim margin on there being no cost to Brexit. The government is not willing to face reality or to present that reality to the electorate. The EU sees no benefit to making the cost less for the UK government. They want the money and they also want people throughout the EU to see the value of membership.
Which other countries pay for an FTA?
Which other countries negotiated an FTA on a two year timetable while in the middle of a dispute with the EU over the payment of tens of billions of euros ?
Survation had Remain ahead in its final EU referendum poll and Wales and England even on that poll have not changed much from the referendum, indeed England is 50% Leave.
I think, yet again, Lamy and others misjudge the British as a nation. They will be amazed at the level of self harm many will countenance in the pursuit of what they see as an equitable outcome.
A hypothesis that needs testing. I don't see the evidence for it. The referendum was carried by a tiny margin on the prospectus that there would be no harm. Since then there has been a slight drift away from the proposition.
The bigger point, though, is that harm is Brexit failure. Surely Leavers, and Remainers now the decision has been made, would insist on success?
Edit. Maybe the population don't get a say. The Brexit ultras in the Conservative Party will subject the country to harm willy-nilly.
The question is - if there is going to be no trade deal, then why pay? Surely that is just capitulation. And what happens to a government that agrees to pay, then still doesn't secure a deal because it's played its only card badly?
I suppose the difference is between an agreed transition to WTO terms and payments, or a hostle brexit with no transition. It is the difference between an amicable disolution of our trade partnership and active hostility and isolation from the EU.
Give us money and we'll be nice seems pretty hostile to me!
Net migration and migration are not the same thing.
To go reductio ad absurdum if in the next 12 months 15 million Britons emigrated while 15 million migrants arrived then net migration would be zero but migration would not be.
Saturday? Its almost as if Rajoy wants to provoke an intemperate and illegal response isn't it?
It's the process that starts on Saturday. It has to go tot he Senate and be approved there, which will take a little while. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that the PP and the Spanish state's institutions will contrive to create more positive publicity for the separatists.
On a related note, the profile of those who support independence for Catalonia is fascinating. The best predictors are wealth and purity of Catalan blood.
I think, yet again, Lamy and others misjudge the British as a nation. They will be amazed at the level of self harm many will countenance in the pursuit of what they see as an equitable outcome.
A hypothesis that needs testing. I don't see the evidence for it. The referendum was carried by a tiny margin on the prospectus that there would be no harm. Since then there has been a slight drift away from the proposition.
The bigger point, though, is that harm is Brexit failure. Surely Leavers, and Remainers now the decision has been made, would insist on success?
Edit. Maybe the population don't get a say. The Brexit ultras in the Conservative Party will subject the country to harm willy-nilly.
The question is - if there is going to be no trade deal, then why pay? Surely that is just capitulation. And what happens to a government that agrees to pay, then still doesn't secure a deal because it's played its only card badly?
I suppose the difference is between an agreed transition to WTO terms and payments, or a hostle brexit with no transition. It is the difference between an amicable disolution of our trade partnership and active hostility and isolation from the EU.
Give us money and we'll be nice seems pretty hostile to me!
Survation had Remain ahead in its final EU referendum poll and Wales and England even on that poll have not changed much from the referendum, indeed England is 50% Leave.
Scotland and London and NI voted Remain anyway.
Exactly - if we believed almost all the final pollsters remain would have won.
I think, yet again, Lamy and others misjudge the British as a nation. They will be amazed at the level of self harm many will countenance in the pursuit of what they see as an equitable outcome.
A hypothesis that needs testing. I don't see the evidence for it. The referendum was carried by a tiny margin on the prospectus that there would be no harm. Since then there has been a slight drift away from the proposition.
The bigger point, though, is that harm is Brexit failure. Surely Leavers, and Remainers now the decision has been made, would insist on success?
Edit. Maybe the population don't get a say. The Brexit ultras in the Conservative Party will subject the country to harm willy-nilly.
The question is - if there is going to be no trade deal, then why pay? Surely that is just capitulation. And what happens to a government that agrees to pay, then still doesn't secure a deal because it's played its only card badly?
