Margaret Thatcher's lowest point was in December 1981, two and half years after she became prime minister. Theresa May has only been there for one and a half years, so maybe it's a bit early to make judgements on how the rest of her premiership will develop.
Mrs Thatcher's first general election whilst as PM she was up against an unelectable far left Labour leader who many thought was unelectable and destroy Labour.
Oh wait.
Mrs Thatcher wasn't stupid enough to call a snap election that wiped out the Tory majority.
"Meanwhile, Labour face an electoral map that heavy favourites makes them, on paper at least, the next time."
You can back Labour for most seats on Betfair at 1.96 right now. They should be much shorter than that.
Stop scaring me.
And, also, ignore me on this subject.
I am normally ok at detaching confirmation bias from my betting. But this is one situation where I'm genuinely so terrified of the outcome, I can't bring myself to bet on what I know to be the real odds-on facts.
I've scared myself writing one of Sunday's threads.
Margaret Thatcher's lowest point was in December 1981, two and half years after she became prime minister. Theresa May has only been there for one and a half years, so maybe it's a bit early to make judgements on how the rest of her premiership will develop.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
No, they won't be introduced. Not practical, not sensible and nobody has proposed it.
(So far as I know, you're the only person to even raise the idea as a concern.)
Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor was proposing to re-introduce such controls had Labour won the 1987 election.
The most left-wing Labour manifestos ever were probably 1983 and 1987. They would have taken us out of the EEC without a further vote. They went beyond allegedly 'left' manifestos of 1945, 1966 or 2017.
I seem to recall it then had a rethink. Even with John Smith, it was re-thinking...
One 'small' matter, the Treaty of Rome bans exchange controls.
I don't think Labour was committed to leaving the EEC at the 1987 election.As for the Treaty of Rome banning exchange controls , how come that the UK applied such controls until October 1979?
"Meanwhile, Labour face an electoral map that heavy favourites makes them, on paper at least, the next time."
You can back Labour for most seats on Betfair at 1.96 right now. They should be much shorter than that.
Stop scaring me.
And, also, ignore me on this subject.
I am normally ok at detaching confirmation bias from my betting. But this is one situation where I'm genuinely so terrified of the outcome, I can't bring myself to bet on what I know to be the real odds-on facts.
Though that article still says Labour is far more likely to be able to lead a minority government than actually win an overall majority.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
Has the EU actually explained what the £60bn is for exactly? loi Also could we just promise what they want and then drop it if we don't get a decent deal? Or do they actually want the money up front?
Some of it is clearly bullshit: why would we stump up EUR12bn to cover the risk that Ireland defaults on its bailout? (Even if you accepted the principle, we'd pay when they defaulted, not in advance. And it's all ridiculously academic as Ireland is not going to default given its debt-to-GDP is now below the UK and falling fast.)
Others have more substance; as in, even if you disagree there is a legal liability, you can understand their case. The EU is saying that the UK government agreed to the 2016 to 2020 budget, but now won't pay for the last two years of the period. (Although this will likely be finessed through us paying something during a two year transition period.)
It does make you wonder what happened to the legal advice HMG reportedly had, that got many Leavers excited, showing that the UK had no Brexit liability.
I think that still stands, in the event of a completely disorderly exit (not even a deal for 'no deal').
"Meanwhile, Labour face an electoral map that heavy favourites makes them, on paper at least, the next time."
You can back Labour for most seats on Betfair at 1.96 right now. They should be much shorter than that.
Stop scaring me.
And, also, ignore me on this subject.
I am normally ok at detaching confirmation bias from my betting. But this is one situation where I'm genuinely so terrified of the outcome, I can't bring myself to bet on what I know to be the real odds-on facts.
Though that article still says Labour is far more likely to be able to lead a minority government than actually win an overall majority.
Any day that Corbyn is Prime Minister of this country, is a dark day for this country.
It isn't Corbyn that really scares me if I'm honest, it is John McDonnell as Chancellor that really scares me.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
Margaret Thatcher's lowest point was in December 1981, two and half years after she became prime minister. Theresa May has only been there for one and a half years, so maybe it's a bit early to make judgements on how the rest of her premiership will develop.
Gallup/Telegraph opinion poll, 14th December 1981:
Alliance 50.5% Lab 23.5% Con 23.0%
MORI, 14th December 1981:
Alliance 43% Lab 29% Con 27%
Thatcher was resilient with fire in her belly, backed by intellectual substance and political skill. She only lost it after her 3rd election victory.
May is a phoney, and a broken reed. She lost it after her 1st election failure.
Intellectually feeble and utterly lacking in empathy . Slow to decide doesn’t equal deep thought. Shrill when not required silent when she should have said something.
She’s compared to Gordon Brown but that’s unfair on the latter. Harriet Harman’s the better comparison.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
Has the EU actually explained what the £60bn is for exactly? loi Also could we just promise what they want and then drop it if we don't get a decent deal? Or do they actually want the money up front?
Some of it is clearly bullshit: why would we stump up EUR12bn to cover the risk that Ireland defaults on its bailout? (Even if you accepted the principle, we'd pay when they defaulted, not in advance. And it's all ridiculously academic as Ireland is not going to default given its debt-to-GDP is now below the UK and falling fast.)
Others have more substance; as in, even if you disagree there is a legal liability, you can understand their case. The EU is saying that the UK government agreed to the 2016 to 2020 budget, but now won't pay for the last two years of the period. (Although this will likely be finessed through us paying something during a two year transition period.)
That was really helpful. A 50-60 billion bill sounds like where it will net out now we have accepted a transitional period.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
Has the EU actually explained what the £60bn is for exactly? loi Also could we just promise what they want and then drop it if we don't get a decent deal? Or do they actually want the money up front?
Some of it is clearly bullshit: why would we stump up EUR12bn to cover the risk that Ireland defaults on its bailout? (Even if you accepted the principle, we'd pay when they defaulted, not in advance. And it's all ridiculously academic as Ireland is not going to default given its debt-to-GDP is now below the UK and falling fast.)
Others have more substance; as in, even if you disagree there is a legal liability, you can understand their case. The EU is saying that the UK government agreed to the 2016 to 2020 budget, but now won't pay for the last two years of the period. (Although this will likely be finessed through us paying something during a two year transition period.)
Hang on, we agreed to pay until 2016 in exchange for the benefits of being in the EU (which includes the rebate and EU money being spent here and other such things).
If we don't get what we paid for then why would we be legally required to pay at all?
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
Has the EU actually explained what the £60bn is for exactly? loi Also could we just promise what they want and then drop it if we don't get a decent deal? Or do they actually want the money up front?
