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 would be only temporary mishaps.
Yep, all this bother is being caused by divisions inside the Conservative party. The problem is that for a lot of Tory MPs, Brexit is a religion, not a pragmatic process, and for several cabinet ministers it is a career opportunity. They are what stands in the way of us getting to talks on trade.
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 would be only temporary mishaps.
Yep, all this bother is being caused by divisions inside the Conservative party. The problem is that for a lot of Tory MPs, Brexit is a religion, not a pragmatic process, and for several cabinet ministers it is a career opportunity. They are what stands in the way of us getting to talks on trade.
The UK gave away money for a promise of CAP reform. Look how well that went.
The UK gave away money for a promise of CAP reform. Look how well that went.
Who told you that was the deal? Blair? And when did you start trusting his word?
Besides, there has been significant reform of the CAP over the years, as well as liberalisation of agricultural imports to the EU, combined with the banning of agricultural export subsidies.
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.
So they could demand any amount and that would be acceptable?
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.
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.
Indeed so - but there was no commitment to removing exchange controls at all.
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 would be only temporary mishaps.
Yep, all this bother is being caused by divisions inside the Conservative party. The problem is that for a lot of Tory MPs, Brexit is a religion, not a pragmatic process, and for several cabinet ministers it is a career opportunity. They are what stands in the way of us getting to talks on trade.
I don't think there's any evidence of that. We appear to be getting to talks on trade.
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"
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.
So they could demand any amount and that would be acceptable?
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.
Agreeing to pay a sum is not the same as paying it. Once we get past this point and the money is metaphorically banked by the EU27 our position actually gets that bit stronger as they have an incentive to sort out a trade deal that works for the UK.
"However, if you've been to university and moved in certain circles there is a pretty strong chance that you've encountered the infamous white powder."
In my experience, it just turns people into total twats.
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.
So they could demand any amount and that would be acceptable?
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.
Agreeing to pay a sum is not the same as paying it. Once we get past this point and the money is metaphorically banked by the EU27 our position actually gets that bit stronger as they have an incentive to sort out a trade deal that works for the UK.
Aren’t the two steps totally separate in their eyes?
Mr. JS, I do wonder about 1 in X type stats. The numbers for anti-depressant users or the disabled are very high (I think it's either 1 in 6 or 10 for the former). Likewise the number of men who have apparently availed themselves of prostitutes.
Or maybe I live a wonderful sheltered life wherein people read classical history and are delightful civilised, isolated from the harsh grime of modern reality.
Mr. JS, I do wonder about 1 in X type stats. The numbers for anti-depressant users or the disabled are very high (I think it's either 1 in 6 or 10 for the former). Likewise the number of men who have apparently availed themselves of prostitutes.
Or maybe I live a wonderful sheltered life wherein people read classical history and are delightful civilised, isolated from the harsh grime of modern reality.
Didnt I read somewhere that 1 in 10 men have their own full-sized trebuchet? Lucky gits....
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.
So they could demand any amount and that would be acceptable?
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.
Agreeing to pay a sum is not the same as paying it. Once we get past this point and the money is metaphorically banked by the EU27 our position actually gets that bit stronger as they have an incentive to sort out a trade deal that works for the UK.
Aren’t the two steps totally separate in their eyes?
No because they've agreed to the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".
Once we've agreed a sum we then talk about trade but if the trade deal falls apart we can leave without the sum. We don't transfer them the sum before the trade deals start.
Mr. D, you can get (or could, from Firebox) desktop-sized trebuchets. Looked rather good.
The advantage of a trebuchet-based justice system is that when you're hurtling through the air towards the cold embrace of the North Sea, nobody can hear you advocate ethnic quotas.
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.
So they could demand any amount and that would be acceptable?
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.
Agreeing to pay a sum is not the same as paying it. Once we get past this point and the money is metaphorically banked by the EU27 our position actually gets that bit stronger as they have an incentive to sort out a trade deal that works for the UK.
Aren’t the two steps totally separate in their eyes?
No because they've agreed to the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".