The Article 50 talks are simply an opportunity to agree stuff while we are members and on a simplified and accelerated ratification schedule. If we leave without agreement, we simply push the problem back. Unless we are going to have no meaningful relationship with the continent we are a part of - ever - we need to do a deal with the EU and the money issue won't go away. Equally, if we do have a Withdrawal Agreeement that just enables subsequent talks about relationships once we leave.
The money is pay to play. Or, if you will, the cost of Brexit. If you think Brexit is worth doing and making a relative success of, it's worth the money. The problem was that Leave was sold on a very slim margin on there being no cost to Brexit. The government is not willing to face reality or to present that reality to the electorate. The EU sees no benefit to making the cost less for the UK government. They want the money and they also want people throughout the EU to see the value of membership.
Which other countries pay for an FTA?
We want a lot more than an FTA.
Yes - I was on the narrow point that if we hard Brexit then re-engage later the money doesn't go away as an issue. I think it does: the deal is to have a fast track/soft landing which we will pay a premium for now, but which isn't worth much post hard Brexit
I think, yet again, Lamy and others misjudge the British as a nation. They will be amazed at the level of self harm many will countenance in the pursuit of what they see as an equitable outcome.
A hypothesis that needs testing. I don't see the evidence for it. The referendum was carried by a tiny margin on the prospectus that there would be no harm. Since then there has been a slight drift away from the proposition.
The bigger point, though, is that harm is Brexit failure. Surely Leavers, and Remainers now the decision has been made, would insist on success?
Edit. Maybe the population don't get a say. The Brexit ultras in the Conservative Party will subject the country to harm willy-nilly.
The question is - if there is going to be no trade deal, then why pay? Surely that is just capitulation. And what happens to a government that agrees to pay, then still doesn't secure a deal because it's played its only card badly?
The Article 50 talks are simply an opportunity to agree stuff while we are members and on a simplified and accelerated ratification schedule. If we leave without agreement, we simply push the problem back. Unless we are going to have no meaningful relationship with the continent we are a part of - ever - we need to do a deal with the EU and the money issue won't go away. Equally, if we do have a Withdrawal Agreeement that just enables subsequent talks about relationships once we leave.
The money is pay to play. Or, if you will, the cost of Brexit. If you think Brexit is worth doing and making a relative success of, it's worth the money. The problem was that Leave was sold on a very slim margin on there being no cost to Brexit. The government is not willing to face reality or to present that reality to the electorate. The EU sees no benefit to making the cost less for the UK government. They want the money and they also want people throughout the EU to see the value of membership.
Which other countries pay for an FTA?
We will only pay if we think it's worth it.We will end up paying it anyway. It's also worth pointing out the EU countries do think we owe that money. We don't apparently. They are not necessarily more unreasonable than we are.
Their position isn't unreasonable but their stance is.
The UK has said we think we owe you x but will pay more for a good deal. Please tell us why you think we owe more than x from a legal perspective.
Saturday? Its almost as if Rajoy wants to provoke an intemperate and illegal response isn't it?
It's the process that starts on Saturday. It has to go tot he Senate and be approved there, which will take a little while. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that the PP and the Spanish state's institutions will contrive to create more positive publicity for the separatists.
On a related note, the profile of those who support independence for Catalonia is fascinating. The best predictors are wealth and purity of Catalan blood.
So does Puigdemont have the Catalan Parliament declare independence today or tomorrow? A difficult call for him, not least because he faces being arrested, but a huge loss of face if he doesn't.
I think, yet again, Lamy and others misjudge the British as a nation. They will be amazed at the level of self harm many will countenance in the pursuit of what they see as an equitable outcome.
A hypothesis that needs testing. I don't see the evidence for it. The referendum was carried by a tiny margin on the prospectus that there would be no harm. Since then there has been a slight drift away from the proposition.
The bigger point, though, is that harm is Brexit failure. Surely Leavers, and Remainers now the decision has been made, would insist on success?
Edit. Maybe the population don't get a say. The Brexit ultras in the Conservative Party will subject the country to harm willy-nilly.
The question is - if there is going to be no trade deal, then why pay? Surely that is just capitulation. And what happens to a government that agrees to pay, then still doesn't secure a deal because it's played its only card badly?