Some of it is clearly bullshit: why would we stump up EUR12bn to cover the risk that Ireland defaults on its bailout? (Even if you accepted the principle, we'd pay when they defaulted, not in advance. And it's all ridiculously academic as Ireland is not going to default given its debt-to-GDP is now below the UK and falling fast.)
Others have more substance; as in, even if you disagree there is a legal liability, you can understand their case. The EU is saying that the UK government agreed to the 2016 to 2020 budget, but now won't pay for the last two years of the period. (Although this will likely be finessed through us paying something during a two year transition period.)
I'm surprised that you didn't mention that the FT figures are speculation. TM has indicated that the UK will meet its obligations, and the EU has requested that the UK indicates the areas for which it accepts liability. As far as I'm aware, neither side has quantified the overall amount.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
Has the EU actually explained what the £60bn is for exactly? loi Also could we just promise what they want and then drop it if we don't get a decent deal? Or do they actually want the money up front?
Some of it is clearly bullshit: why would we stump up EUR12bn to cover the risk that Ireland defaults on its bailout? (Even if you accepted the principle, we'd pay when they defaulted, not in advance. And it's all ridiculously academic as Ireland is not going to default given its debt-to-GDP is now below the UK and falling fast.)
Others have more substance; as in, even if you disagree there is a legal liability, you can understand their case. The EU is saying that the UK government agreed to the 2016 to 2020 budget, but now won't pay for the last two years of the period. (Although this will likely be finessed through us paying something during a two year transition period.)
That was really helpful. A 50-60 billion bill sounds like where it will net out now we have accepted a transitional period.
I'd take it. Getting Brexit right is more important than quibbling over this. Do it, get a deal move on, and negate Brexit as a negative issue as much as possible.
Margaret Thatcher's lowest point was in December 1981, two and half years after she became prime minister. Theresa May has only been there for one and a half years, so maybe it's a bit early to make judgements on how the rest of her premiership will develop.
Gallup/Telegraph opinion poll, 14th December 1981:
Alliance 50.5% Lab 23.5% Con 23.0%
MORI, 14th December 1981:
Alliance 43% Lab 29% Con 27%
Thatcher was resilient with fire in her belly, backed by intellectual substance and political skill. She only lost it after her 3rd election victory.
May is a phoney, and a broken reed. She lost it after her 1st election failure.
Intellectually feeble and utterly lacking in empathy . Slow to decide doesn’t equal deep thought. Shrill when not required silent when she should have said something.
She’s compared to Gordon Brown but that’s unfair on the latter. Harriet Harman’s the better comparison.
When did Brown ever get 42% and 318 seats? Harman would have been quite a good Labour leader certainly better than he was for Labour.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
Has the EU actually explained what the £60bn is for exactly? loi Also could we just promise what they want and then drop it if we don't get a decent deal? Or do they actually want the money up front?
Some of it is clearly bullshit: why would we stump up EUR12bn to cover the risk that Ireland defaults on its bailout? (Even if you accepted the principle, we'd pay when they defaulted, not in advance. And it's all ridiculously academic as Ireland is not going to default given its debt-to-GDP is now below the UK and falling fast.)
Others have more substance; as in, even if you disagree there is a legal liability, you can understand their case. The EU is saying that the UK government agreed to the 2016 to 2020 budget, but now won't pay for the last two years of the period. (Although this will likely be finessed through us paying something during a two year transition period.)
It does make you wonder what happened to the legal advice HMG reportedly had, that got many Leavers excited, showing that the UK had no Brexit liability.
If legal opinions were worth the paper they are written on no case would ever get to court.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
"Meanwhile, Labour face an electoral map that heavy favourites makes them, on paper at least, the next time."
You can back Labour for most seats on Betfair at 1.96 right now. They should be much shorter than that.
Stop scaring me.
And, also, ignore me on this subject.
I am normally ok at detaching confirmation bias from my betting. But this is one situation where I'm genuinely so terrified of the outcome, I can't bring myself to bet on what I know to be the real odds-on facts.
Though that article still says Labour is far more likely to be able to lead a minority government than actually win an overall majority.
Any day that Corbyn is Prime Minister of this country, is a dark day for this country.
It isn't Corbyn that really scares me if I'm honest, it is John McDonnell as Chancellor that really scares me.
Don’t worry it will be fine.
That statement is brought to you by a person who was elected as a result of Blair and lost when Blair was PNG. I’m sure there’s a conclusion that one could draw but I’m struggling.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
Tell that to the voters then
As a Conservative party activist it’s you who should be practising that message because you’re the ones who are going to be asked to sell it.
"Meanwhile, Labour face an electoral map that heavy favourites makes them, on paper at least, the next time."
You can back Labour for most seats on Betfair at 1.96 right now. They should be much shorter than that.
Stop scaring me.
And, also, ignore me on this subject.
I am normally ok at detaching confirmation bias from my betting. But this is one situation where I'm genuinely so terrified of the outcome, I can't bring myself to bet on what I know to be the real odds-on facts.
Though that article still says Labour is far more likely to be able to lead a minority government than actually win an overall majority.
Any day that Corbyn is Prime Minister of this country, is a dark day for this country.
It isn't Corbyn that really scares me if I'm honest, it is John McDonnell as Chancellor that really scares me.
It is perfectly possible Corbyn could lead the next government even if the Tories win most seats as New Zealand Labour and Jacinda Ardern did yesterday.
As long as Labour lack a majority McDonnell can be tamed and the Tories able to be an effective opposition.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
Tell that to the voters then
As a Conservative party activist it’s you who should be practising that message because you’re the ones who are going to be asked to sell it.
No we are not, as I said May will be toppled if she agrees that much, Corbyn is more likely to end up paying it than the Tories if he forms a government before the end of 2019
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
Has the EU actually explained what the £60bn is for exactly? loi Also could we just promise what they want and then drop it if we don't get a decent deal? Or do they actually want the money up front?
Some of it is clearly bullshit: why would we stump up EUR12bn to cover the risk that Ireland defaults on its bailout? (Even if you accepted the principle, we'd pay when they defaulted, not in advance. And it's all ridiculously academic as Ireland is not going to default given its debt-to-GDP is now below the UK and falling fast.)
Others have more substance; as in, even if you disagree there is a legal liability, you can understand their case. The EU is saying that the UK government agreed to the 2016 to 2020 budget, but now won't pay for the last two years of the period. (Although this will likely be finessed through us paying something during a two year transition period.)
That was really helpful. A 50-60 billion bill sounds like where it will net out now we have accepted a transitional period.