Once we've agreed a sum we then talk about trade but if the trade deal falls apart we can leave without the sum. We don't transfer them the sum before the trade deals start.
But the sum is fixed regardless of what we get at the end?
"However, if you've been to university and moved in certain circles there is a pretty strong chance that you've encountered the infamous white powder."
In my experience, it just turns people into total twats.
It's definitely the sort of drug you'd need a magic money tree to pay for.
I lost respect for Sadiq Khan after he went from ruling out a second referendum as "I'm a democrat" to calling for a second one. His statements about Uber also show he changes with the wind. It's sad really as I otherwise thought he was a very good representative.
I lost respect for Sadiq Khan after he went from ruling out a second referendum as "I'm a democrat" to calling for a second one. His statements about Uber also show he changes with the wind. It's sad really as I otherwise thought he was a very good representative.
He is the ultimate opportunist politician. He has a record of pandering to the people he needs to get elected then flip flopping on positions.
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.
So they could demand any amount and that would be acceptable?
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.
Agreeing to pay a sum is not the same as paying it. Once we get past this point and the money is metaphorically banked by the EU27 our position actually gets that bit stronger as they have an incentive to sort out a trade deal that works for the UK.
I imagine once we've agreed to pay it then they'd happily ground the planes here until we pay it all up front. They are completely unreasonable, just look at the promised reform of the CAP after we gave up a load of money last time.
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.
So they could demand any amount and that would be acceptable?
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.
Agreeing to pay a sum is not the same as paying it. Once we get past this point and the money is metaphorically banked by the EU27 our position actually gets that bit stronger as they have an incentive to sort out a trade deal that works for the UK.
I imagine once we've agreed to pay it then they'd happily ground the planes here until we pay it all up front. They are completely unreasonable, just look at the promised reform of the CAP after we gave up a load of money last time.
The EU are about as trustworthy as the Romanian Three Card Monty dealers on various London bridges.
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.
Maastricht has happened since then.
Try telling voters that they can't use their own money to go on holiday - as was the case pre-1979 - but that it's OK because that's what used to happen in the 1970's.
Mr. Elliot, considering a healthy woman in a bikini or a woman's back to be worthy of censorship is another black mark. Puritanism has no place in the UK.
They are completely unreasonable, just look at the promised reform of the CAP after we gave up a load of money last time.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Rob: why do you take Tony Blair's spin at face value? You don't strike me as the kind of person who would normally do so.
Mr. Elliot, considering a healthy woman in a bikini or a woman's back to be worthy of censorship is another black mark. Puritanism has no place in the UK.
They are completely unreasonable, just look at the promised reform of the CAP after we gave up a load of money last time.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Rob: why do you take Tony Blair's spin at face value? You don't strike me as the kind of person who would normally do so.
So the EU demanded it for nothing? Doesn't fill me with confidence about their intentions this time
If austerity means reducing public spending overall, it isn't happening, and in fact has rarely happened since the government started talking about it seven years ago. In the April-to-September period, central government spent £360bn, about 3% more than in the same period in the previous financial year.
What redeems the public finances is the fact that in spite of all the other economic indicators pointing to a slowdown, the amount of tax collected - VAT, income tax, national insurance, stamp duty - grew faster.
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"
Mr. D, well, it's increasingly coming back through a combination of religious zealotry, government authoritarianism and terminally offended snowflakes.
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 would be only temporary mishaps.
Yep, all this bother is being caused by divisions inside the Conservative party. The problem is that for a lot of Tory MPs, Brexit is a religion, not a pragmatic process, and for several cabinet ministers it is a career opportunity. They are what stands in the way of us getting to talks on trade.
That is indeed the case. Brexit has become an article of faith in the Conservative Party - evidence-based policy making has been replaced by slavish obeisance to the creed.
BTW - no one seems to be that bothered that the Great Repeal Bill is stuck in the Great Revising Stage for the indefinite future. I was under the impression that without this bill we cannot Brexit.
We've got 18 months to put this in place but I agree that it is not a good image and the government should be getting on with it.