The Article 50 talks are simply an opportunity to agree stuff while we are members and on a simplified and accelerated ratification schedule. If we leave without agreement, we simply push the problem back. Unless we are going to have no meaningful relationship with the continent we are a part of - ever - we need to do a deal with the EU and the money issue won't go away. Equally, if we do have a Withdrawal Agreeement that just enables subsequent talks about relationships once we leave.
The money is pay to play. Or, if you will, the cost of Brexit. If you think Brexit is worth doing and making a relative success of, it's worth the money. The problem was that Leave was sold on a very slim margin on there being no cost to Brexit. The government is not willing to face reality or to present that reality to the electorate. The EU sees no benefit to making the cost less for the UK government. They want the money and they also want people throughout the EU to see the value of membership.
Which other countries pay for an FTA?
Which other countries negotiated an FTA on a two year timetable while in the middle of a dispute with the EU over the payment of tens of billions of euros ?
See my earlier response. Questioning @FF43 assertion the money issue doesn't go away.
Mr. Observer, whilst pork barrel politics is bad, it's not the same thing as Danegeld.
We are where we are. Either the Tories swallow the medicine or the UK faces up to long-term economic harm and falling living standards. This is where the Leave vote was always going to lead to given the promises made by those leading the Leave campaign now sitting in cabinet.
The UK has said we think we owe you x but will pay more for a good deal. Please tell us why you think we owe more than x from a legal perspective.
The EU's response is "Shan't! Give us the money!"
Isn't the UK's position that we don't owe anything legally, and their position is that it the legalities are irrelevant - we have political financial obligations that we can't shirk by leaving the EU. As the Leave campaign said, "We're not leaving Europe." It seems we've already conceded on this point so we're just stringing it out now.
Mr. Observer, it's not medicine. It's a demand for cash for liabilities that are not defined and for trading arrangements that won't even be discussed until we've already given a huge amount of money.
Saturday? Its almost as if Rajoy wants to provoke an intemperate and illegal response isn't it?
It's the process that starts on Saturday. It has to go tot he Senate and be approved there, which will take a little while. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that the PP and the Spanish state's institutions will contrive to create more positive publicity for the separatists.
On a related note, the profile of those who support independence for Catalonia is fascinating. The best predictors are wealth and purity of Catalan blood.
So does Puigdemont have the Catalan Parliament declare independence today or tomorrow? A difficult call for him, not least because he faces being arrested, but a huge loss of face if he doesn't.
If he believes in Catalan independence, and isn't just in politics for the money then arrest will be a massive positive for him.
"Spain takes political prisoner" - supporters of Catalan independence couldn't wish for a better angle.
Saturday? Its almost as if Rajoy wants to provoke an intemperate and illegal response isn't it?
It's the process that starts on Saturday. It has to go tot he Senate and be approved there, which will take a little while. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that the PP and the Spanish state's institutions will contrive to create more positive publicity for the separatists.
On a related note, the profile of those who support independence for Catalonia is fascinating. The best predictors are wealth and purity of Catalan blood.
So does Puigdemont have the Catalan Parliament declare independence today or tomorrow? A difficult call for him, not least because he faces being arrested, but a huge loss of face if he doesn't.
If he believes in Catalan independence, and isn't just in politics for the money then arrest will be a massive positive for him.
"Spain takes political prisoner" - supporters of Catalan independence couldn't wish for a better angle.
Probably. If that is the stupidest thing that Spain could do the Guarda Civil must already be on stand bye to take him into custody.
Saturday? Its almost as if Rajoy wants to provoke an intemperate and illegal response isn't it?
It's the process that starts on Saturday. It has to go tot he Senate and be approved there, which will take a little while. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that the PP and the Spanish state's institutions will contrive to create more positive publicity for the separatists.
On a related note, the profile of those who support independence for Catalonia is fascinating. The best predictors are wealth and purity of Catalan blood.
So does Puigdemont have the Catalan Parliament declare independence today or tomorrow? A difficult call for him, not least because he faces being arrested, but a huge loss of face if he doesn't.
There has been no sessions of the Catalan parliament for a month. The entire political process is in chaos. The best way to move forward would be to call elections, but if Puigdemont does that he knows his party would be wiped out. I suspect that elections is where this will end after a few months of direct rule.
I can't see the NZ coalition government as being at all coherent. It's interesting that Labour should see reducing immigration as a price worth paying to get into office.
Good post, as ever. My only further comment would be about the money, honey.