I'd take it. Getting Brexit right is more important than quibbling over this. Do it, get a deal move on, and negate Brexit as a negative issue as much as possible.
It makes sense to only gradually accept it, because a swift acceptance would just get them demnding concessions elsewhere. But you are right. At the end of the day it is money we would be paying inside the EU anyway. That is the point the Tories should advertise when the deal is finally struck.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
Tell that to the voters then
The voters voted to leave the EU. They expect the government to get the best possible deal in the circumstances. If the choice is between paying £60bn for a smooth exit and a lot more for a cliff edge then the government is duty bound to go for the £60bn.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
Has the EU actually explained what the £60bn is for exactly? loi Also could we just promise what they want and then drop it if we don't get a decent deal? Or do they actually want the money up front?
Some of it is clearly bullshit: why would we stump up EUR12bn to cover the risk that Ireland defaults on its bailout? (Even if you accepted the principle, we'd pay when they defaulted, not in advance. And it's all ridiculously academic as Ireland is not going to default given its debt-to-GDP is now below the UK and falling fast.)
Others have more substance; as in, even if you disagree there is a legal liability, you can understand their case. The EU is saying that the UK government agreed to the 2016 to 2020 budget, but now won't pay for the last two years of the period. (Although this will likely be finessed through us paying something during a two year transition period.)
That was really helpful. A 50-60 billion bill sounds like where it will net out now we have accepted a transitional period.
I'd take it. Getting Brexit right is more important than quibbling over this. Do it, get a deal move on, and negate Brexit as a negative issue as much as possible.
It makes sense to only gradually accept it, because a swift acceptance would just get them demnding concessions elsewhere. But you are right. At the end of the day it is money we would be paying inside the EU anyway. That is the point the Tories should advertise when the deal is finally struck.
Seems a no brainer than for as long as we are within the EU or transitioning out that we need to pay at least in part.
Id be happy to keep paying if we had access to postive parts of the EU, it only make sense.
Let me guess "clarification" means paying them all the money they want.
I thought we had already clarified that we won't pay it? I suppose the EU likes asking the same question again and again until they get the answer they want.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
Tell that to the voters then
The voters voted to leave the EU. They expect the government to get the best possible deal in the circumstances. If the choice is between paying £60bn for a smooth exit and a lot more for a cliff edge then the government is duty bound to go for the £60bn.
No poll has shown the voters willing to pay anywhere near £60 billion to the EU of their, not the government's, money. The government only get revenue from taxpayers. Any government which pays that much to supposedly get the best deal will be doing so with public opinion against them. So the deal better be fantastic as a result.
"Meanwhile, Labour face an electoral map that heavy favourites makes them, on paper at least, the next time."
You can back Labour for most seats on Betfair at 1.96 right now. They should be much shorter than that.
Stop scaring me.
And, also, ignore me on this subject.
I am normally ok at detaching confirmation bias from my betting. But this is one situation where I'm genuinely so terrified of the outcome, I can't bring myself to bet on what I know to be the real odds-on facts.
Though that article still says Labour is far more likely to be able to lead a minority government than actually win an overall majority.
Any day that Corbyn is Prime Minister of this country, is a dark day for this country.
It isn't Corbyn that really scares me if I'm honest, it is John McDonnell as Chancellor that really scares me.
Don’t worry it will be fine.
That statement is brought to you by a person who was elected as a result of Blair and lost when Blair was PNG. I’m sure there’s a conclusion that one could draw but I’m struggling.
Took me a while to work out you meant persona non grata, not Papua New Guinea.
I am one such voter, and I cn tell you I am far less worried about Venezuelan scare stories than the gruesome reality of what I consider the worst piece of Government mismanagement since Lord North was in office.
I agree Peter. This current lot are so bad that I could not in all conscience vote for them. And that leaves me little choice since the LDs appear unelectable in terms of govt formation.
It depends a lot on who the candidates are. Last time round, I voted LD because the Labour incumbent, John Cryer, was pro-Brexit. That's all water under the bridge now, so he'll get my vote next time round- not that he'll need it.
Mind you, if the Tories put up a remainer, I would vote for him. Not very likely though.
If the review goes through (big if) you'll be in Ilford North
"Meanwhile, Labour face an electoral map that heavy favourites makes them, on paper at least, the next time."
You can back Labour for most seats on Betfair at 1.96 right now. They should be much shorter than that.
Stop scaring me.
And, also, ignore me on this subject.
I am normally ok at detaching confirmation bias from my betting. But this is one situation where I'm genuinely so terrified of the outcome, I can't bring myself to bet on what I know to be the real odds-on facts.
Though that article still says Labour is far more likely to be able to lead a minority government than actually win an overall majority.
Any day that Corbyn is Prime Minister of this country, is a dark day for this country.
It isn't Corbyn that really scares me if I'm honest, it is John McDonnell as Chancellor that really scares me.
Don’t worry it will be fine.
That statement is brought to you by a person who was elected as a result of Blair and lost when Blair was PNG. I’m sure there’s a conclusion that one could draw but I’m struggling.
Took me a while to work out you meant persona non grata, not Papua New Guinea.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I was going to say that I don't expect an analogous situation to arise any time soon, but it might apply to Trident: if we pay the ransom, the world will regard us as such a collection of girl's blouses that the suggestion we might ever actually use Trident goes from pretty improbable to absolutely not in any circumstances going to happen, ever. So if we pay the ransom we might as well scrap trident and any replacement. So we are net better off by at least £100 bn. Result!
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
Tell that to the voters then
The voters voted to leave the EU. They expect the government to get the best possible deal in the circumstances. If the choice is between paying £60bn for a smooth exit and a lot more for a cliff edge then the government is duty bound to go for the £60bn.
No poll has shown the voters willing to pay anywhere near £60 billion to the EU of their, not the government's, money. The government only get revenue from taxpayers. Any government which pays that much to supposedly get the best deal will be doing so with public opinion agaibst them.
The choice the voters face is either paying £60bn, or whatever the figure ends up at, or seeing the economy crash around their ears with billions wiped off property values, a prolonged slump and precipitate drop in their living standards. The government needs to take its head out of the sand and stop pretending that these very hard choices can be avoided.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I was going to say that I don't expect an analogous situation to arise any time soon, but it might apply to Trident: if we pay the ransom, the world will regard us as such a collection of girl's blouses that the suggestion we might ever actually use Trident goes from pretty improbable to absolutely not in any circumstances going to happen, ever. So if we pay the ransom we might as well scrap trident and any replacement. So we are net better off by at least £100 bn. Result!
Sounds great until we need a nuclear deterrent and haven't got one.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I was going to say that I don't expect an analogous situation to arise any time soon, but it might apply to Trident: if we pay the ransom, the world will regard us as such a collection of girl's blouses that the suggestion we might ever actually use Trident goes from pretty improbable to absolutely not in any circumstances going to happen, ever. So if we pay the ransom we might as well scrap trident and any replacement. So we are net better off by at least £100 bn. Result!
Sounds great until we need a nuclear deterrent and haven't got one.
But the point is that our deterrent would have ceased to deter, so it might as well stop being nuclear too.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
I think there's a second example I would use. Imagine if Scotland seceded from the UK. In those circumstances you would expect the new independent Scotland to take its share of the UK's pension and debt liabilities. (Or at least I would.) Again, taking the view of someone in Berlin or Copenhagen, wouldn't you expect the UK to take on its share of those liabilities of the EU?
As it happens, I think this will end up being sorted in a pretty creative way. We want a two year transitional period. During that period we will make payments to the EU equivalent to (say) our previous net - say EUR12bn/year. We'll take our share of the Irish bailout in Irish government bonds, and therefore eliminate the contingent liability issues. And we'll move British Eurocrat and MEP pensions to the UK (which will probably mean the actual sums involved will be a fraction of those quoted today).
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I was going to say that I don't expect an analogous situation to arise any time soon, but it might apply to Trident: if we pay the ransom, the world will regard us as such a collection of girl's blouses that the suggestion we might ever actually use Trident goes from pretty improbable to absolutely not in any circumstances going to happen, ever. So if we pay the ransom we might as well scrap trident and any replacement. So we are net better off by at least £100 bn. Result!
Sounds great until we need a nuclear deterrent and haven't got one.
But the point is that our deterrent would have ceased to deter, so it might as well stop being nuclear too.
I'm sure the fact that nukes exist and we can use them will give some pause for thought. But yes we would look like total pushovers if we cave over the made up brexit bill.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
No, they won't be introduced. Not practical, not sensible and nobody has proposed it.
(So far as I know, you're the only person to even raise the idea as a concern.)
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
Tell that to the voters then
If the Tories' primary concern was to do what the voters wanted they would be nationalising the railways, alongside energy and water companies.
As it happens, I think this will end up being sorted in a pretty creative way. We want a two year transitional period. During that period we will make payments to the EU equivalent to (say) our previous net - say EUR12bn/year. We'll take our share of the Irish bailout in Irish government bonds, and therefore eliminate the contingent liability issues. And we'll move British Eurocrat and MEP pensions to the UK (which will probably mean the actual sums involved will be a fraction of those quoted today).
Payments for the transition cannot be set against past liabilities. That would be 'pay to play' for something new.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
Tell that to the voters then
Isn't it the job of the government to do what is right for the voters, not what gives a short term boost in the polls?
Because if a cliff edge Brexit leads to a serious recession, then I don't think many of the newly unemployed will be sitting around saying "well, I may not have a job, but at least the national debt didn't go from £1,715bn to £1,750bn."
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
But the point is that our deterrent would have ceased to deter, so it might as well stop being nuclear too.
Not if we get a deal that is worth the money. Especially since as RCS says the actual financial figures will be spun as a lot less in the end through accounting for many issues separately.
Taking on British pension liabilities to resolve the pensions issue is for instance eminently reasonable and not something that anyone would think we have unreasonably folded on.
The issue is that the EU may not agree to this though as by my understanding British employees of the EU make a much smaller share of the liabilities than our current expenditure makes up. Therefore we owe less paying our own pensioners than paying our current share of all pensioners.
I've scared myself writing one of Sunday's threads.
JRM vs Diane Abbott at the 2022 General election
That would be great, I tipped Diane Abbott as Corbyn's successor at 100/1, to much derision.
JRM v Richard Burgon would be very terrifying.
We're very much in an unreality of anti-politics. The Tories have decided that the film Interstellar is a good idea - the best way to break free of the clutches of the EU is accelerate towards the event horizon in the hope that the laws of gravity will be changed by the time we get there - they need us more than we need them remember.
The Labour Party have already been through the black hole twice - and found that things work backwards on this side. Gaffs that would bury a normal leader only make Jezbollah stronger. JRM as we know is a fabulous gentleman, erudite, intelligent, visibly a Tory in the hazy recollection after an afternoon port kind of way. And through the event horizon everything works backwards. So obviously it has to be him, once we fall through with the inevitable brexit of hardness.
And Diane? We need a woman. His Sanctimoniousness will want to go tend his allotment in 5 years time, so if has to be the one person who is even more holy than He. Diane of the Abbott.
Policy? People? Jobs? Lives? Don't be silly, this is politics...
As it happens, I think this will end up being sorted in a pretty creative way. We want a two year transitional period. During that period we will make payments to the EU equivalent to (say) our previous net - say EUR12bn/year. We'll take our share of the Irish bailout in Irish government bonds, and therefore eliminate the contingent liability issues. And we'll move British Eurocrat and MEP pensions to the UK (which will probably mean the actual sums involved will be a fraction of those quoted today).
Payments for the transition cannot be set against past liabilities. That would be 'pay to play' for something new.
Did you read the breakdown of the bill in the FT?
EUR27bn is for spending in 2019-2020 for the last two years of the EU's five year budget. If we are paying that money in in the period, then that hole in the EU's finances disappears.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
From their perspective they have no desire to stop our benefits, we have chosen to stop our benefits.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
Tell that to the voters then
The voters voted to leave the EU. They expect the government to get the best possible deal in the circumstances. If the choice is between paying £60bn for a smooth exit and a lot more for a cliff edge then the government is duty bound to go for the £60bn.
Voters voted to put the UK into a negotiation in which the other side holds all the aces. The government does not have the ability to tell voters this because so many of its senior ministers said the precise opposite in the lead-up to the referendum. This is a problem rooted entirely within the Conservative party.
rcs1000 - but the EU doesn't seem to be presenting a case, and the speeches a few months ago by Varadkar and Macron about the money they intended to screw out of the UK were not in the language of a reasonable statement of the facts in the case.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
Please.
My view is that we should pay as little as possible, and if the bill is usurious we should be prepared to walk away. (Which, by the way, means we should have been preparing for WTO from June 2016.)
But you're not doing a good job of seeing it from the view of the person you're negotiating with. You describe it demanding money with menaces. Do you really think that is how the Danish or Swedish government sees it?
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
Tell that to the voters then
TM appears to be to weak or scared to tell the voters - it's her job.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
From their perspective they have no desire to stop our benefits, we have chosen to stop our benefits.