UK to make a generous offer/gesture of, say, £50bn with a view of settling at £60bn (or whatever), spread over several years to smooth the exit. We are talking aboutr a generational change here and this is but a drop in the ocean compared with the decades to come of EU-free government.
Would the headbangers have a conniption fit? Of course. Is there just about anything short of building a wall along the south coast that they wouldn't have such a fit over? Nope.
On this I disagree. Again, I think Theresa May has got this half-right. The government should be giving warm words about respecting our obligations and not actually offering a sou until the EU starts focussing on the longterm relationship with Britain that it wants. The government has offered tepid words.
we want this problem to go away. The only way I can see us breaking the deadlock that we appear to be in is to throw money at it. Would they grin and ask for more? Perhaps. Is it iniquitous? Probably. But again, to echo the words of a friend of mine then their marriage ended, for any divorce to work both sides have to be unnecessarily generous.
I tend to agree. It's like paying a troublesome employee to go away. Nobody likes it, but it's less aggravating than the alternative.
The Farmers Union of Wales has realised that London is NOT ging to give the hill farmer subsidies that the EU do, AND that there’s no likely market for lamb outside the EU. Plus it’s sinking in in the Valleys that there’s no chance of London giving the help the EU does/might.
Saturday? Its almost as if Rajoy wants to provoke an intemperate and illegal response isn't it?
It's the process that starts on Saturday. It has to go tot he Senate and be approved there, which will take a little while. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that the PP and the Spanish state's institutions will contrive to create more positive publicity for the separatists.
On a related note, the profile of those who support independence for Catalonia is fascinating. The best predictors are wealth and purity of Catalan blood.
So does Puigdemont have the Catalan Parliament declare independence today or tomorrow? A difficult call for him, not least because he faces being arrested, but a huge loss of face if he doesn't.
Best for Catalans if Puigdemont sticks with his current position that they are moving to independence but the implementation is suspended whilst they negotiate a transition period.
The UK has said we think we owe you x but will pay more for a good deal. Please tell us why you think we owe more than x from a legal perspective.
The EU's response is "Shan't! Give us the money!"
Isn't the UK's position that we don't owe anything legally, and their position is that it the legalities are irrelevant - we have political financial obligations that we can't shirk by leaving the EU. As the Leave campaign said, "We're not leaving Europe." It seems we've already conceded on this point so we're just stringing it out now.
They've said they will pay budget payments until the end of the current budget and a few odds and sods but nothing beyond.
So Brian is after Ophelia? In a meterological sense, of course.
Ophelia started in tropical latitudes (So followed Maria, Nate) whereas Brian is above the tropic of cancer at its start, so follows Aileen in the naming of northerly Atlantic storms.
The UK has said we think we owe you x but will pay more for a good deal. Please tell us why you think we owe more than x from a legal perspective.
The EU's response is "Shan't! Give us the money!"
Isn't the UK's position that we don't owe anything legally, and their position is that it the legalities are irrelevant - we have political financial obligations that we can't shirk by leaving the EU. As the Leave campaign said, "We're not leaving Europe." It seems we've already conceded on this point so we're just stringing it out now.
The big problem is that the EU has broken its own budget rules for many years. So instead of spending based on the budget that it set, it has allowed over reach.
The “reste à liquider” (the amount yet to be settled), is forecast to be €254 billion at the end of 2020. The EU is going to want the UK to pay a significant part of that, probably in line with its percentage equivalent contribution as of 2014-21.
Also, its retirement scheme is woefully underfunded - an estimate I read today says €67 Billion is the shortfall.
So Brian is after Ophelia? In a meterological sense, of course.
Ophelia started in tropical latitudes (So followed Maria, Nate) whereas Brian is above the tropic of cancer at its start, so follows Aileen in the naming of northerly Atlantic storms.
I’m obliged. Just hope we don’t get to, for example, Mary.
Of course the Express is getting hysterical about it!
So Brian is after Ophelia? In a meterological sense, of course.
Ophelia started in tropical latitudes (So followed Maria, Nate) whereas Brian is above the tropic of cancer at its start, so follows Aileen in the naming of northerly Atlantic storms.
I’m obliged. Just hope we don’t get to, for example, Mary.
Of course the Express is getting hysterical about it!
Just imagine the Express if we had Storm Diana or Storm Maddie.
So Brian is after Ophelia? In a meterological sense, of course.
Ophelia started in tropical latitudes (So followed Maria, Nate) whereas Brian is above the tropic of cancer at its start, so follows Aileen in the naming of northerly Atlantic storms.
I think many of the political commentators have been too quick to write off the SNP. Most recent Holyrood & WM polling is showing that the SNP is steadily recovering it's position. Given the Tories woes and SLAB's leadership shenanigans this recovery is most likely set to continue.
In terms of the Tories wishing for an SNP revival to keep SLAB at bay, it would be just as likely to sweep them away as well. With the SNP now solidly in 40% territory for WM & Holyrood, a return to +45% would see them back into sweeping the board territory in the FPTP seats.
One of SLAB's main issues which it needs to address to secure it's current support levels, is how to keep on side the 25-30% of it's supporters who favour independence. If they climb onboard the diehard Unionists bus - this segment of support is vulnerable to switching to the SNP.
I feel a bit sorry for Ruth who's continuing popularity appears to have become disengaged from falling SCON support. I'm sure she'll do the right thing for Scotland and fight for funds to regentrify Scotland's cities and boost the economy. However, the SNP will likely get the credit for any improvement in the Scottish economy. That's politics for you, a very unfair game.
The Farmers Union of Wales has realised that London is NOT ging to give the hill farmer subsidies that the EU do, AND that there’s no likely market for lamb outside the EU. Plus it’s sinking in in the Valleys that there’s no chance of London giving the help the EU does/might.
Maybe they should switch to turkey farming and hold a referendum each November asking the turkeys whether Christmas should be held or not.
So Brian is after Ophelia? In a meterological sense, of course.
Ophelia started in tropical latitudes (So followed Maria, Nate) whereas Brian is above the tropic of cancer at its start, so follows Aileen in the naming of northerly Atlantic storms.
So: Come After Aileen?
Is there a prize for the worst 80s pop music pun?
I suppose Storm Joy would arrive on our shores about 7am.
Given the Tories woes and SLAB's leadership shenanigans this recovery is most likely set to continue.
The recent decision to renege on building 13 frigates on the Clyde (they are now getting 8) is just the type of grievance that the SNP can burnish to electoral effect.
Mr. Observer, easy to get an agreement when you're armed with a white flag.
This is what the 52% voted for - a negotiation in which the other side holds all the cards. It is the will of the people.
The UK has had 40 years of negotiating with a side which held all the cards.
Hence the humilation and failure of Blair and Cameron in their negotiations.
Leaving the EU allows the UK to change that relationship.
It does. We could change it by inflicting immense, long-term damage on living standards across the country; or we could change it by paying over some money and coming to a new, amicable arrangement. Clearly, the latter option is best for the UK. Unfortunately, the former seems to be the only way the Conservative party stays together.
See this is the bit I don't understand - once we leave we aren't going to twiddle our thumbs for the next 30 years.
Free of the EU - the Uk could be a lot more nimble - should it choose a government which will enable that.
Polling on a 2nd referendum needs to be taken with a certain degree of salt.
The terms and conditions against which that decision would be made would be all important, as would the nature of the campaign, and the turnout on the day.
Polling regularly showed in excess of 60%+ support for Remain in the 9 months prior to Dave's deal, albeit with some variation, and didn't move decisively to Leave until after purdah ended.
Leave isn't currently campaigning. We don't know what "Remain" would look like. We don't know (yet) what "Leave" is going to look like. We don't know who would turn out in a 2nd referendum, nor why, or who would lead each campaign.
Is it measuring the hypothetical, "if you had your time again 16 months ago?", or is it measuring "if you had the same choice again, all things being equal, from scratch tomorrow?", is it measuring the daily temperature and sentiment now, or is it measuring something else?
We don't know.
Of course, all that ambiguity is great, because what some Remainers are really interested in is using the polling to frustrate or reverse Brexit. To do that, they're going to need some pretty clear polling shifts of hitherto firm Leavers to Remain to clock 60-65%+ regularly, and then firm up the evidence for those results with a clear definition of what "Remaining" would mean, now, given the Rubicon has been crossed.