Yes and we've chosen to stop paying for them as well. If they want some more money then they need to offer us something for it. It's not really rocket science this.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
Tell that to the voters then
The voters voted to leave the EU. They expect the government to get the best possible deal in the circumstances. If the choice is between paying £60bn for a smooth exit and a lot more for a cliff edge then the government is duty bound to go for the £60bn.
Voters voted to put the UK into a negotiation in which the other side holds all the aces. The government does not have the ability to tell voters this because so many of its senior ministers said the precise opposite in the lead-up to the referendum. This is a problem rooted entirely within the Conservative party.
Perhaps. Could you remind me of the arguments that the Labour Party expressed for retaining membership and the enthusiasm with which they sold them.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
Tell that to the voters then
The voters voted to leave the EU. They expect the government to get the best possible deal in the circumstances. If the choice is between paying £60bn for a smooth exit and a lot more for a cliff edge then the government is duty bound to go for the £60bn.
Voters voted to put the UK into a negotiation in which the other side holds all the aces. The government does not have the ability to tell voters this because so many of its senior ministers said the precise opposite in the lead-up to the referendum. This is a problem rooted entirely within the Conservative party.
Indeed it is. The pity is that they have chosen to trash the country rather than confess their mistake.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
A cliff-edge Brexit would cost the UK economy a great deal more than £60bn.
Tell that to the voters then
The voters voted to leave the EU. They expect the government to get the best possible deal in the circumstances. If the choice is between paying £60bn for a smooth exit and a lot more for a cliff edge then the government is duty bound to go for the £60bn.
Voters voted to put the UK into a negotiation in which the other side holds all the aces. The government does not have the ability to tell voters this because so many of its senior ministers said the precise opposite in the lead-up to the referendum. This is a problem rooted entirely within the Conservative party.
Perhaps. Could you remind me of the arguments that the Labour Party expressed for retaining membership and the enthusiasm with which they sold them.
Who cares? We are where we are. The Tories own Brexit.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
From their perspective they have no desire to stop our benefits, we have chosen to stop our benefits.
Yes and we've chosen to stop paying for them as well. If they want some more money then they need to offer us something for it. It's not really rocket science this.
I don't have much of a clue about this, but isn't it a bit like a mobile phone contract? If you sign up to pay £40 per month for 2 years in return for mobile phone services, you can't simply stop using your phone and stop paying after a year. In the same way, we've signed up to certain commitments with the EU, and we can't simply renege on those commitments because we've decided we don't want the benefits.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
Please.
My view is that we should pay as little as possible, and if the bill is usurious we should be prepared to walk away. (Which, by the way, means we should have been preparing for WTO from June 2016.)
But you're not doing a good job of seeing it from the view of the person you're negotiating with. You describe it demanding money with menaces. Do you really think that is how the Danish or Swedish government sees it?
Actually I genuinely believe it is the way the EU as a whole sees it. They want to make an example of the UK to deter anyone else from leaving. They are not being reasonable in the process at all.
Can you think of any concessions they have come up with (even just verbally) to move negotiations at all? They are not acting in good faith.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
No, they won't be introduced. Not practical, not sensible and nobody has proposed it.
(So far as I know, you're the only person to even raise the idea as a concern.)
Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor was proposing to re-introduce such controls had Labour won the 1987 election.
The most left-wing Labour manifestos ever were probably 1983 and 1987. They would have taken us out of the EEC without a further vote. They went beyond allegedly 'left' manifestos of 1945, 1966 or 2017.
I seem to recall it then had a rethink. Even with John Smith, it was re-thinking...
One 'small' matter, the Treaty of Rome bans exchange controls.
I don't think Labour was committed to leaving the EEC at the 1987 election.As for the Treaty of Rome banning exchange controls , how come that the UK applied such controls until October 1979?
I assume because it was politically awkward to abandon them earlier. Thatcher embraced a 'capitalist club' and the Labour left didn't like the EEC in those days. Free movement of labour and capital is in the Treaty of Rome, like 'ever closer union'. Free movement of both these factors of production is, er, part of capitalism.
Delays in meeting EU rules seem to be not uncommon. The UK found it awkward to meet the EU Air Quality Directive by the due date of 2010 and has been sued twice by Client Earth, possibly now for a 3rd time. The Commission sued it earlier. So far, the score is 3-0.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
From their perspective they have no desire to stop our benefits, we have chosen to stop our benefits.
Yes and we've chosen to stop paying for them as well. If they want some more money then they need to offer us something for it. It's not really rocket science this.
I agree but from their perspective we can't unilaterally choose to stop paying for them (personally I disagree, I think Art 50 gives us that right). But we need to reach agreement with them so compromise is reasonable.
Excellent news if true. We should stop this macho posturing about the bill. Just cough up the money, get us an optimal deal, and give us all a good night's sleep.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
From their perspective they have no desire to stop our benefits, we have chosen to stop our benefits.
Yes and we've chosen to stop paying for them as well. If they want some more money then they need to offer us something for it. It's not really rocket science this.
I don't have much of a clue about this, but isn't it a bit like a mobile phone contract? If you sign up to pay £40 per month for 2 years in return for mobile phone services, you can't simply stop using your phone and stop paying after a year. In the same way, we've signed up to certain commitments with the EU, and we can't simply renege on those commitments because we've decided we don't want the benefits.
Yes, you need to give notice that you're cancelling the contract.
Article 50 is the formal process of giving notice to this effect so of course we will pay the two years we are in the EU between triggering art 50 and Brexiting.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
Please.
My view is that we should pay as little as possible, and if the bill is usurious we should be prepared to walk away. (Which, by the way, means we should have been preparing for WTO from June 2016.)
But you're not doing a good job of seeing it from the view of the person you're negotiating with. You describe it demanding money with menaces. Do you really think that is how the Danish or Swedish government sees it?
Actually I genuinely believe it is the way the EU as a whole sees it. They want to make an example of the UK to deter anyone else from leaving. They are not being reasonable in the process at all.
Can you think of any concessions they have come up with (even just verbally) to move negotiations at all? They are not acting in good faith.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
From their perspective they have no desire to stop our benefits, we have chosen to stop our benefits.
Yes and we've chosen to stop paying for them as well. If they want some more money then they need to offer us something for it. It's not really rocket science this.
I agree but from their perspective we can't unilaterally choose to stop paying for them (personally I disagree, I think Art 50 gives us that right). But we need to reach agreement with them so compromise is reasonable.
Compromise yes. What is the EU side of the compromise here exactly? They have offered nothing at all.