So Brian is after Ophelia? In a meterological sense, of course.
Ophelia started in tropical latitudes (So followed Maria, Nate) whereas Brian is above the tropic of cancer at its start, so follows Aileen in the naming of northerly Atlantic storms.
So: Come After Aileen?
Is there a prize for the worst 80s pop music pun?
I suppose Storm Joy would arrive on our shores about 7am.
(1) Remain (Dave's deal + emergency brake on free movement) v. Leave (Theresa's deal: shadowing EU regulations, broad quotas on EU migration numbers, leave customs union, except NI, ECJ on EU citizens, free trade in goods, and some in services but not all, new British CAP/CFP) - Probably Remain 55%; Leave 45%
(2) Remain (Lisbon status quo) v. Leave (Theresa's deal: shadowing EU regulations, broad quotas on EU migration numbers, leave customs union, except NI, ECJ on EU citizens, free trade in goods, and some in services but not all, new British CAP/CFP) - Too close to call. Leave just edge it
(3) Remain (Standard terms: join euro + Schengen) v. Leave (Theresa's deal: shadowing EU regulations, broad quotas on EU migration numbers, leave customs union, except NI, ECJ on EU citizens, free trade in goods, and some in services but not all, new British CAP/CFP) - Probably Remain 35%; Leave 65%
(4) Leave (Theresa's Deal) v. Leave (No Deal) - 'No Deal' wins 60%-40% (winning for different reasons amongst a very broad coalition of ultra-Leavers, Theresa-haters, ultra-socialists v. moderate Remainers/Leavers)
Polling on a 2nd referendum needs to be taken with a certain degree of salt.
Quite - no referendum is imminent right now and Trump, Corbyn, 'leave', 'No' were all miles behind when the various plebicites were a way off. We don't know if leave or remain would win a second referendum, but the polling at this point is as good as tea leaves.
I can't see the NZ coalition government as being at all coherent. It's interesting that Labour should see reducing immigration as a price worth paying to get into office.
It feels a bit like an Yvette Cooper or a Heidi Alexander getting into bed with Nigel Farage (or whoever the new guy is.. I forget) to form an administration.
See this is the bit I don't understand - once we leave we aren't going to twiddle our thumbs for the next 30 years.
That is right - we will spend 30 years trying to get back to where we were pre-Brexit and trying to regain our reputation for competence that the current bunch of delusional ditherers has trashed. The world is not standing around looking in admiration at us plucky Brits. The world is looking at us and thinking either "How can we exploit this?" or "WTF are they doing?"
Free of the EU - the Uk could be a lot more nimble - should it choose a government which will enable that.
That is what you would like, an ideal scenario. What we will get is reality. Post Brexit we will soon know who our friends are.
But what the heck... you will soon rationalise this away and believe whatever you want. Just remember that it is unlikely that reality will share your idealism.
The Farmers Union of Wales has realised that London is NOT ging to give the hill farmer subsidies that the EU do, AND that there’s no likely market for lamb outside the EU. Plus it’s sinking in in the Valleys that there’s no chance of London giving the help the EU does/might.
Maybe they should switch to turkey farming and hold a referendum each November asking the turkeys whether Christmas should be held or not.
Polling on a 2nd referendum needs to be taken with a certain degree of salt.
Quite - no referendum is imminent right now and Trump, Corbyn, 'leave', 'No' were all miles behind when the various plebicites were a way off. We don't know if leave or remain would win a second referendum, but the polling at this point is as good as tea leaves.
Like all voting intention polls. Leader ratings are different.
Mr. F, if the EU could be trusted, that argument would be rather stronger.
Blair gave half the rebate for CAP reform and got precisely nothing.
Because he did it backwards. He should have said "Reform CAP and I will give half the rebate back" and then waited for the CAP reforms.
That way he would have got kudos for being politically astute and the EU would have had pressure to do something and if they did reform CAP Blair could claim victory.
Comments
Incidentally, in the same speech he said of Lord Woolton ' He is a very good salesman. If you are selling shoddy stuff you have to be a good salesman”
Might the same be said today of the Foreign Secretary?
It is perfectly possible the Tories could win most seats and votes next time but Corbyn form a government with SNP, LD and Green support but in such circumstances the Tories would be a very strong opposition much as the Nationals will be in New Zealand.
BoZo was very good at selling shoddy stuff he didn't have.
"£350m a week for the NHS"
Ok, we'll take it.
"Just kidding!!!"
If that is correct, then there should be no difficulty in the EU or the UK setting out what legally is owed by a departing state. And yet the difficulty seems to be - in part - just that. Why?
Is it, just possibly, because (a) the EU wants the UK to pay sums which are not legally owed but which were discussed and agreed in some general way while the UK was a member; and (b) the UK only wants to pay such sums if it gets something in return.
They don't want a relationship with the EU, they want a deal (maybe).
UK to make a generous offer/gesture of, say, £50bn with a view of settling at £60bn (or whatever), spread over several years to smooth the exit. We are talking aboutr a generational change here and this is but a drop in the ocean compared with the decades to come of EU-free government.
Would the headbangers have a conniption fit? Of course. Is there just about anything short of building a wall along the south coast that they wouldn't have such a fit over? Nope.
[Edit: As an aside - I heard John Redwood on R4's 10pm news slot last night. I have never heard so much vacuous drivel from anyone in politics. How anyone can take him seriously is beyond me. Even the presenter laughed at him]
Cogently argued, but what is your opinion on the negotiating tactics of Barnier and Juncker?
They've managed to alienate most of the UK population (or those who have an interest). Our lot are sub-optimal, but they shine by comparison to their mixture of threats and bombast.
The SLDs may move from 3rd to 2nd in 2 or 3 constituencies.
Corbyn not only captured Tory marginals in 2017, he also created a very efficient path to a Labour majority gov't, and a VERY low swing path to a Labour government with the aid of left helper parties (SNP, Plaid, Greens).
Efficiency of overall vote was an area Corbyn massively outperformed expectations.
The people whose approval they need seem happy enough.
What it does mean is that - with a fair degree of patience - an putative independent Scotland might have a replacement for their oilfields. In maybe a decade's time.
Edit. Although the EU has been criticised for the inflexibility of its sequencing there is nothing stopping the UK making a conditional offer, eg we pay €X to get Y. Implicitly Theresa May has done that by offering €20 billion for a two year extension. The EU wants more than that to move on.
https://twitter.com/AJENews/status/920933101051809793
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/920743276914905090
Hence the humilation and failure of Blair and Cameron in their negotiations.
Leaving the EU allows the UK to change that relationship.
The SNP did help the Tories take power for 18 years when they voted against Labour in the 1979 confidence vote.
I think I should do a thread on that, I like doing 'blast from the past' threads.
we want this problem to go away. The only way I can see us breaking the deadlock that we appear to be in is to throw money at it. Would they grin and ask for more? Perhaps. Is it iniquitous? Probably. But again, to echo the words of a friend of mine then their marriage ended, for any divorce to work both sides have to be unnecessarily generous.
She knew she was talking shite when she said 'No deal is better than a bad deal', the inference is that we'd be fine with No Deal.
Is there any likely replacement for May with the skills to pull this off ?
https://twitter.com/BobbyIpsosMORI/status/920574373131628545
Scotland and London and NI voted Remain anyway.
As a policy it seemed to have a number of drawbacks...
To go reductio ad absurdum if in the next 12 months 15 million Britons emigrated while 15 million migrants arrived then net migration would be zero but migration would not be.
Mr. Eagles, net migration is a stupid statistic to use. That could mean a million Britons leaving and a million foreigners arriving.
On a related note, the profile of those who support independence for Catalonia is fascinating. The best predictors are wealth and purity of Catalan blood.
https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/09/29/inenglish/1506691641_240457.html?id_externo_rsoc=TW_CM_EN
The UK has said we think we owe you x but will pay more for a good deal. Please tell us why you think we owe more than x from a legal perspective.
The EU's response is "Shan't! Give us the money!"
After all immigration is /= net migration
"Spain takes political prisoner" - supporters of Catalan independence couldn't wish for a better angle.
I can't see the NZ coalition government as being at all coherent. It's interesting that Labour should see reducing immigration as a price worth paying to get into office.
21%....wtf
Brian about to arrive !
Plus it’s sinking in in the Valleys that there’s no chance of London giving the help the EU does/might.
So Brian is after Ophelia? In a meterological sense, of course.