Anthony Wells has shown voters have no concept of the size of the divorce bill anyway.
If you give them 3 numbers:
5, 15, 30 - they'll say 5 is OK, 30 is outrageous
30, 60, 90 - they'll say 30 is OK, 90 is outrageous
So figure doesn't actually matter at all - what does matter will be the presentation, mood music, media spin etc etc.
If narrative is that overall it's the best deal we can get and overall it's good for UK then it'll be accepted as fine. Might even give May a polling boost.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
From their perspective they have no desire to stop our benefits, we have chosen to stop our benefits.
Yes and we've chosen to stop paying for them as well. If they want some more money then they need to offer us something for it. It's not really rocket science this.
I agree but from their perspective we can't unilaterally choose to stop paying for them (personally I disagree, I think Art 50 gives us that right). But we need to reach agreement with them so compromise is reasonable.
Compromise yes. What is the EU side of the compromise here exactly? They have offered nothing at all.
It's not a negotiation, it's an exit. This is what we voted for. We either follow the rules of the game or we inflict sustained long-term damage on the UK economy and the living standards of tens of millions of people.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
No, they won't be introduced. Not practical, not sensible and nobody has proposed it.
(So far as I know, you're the only person to even raise the idea as a concern.)
Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor was proposing to re-introduce such controls had Labour won the 1987 election.
The most left-wing Labour manifestos ever were probably 1983 and 1987. They would have taken us out of the EEC without a further vote. They went beyond allegedly 'left' manifestos of 1945, 1966 or 2017.
I seem to recall it then had a rethink. Even with John Smith, it was re-thinking...
One 'small' matter, the Treaty of Rome bans exchange controls.
I don't think Labour was committed to leaving the EEC at the 1987 election.As for the Treaty of Rome banning exchange controls , how come that the UK applied such controls until October 1979?
I assume because it was politically awkward to abandon them earlier. Thatcher embraced a 'capitalist club' and the Labour left didn't like the EEC in those days. Free movement of labour and capital is in the Treaty of Rome, like 'ever closer union'. Free movement of both these factors of production is, er, part of capitalism.
Delays in meeting EU rules seem to be not uncommon. The UK found it awkward to meet the EU Air Quality Directive by the due date of 2010 and has been sued twice by Client Earth, possibly now for a 3rd time. The Commission sued it earlier. So far, the score is 3-0.
But the fact that the UK was permitted to join the EEC in January 1973 despite its exchange control policies - and had given no commitment to remove them - clearly implied that such policies were not inconsistent with membership. Labour abandoned its anti-EEC policy in the course of the 1983 Parliament.
But the fact that the UK was permitted to join the EEC in January 1973 despite its exchange control policies - and had given no commitment to remove them - clearly implied that such policies were not inconsistent with membership. Labour abandoned its anti-EEC policy in the course of the 1983 Parliament.
We had quite a long transitional period after joining, similar to the one that applied to the eastern European members more recently.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
From their perspective they have no desire to stop our benefits, we have chosen to stop our benefits.
Yes and we've chosen to stop paying for them as well. If they want some more money then they need to offer us something for it. It's not really rocket science this.
I agree but from their perspective we can't unilaterally choose to stop paying for them (personally I disagree, I think Art 50 gives us that right). But we need to reach agreement with them so compromise is reasonable.
Compromise yes. What is the EU side of the compromise here exactly? They have offered nothing at all.
As Robert Smithson has pointed out, nothing is agreed till everything is agreed. Money is one of our main bargaining chips. If we offer money, and are then told to get lost, then we take the offer back.
Of Plaid's 4 seats, 2 have majorities of only around 100 votes, so it probably not surprising that they do not want an early General election, as Leanne Wood has made clear:
Ms Wood said: “The big question for us is the 2021 Assembly elections. “We have no idea, no one does, on what’s going to happen in Westminster. “I hope there isn’t another snap election, we do need some stability now on the Westminster front"
Anthony Wells has shown voters have no concept of the size of the divorce bill anyway.
If you give then 3 numbers:
5, 15, 30 - they'll say 5 is OK, 30 is outrageous
30, 60, 90 - they'll say 30 is OK, 90 is outrageous
So figure doesn't actually matter at all - what does matter will be the presentation, mood music, media spin etc etc.
If narrative is that overall it's the best deal we can get and overall it's good for UK then it'll be accepted as fine. Might even give May a polling boost.
I agree. A decent deal from here could be good news for the Tories.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
From their perspective they have no desire to stop our benefits, we have chosen to stop our benefits.
Yes and we've chosen to stop paying for them as well. If they want some more money then they need to offer us something for it. It's not really rocket science this.
I agree but from their perspective we can't unilaterally choose to stop paying for them (personally I disagree, I think Art 50 gives us that right). But we need to reach agreement with them so compromise is reasonable.
Compromise yes. What is the EU side of the compromise here exactly? They have offered nothing at all.
It's not a negotiation, it's an exit. This is what we voted for. We either follow the rules of the game or we inflict sustained long-term damage on the UK economy and the living standards of tens of millions of people.
It shows what a mistake signing up to the project in the first place doesn't it?
In honestly baffles me the amount of people who are taking the EU's side in this despite them being completely unreasonable in the whole negotiations. It's like they are enjoying seeing us punished for not wanting to join a European superstate against the wishes of the population.
Who cares? We are where we are. The Tories own Brexit.
"own" is a weaselly metaphor. You can attack the things that bookend brexit: it was a tory referendum, so you could blame them that it happened at all. But we turned out in large numbers to vote for or against it, with no one that I remember saying it should be boycotted in principle, so that doesn't work. You will also be able to blame the tories for cocking up the implementation - that may well happen but it hasn't yet. But brexit itself is "owned" by the electorate.
Excellent news if true. We should stop this macho posturing about the bill. Just cough up the money, get us an optimal deal, and give us all a good night's sleep.
And just how much will they try and extort for the second part of the negotiations?
Excellent news if true. We should stop this macho posturing about the bill. Just cough up the money, get us an optimal deal, and give us all a good night's sleep.
Excellent news if true. We should stop this macho posturing about the bill. Just cough up the money, get us an optimal deal, and give us all a good night's sleep.
Yep, I agree with that.
Yes well of course that is the ultimate plan. But it can't be done sequentially as @Stark_Dawning seems to imply. If you agree to cough up the money, you don't get an optimal deal.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
From their perspective they have no desire to stop our benefits, we have chosen to stop our benefits.
Yes and we've chosen to stop paying for them as well. If they want some more money then they need to offer us something for it. It's not really rocket science this.