Oh, wait .............
The “reste à liquider” (the amount yet to be settled), is forecast to be €254 billion at the end of 2020. The EU is going to want the UK to pay a significant part of that, probably in line with its percentage equivalent contribution as of 2014-21.
Also, its retirement scheme is woefully underfunded - an estimate I read today says €67 Billion is the shortfall.
Of course the Express is getting hysterical about it!
Blair gave half the rebate for CAP reform and got precisely nothing.
Is there a prize for the worst 80s pop music pun?
In terms of the Tories wishing for an SNP revival to keep SLAB at bay, it would be just as likely to sweep them away as well. With the SNP now solidly in 40% territory for WM & Holyrood, a return to +45% would see them back into sweeping the board territory in the FPTP seats.
One of SLAB's main issues which it needs to address to secure it's current support levels, is how to keep on side the 25-30% of it's supporters who favour independence. If they climb onboard the diehard Unionists bus - this segment of support is vulnerable to switching to the SNP.
I feel a bit sorry for Ruth who's continuing popularity appears to have become disengaged from falling SCON support. I'm sure she'll do the right thing for Scotland and fight for funds to regentrify Scotland's cities and boost the economy. However, the SNP will likely get the credit for any improvement in the Scottish economy. That's politics for you, a very unfair game.
Free of the EU - the Uk could be a lot more nimble - should it choose a government which will enable that.
The terms and conditions against which that decision would be made would be all important, as would the nature of the campaign, and the turnout on the day.
Polling regularly showed in excess of 60%+ support for Remain in the 9 months prior to Dave's deal, albeit with some variation, and didn't move decisively to Leave until after purdah ended.
Leave isn't currently campaigning. We don't know what "Remain" would look like. We don't know (yet) what "Leave" is going to look like. We don't know who would turn out in a 2nd referendum, nor why, or who would lead each campaign.
Is it measuring the hypothetical, "if you had your time again 16 months ago?", or is it measuring "if you had the same choice again, all things being equal, from scratch tomorrow?", is it measuring the daily temperature and sentiment now, or is it measuring something else?
We don't know.
Of course, all that ambiguity is great, because what some Remainers are really interested in is using the polling to frustrate or reverse Brexit. To do that, they're going to need some pretty clear polling shifts of hitherto firm Leavers to Remain to clock 60-65%+ regularly, and then firm up the evidence for those results with a clear definition of what "Remaining" would mean, now, given the Rubicon has been crossed.
(1) Remain (Dave's deal + emergency brake on free movement) v. Leave (Theresa's deal: shadowing EU regulations, broad quotas on EU migration numbers, leave customs union, except NI, ECJ on EU citizens, free trade in goods, and some in services but not all, new British CAP/CFP) - Probably Remain 55%; Leave 45%
(2) Remain (Lisbon status quo) v. Leave (Theresa's deal: shadowing EU regulations, broad quotas on EU migration numbers, leave customs union, except NI, ECJ on EU citizens, free trade in goods, and some in services but not all, new British CAP/CFP) - Too close to call. Leave just edge it
(3) Remain (Standard terms: join euro + Schengen) v. Leave (Theresa's deal: shadowing EU regulations, broad quotas on EU migration numbers, leave customs union, except NI, ECJ on EU citizens, free trade in goods, and some in services but not all, new British CAP/CFP) - Probably Remain 35%; Leave 65%
(4) Leave (Theresa's Deal) v. Leave (No Deal) - 'No Deal' wins 60%-40% (winning for different reasons amongst a very broad coalition of ultra-Leavers, Theresa-haters, ultra-socialists v. moderate Remainers/Leavers)
We don't know if leave or remain would win a second referendum, but the polling at this point is as good as tea leaves.
Where are the butter mountains and the wine lakes?
There was reform, possibly not as the Conservative Party felt was appropriate, but then they did not have seat on the Council of Ministers.
Odd.
That is what you would like, an ideal scenario. What we will get is reality. Post Brexit we will soon know who our friends are.
But what the heck... you will soon rationalise this away and believe whatever you want. Just remember that it is unlikely that reality will share your idealism.
That way he would have got kudos for being politically astute and the EU would have had pressure to do something and if they did reform CAP Blair could claim victory.