I agree but from their perspective we can't unilaterally choose to stop paying for them (personally I disagree, I think Art 50 gives us that right). But we need to reach agreement with them so compromise is reasonable.
Compromise yes. What is the EU side of the compromise here exactly? They have offered nothing at all.
It's not a negotiation, it's an exit. This is what we voted for. We either follow the rules of the game or we inflict sustained long-term damage on the UK economy and the living standards of tens of millions of people.
It shows what a mistake signing up to the project in the first place doesn't it?
In honestly baffles me the amount of people who are taking the EU's side in this despite them being completely unreasonable in the whole negotiations. It's like they are enjoying seeing us punished for not wanting to join a European superstate against the wishes of the population.
I agree that it was a mistake to join, but we are where we are.
Who cares? We are where we are. The Tories own Brexit.
"own" is a weaselly metaphor. You can attack the things that bookend brexit: it was a tory referendum, so you could blame them that it happened at all. But we turned out in large numbers to vote for or against it, with no one that I remember saying it should be boycotted in principle, so that doesn't work. You will also be able to blame the tories for cocking up the implementation - that may well happen but it hasn't yet. But brexit itself is "owned" by the electorate.
Who cares? We are where we are. The Tories own Brexit.
"own" is a weaselly metaphor. You can attack the things that bookend brexit: it was a tory referendum, so you could blame them that it happened at all. But we turned out in large numbers to vote for or against it, with no one that I remember saying it should be boycotted in principle, so that doesn't work. You will also be able to blame the tories for cocking up the implementation - that may well happen but it hasn't yet. But brexit itself is "owned" by the electorate.
So when it all goes tits up and the economy is in freefall the government is supposed to say to voters "well, you voted for this so you own it mate?"
Anthony Wells has shown voters have no concept of the size of the divorce bill anyway.
If you give then 3 numbers:
5, 15, 30 - they'll say 5 is OK, 30 is outrageous
30, 60, 90 - they'll say 30 is OK, 90 is outrageous
So figure doesn't actually matter at all - what does matter will be the presentation, mood music, media spin etc etc.
If narrative is that overall it's the best deal we can get and overall it's good for UK then it'll be accepted as fine. Might even give May a polling boost.
I agree. A decent deal from here could be good news for the Tories.
Absolutely. Properly marketed, the bill, however large it is, would be seen as a long-term investment that would secure the countries future for aeons. Yes, the Tory party might have fit and elect Rees-Mogg as leader, who would lose to Corbyn. But they would be only temporary mishaps.
Anthony Wells has shown voters have no concept of the size of the divorce bill anyway.
If you give them 3 numbers:
5, 15, 30 - they'll say 5 is OK, 30 is outrageous
30, 60, 90 - they'll say 30 is OK, 90 is outrageous
So figure doesn't actually matter at all - what does matter will be the presentation, mood music, media spin etc etc.
If narrative is that overall it's the best deal we can get and overall it's good for UK then it'll be accepted as fine. Might even give May a polling boost.
Most people don't even tune in to whether a given number is millions or billions (I'm not even sure that a majority of the population would get the ratio right unprompted - one for YouGov perhaps?)
Anthony Wells has shown voters have no concept of the size of the divorce bill anyway.
If you give then 3 numbers:
5, 15, 30 - they'll say 5 is OK, 30 is outrageous
30, 60, 90 - they'll say 30 is OK, 90 is outrageous
So figure doesn't actually matter at all - what does matter will be the presentation, mood music, media spin etc etc.
If narrative is that overall it's the best deal we can get and overall it's good for UK then it'll be accepted as fine. Might even give May a polling boost.
I agree. A decent deal from here could be good news for the Tories.
Exactly. And encouragingly, people seem to have an extraordinary blind spot when it comes to accounting. Consider this story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11438287/George-Osborne-wrong-to-claim-he-halved-1.7billion-EU-Bill-say-MPs.html George says he has halved a £1.7 bn bill when he hasn't, he has just deferred payment of half of it. And nobody minds, except the very few hoity toity MPs quoted in the article. People just glaze over at difficult concepts like how net differs from gross. There is therefore ample opportunity for creative presentation of the numbers in the final deal.
It might well do, but there is a principle at stake here as well as money.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
I think it's really important that you take a step back and employ a bit of empathy.
Imagine the EU.
Now, commitments.
We agreed to that 5 year spending bill in exchange for benefits from the EU. They want to stop our benefits (and not even negotiate any we may want to keep) but still want us to pay the bill in full.
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
From their perspective they have no desire to stop our benefits, we have chosen to stop our benefits.
Yes and we've chosen to stop paying for them as well. If they want some more money then they need to offer us something for it. It's not really rocket science this.
I agree but from their perspective we can't unilaterally choose to stop paying for them (personally I disagree, I think Art 50 gives us that right). But we need to reach agreement with them so compromise is reasonable.
Compromise yes. What is the EU side of the compromise here exactly? They have offered nothing at all.
It's not a negotiation, it's an exit. This is what we voted for. We either follow the rules of the game or we inflict sustained long-term damage on the UK economy and the living standards of tens of millions of people.
It shows what a mistake signing up to the project in the first place doesn't it?
In honestly baffles me the amount of people who are taking the EU's side in this despite them being completely unreasonable in the whole negotiations. It's like they are enjoying seeing us punished for not wanting to join a European superstate against the wishes of the population.
I am not taking the EU's side. I am merely stating that what is happening now is the result of the vote and May's subsequent decision to trigger Article 50. Paying £40 billion or £50 billion is not a punishment. It opens up the way to do a trade deal that all sides want. The punishment - a self-inflicted one - would be what happens if we do not pay a sum the EU27 find acceptable.
1) Parliament does vote on deal at the end 2) Deal is widely accepted as OK except some think divorce bill too high
Q: What does Lab do?
It's generally been thought Lab will vote against Govt come what may to try to prompt circumstances leading to a GE. But that could be dangerous in above scenario.
If Lab does vote against, vote could be tight. Remember the likes of Hoey and Stringer will vote with the Govt - probably approx 8 Lab MPs. So 15 Con MPs must vote against to defeat it.
I agree that it was a mistake to join, but we are where we are.
If we hadn't joined, the UK probably would have broken up in the 80s. We had a 40 year stay of execution before the itch to push the button marked 'oblivion' became overwhelming.
Comments
Mrs Thatcher's first general election whilst as PM she was up against an unelectable far left Labour leader who many thought was unelectable and destroy Labour.
Oh wait.
Mrs Thatcher wasn't stupid enough to call a snap election that wiped out the Tory majority.
May is a phoney, and a broken reed. She lost it after her 1st election failure.
It isn't Corbyn that really scares me if I'm honest, it is John McDonnell as Chancellor that really scares me.
She’s compared to Gordon Brown but that’s unfair on the latter. Harriet Harman’s the better comparison.
If we don't get what we paid for then why would we be legally required to pay at all?
JRM v Richard Burgon would be very terrifying.
That statement is brought to you by a person who was elected as a result of Blair and lost when Blair was PNG. I’m sure there’s a conclusion that one could draw but I’m struggling.
As long as Labour lack a majority McDonnell can be tamed and the Tories able to be an effective opposition.
Organisations just demanding money with menaces to the British government can piss off as far as I'm concerned. It's the same principle as paying ransom money in hostage situations. It'll end up costing you more in the long run.
Id be happy to keep paying if we had access to postive parts of the EU, it only make sense.
I thought we had already clarified that we won't pay it? I suppose the EU likes asking the same question again and again until they get the answer they want.
Looking forward to the mental gymnastics of Remainers blasting May for paying out less than we would have had we stayed in.
I do wonder if hyping up lack of a deal and a cliff edge may come back to bite Labour in the end.
If May gets a deal in circumstances where a deal was difficult then surely she's due credit ?
Right now any deal, no matter how bad, will seem like a good deal.
So long planes can land and take off and Dover isn't clogged up on Brexit Day, the deal will be seen as a success.
Imagine you are the French foreign minister. 18 months ago you sat in a room with your British counterpart and argued and debated and compromised to reach agreement on the next five year's spending plans for the EU.
Now, rightly or wrongly, that man feels we have backed away from our commitments that we signed on the dotted line for. I'm not making a judgement on the merits of the case, merely pointing out that from his point of view, we're not honoring our commitments.
I think there's a second example I would use. Imagine if Scotland seceded from the UK. In those circumstances you would expect the new independent Scotland to take its share of the UK's pension and debt liabilities. (Or at least I would.) Again, taking the view of someone in Berlin or Copenhagen, wouldn't you expect the UK to take on its share of those liabilities of the EU?
As it happens, I think this will end up being sorted in a pretty creative way. We want a two year transitional period. During that period we will make payments to the EU equivalent to (say) our previous net - say EUR12bn/year. We'll take our share of the Irish bailout in Irish government bonds, and therefore eliminate the contingent liability issues. And we'll move British Eurocrat and MEP pensions to the UK (which will probably mean the actual sums involved will be a fraction of those quoted today).
Because if a cliff edge Brexit leads to a serious recession, then I don't think many of the newly unemployed will be sitting around saying "well, I may not have a job, but at least the national debt didn't go from £1,715bn to £1,750bn."
Can't you see why that is unreasonable?
Taking on British pension liabilities to resolve the pensions issue is for instance eminently reasonable and not something that anyone would think we have unreasonably folded on.
The issue is that the EU may not agree to this though as by my understanding British employees of the EU make a much smaller share of the liabilities than our current expenditure makes up. Therefore we owe less paying our own pensioners than paying our current share of all pensioners.
The Labour Party have already been through the black hole twice - and found that things work backwards on this side. Gaffs that would bury a normal leader only make Jezbollah stronger. JRM as we know is a fabulous gentleman, erudite, intelligent, visibly a Tory in the hazy recollection after an afternoon port kind of way. And through the event horizon everything works backwards. So obviously it has to be him, once we fall through with the inevitable brexit of hardness.
And Diane? We need a woman. His Sanctimoniousness will want to go tend his allotment in 5 years time, so if has to be the one person who is even more holy than He. Diane of the Abbott.
Policy? People? Jobs? Lives? Don't be silly, this is politics...
EUR27bn is for spending in 2019-2020 for the last two years of the EU's five year budget. If we are paying that money in in the period, then that hole in the EU's finances disappears.
Our foreign secretary could even deliver each cheque
My view is that we should pay as little as possible, and if the bill is usurious we should be prepared to walk away. (Which, by the way, means we should have been preparing for WTO from June 2016.)
But you're not doing a good job of seeing it from the view of the person you're negotiating with. You describe it demanding money with menaces. Do you really think that is how the Danish or Swedish government sees it?
Brexit deadlock talk 'exaggerated' - Tusk
Does anyone else feel we are getting the classic good cop/bad cop treatment?
Can you think of any concessions they have come up with (even just verbally) to move negotiations at all? They are not acting in good faith.
Delays in meeting EU rules seem to be not uncommon. The UK found it awkward to meet the EU Air Quality Directive by the due date of 2010 and has been sued twice by Client Earth, possibly now for a 3rd time. The Commission sued it earlier. So far, the score is 3-0.
Article 50 is the formal process of giving notice to this effect so of course we will pay the two years we are in the EU between triggering art 50 and Brexiting.
If you give them 3 numbers:
5, 15, 30 - they'll say 5 is OK, 30 is outrageous
30, 60, 90 - they'll say 30 is OK, 90 is outrageous
So figure doesn't actually matter at all - what does matter will be the presentation, mood music, media spin etc etc.
If narrative is that overall it's the best deal we can get and overall it's good for UK then it'll be accepted as fine. Might even give May a polling boost.
Labour abandoned its anti-EEC policy in the course of the 1983 Parliament.
Ms Wood said: “The big question for us is the 2021 Assembly elections.
“We have no idea, no one does, on what’s going to happen in Westminster.
“I hope there isn’t another snap election, we do need some stability now on the Westminster front"
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/local-elections-more-important-plaid-13787102
In honestly baffles me the amount of people who are taking the EU's side in this despite them being completely unreasonable in the whole negotiations. It's like they are enjoying seeing us punished for not wanting to join a European superstate against the wishes of the population.
Good luck with that on the doorstep!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11438287/George-Osborne-wrong-to-claim-he-halved-1.7billion-EU-Bill-say-MPs.html
George says he has halved a £1.7 bn bill when he hasn't, he has just deferred payment of half of it. And nobody minds, except the very few hoity toity MPs quoted in the article. People just glaze over at difficult concepts like how net differs from gross. There is therefore ample opportunity for creative presentation of the numbers in the final deal.
1) Parliament does vote on deal at the end
2) Deal is widely accepted as OK except some think divorce bill too high
Q: What does Lab do?
It's generally been thought Lab will vote against Govt come what may to try to prompt circumstances leading to a GE. But that could be dangerous in above scenario.
If Lab does vote against, vote could be tight. Remember the likes of Hoey and Stringer will vote with the Govt - probably approx 8 Lab MPs. So 15 Con MPs must vote against to defeat it.