BTW - no one seems to be that bothered that the Great Repeal Bill is stuck in the Great Revising Stage for the indefinite future. I was under the impression that without this bill we cannot Brexit.
We've got 18 months to put this in place but I agree that it is not a good image and the government should be getting on with it.
Calling that snap election will soon be seen as a bigger blunder than when the Empire of Japan decided to keep the USA of out WWII by bombing the American fleet at Pearl Harbour.
They are completely unreasonable, just look at the promised reform of the CAP after we gave up a load of money last time.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Rob: why do you take Tony Blair's spin at face value? You don't strike me as the kind of person who would normally do so.
Well what exactly was he giving up our rebate for? If it wasn't for that then I honestly don't know what he did it for.
If austerity means reducing public spending overall, it isn't happening, and in fact has rarely happened since the government started talking about it seven years ago. In the April-to-September period, central government spent £360bn, about 3% more than in the same period in the previous financial year.
What redeems the public finances is the fact that in spite of all the other economic indicators pointing to a slowdown, the amount of tax collected - VAT, income tax, national insurance, stamp duty - grew faster.
Mr. Elliot, considering a healthy woman in a bikini or a woman's back to be worthy of censorship is another black mark. Puritanism has no place in the UK.
Mr. Elliot, considering a healthy woman in a bikini or a woman's back to be worthy of censorship is another black mark. Puritanism has no place in the UK.
The UK is the initiator of Puritanism!
Geneva, probably. It always amuses me how Puritans banned Christmas as sinful.
If austerity means reducing public spending overall, it isn't happening, and in fact has rarely happened since the government started talking about it seven years ago. In the April-to-September period, central government spent £360bn, about 3% more than in the same period in the previous financial year.
What redeems the public finances is the fact that in spite of all the other economic indicators pointing to a slowdown, the amount of tax collected - VAT, income tax, national insurance, stamp duty - grew faster.
Mr. Elliot, considering a healthy woman in a bikini or a woman's back to be worthy of censorship is another black mark. Puritanism has no place in the UK.
You don't need to go back to 1600s Puritanism for bikinis or a woman's back to be censored. Any time pre-1920 would do - indeed for most of recorded history in this country such things would have been widely censored, or at the very least considered socially unacceptable.
Mr. Elliot, considering a healthy woman in a bikini or a woman's back to be worthy of censorship is another black mark. Puritanism has no place in the UK.
The UK is the initiator of Puritanism!
Geneva, probably. It always amuses me how Puritans banned Christmas as sinful.
Geneva, Bohemia, the Netherlands and Scotland too, but that just shows that our interplay with cultural trends in Europe are nothing new.
Against the national trend which was an average vote increase of 5.8% by Tory candidates TMay’s vote went down by 1.1% but it still looks totally solid.
Interesting, although since it had had the second highest Tory vote share in 2015, the scope for further gains was likely limited, even if going down is noteworthy.
Mr. Elliot, considering a healthy woman in a bikini or a woman's back to be worthy of censorship is another black mark. Puritanism has no place in the UK.
The UK is the initiator of Puritanism!
Geneva, probably. It always amuses me how Puritans banned Christmas as sinful.
Comments
Seems a sensible proposition. I wonder if Mr. Eagles has started trying to persuade Osborne to stand there yet
Besides, there has been significant reform of the CAP over the years, as well as liberalisation of agricultural imports to the EU, combined with the banning of agricultural export subsidies.
There is nothing to stop them banking the money and demanding more for any deal, which is exactly what I expect them to do.
I wonder if one or other would otherwise clash with another US sporting event.
'Burn neoliberalism, not people'
1 in every 44 people in the UK is a cocaine user according to this:
https://www.indy100.com/article/map-cocaine-use-hard-drugs-class-a-world-earth-geography-interactive-8011046
In my experience, it just turns people into total twats.
Or maybe I live a wonderful sheltered life wherein people read classical history and are delightful civilised, isolated from the harsh grime of modern reality.
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-41673352/100-women-the-pink-bus-designed-to-protect-women-from-harassment
Once we've agreed a sum we then talk about trade but if the trade deal falls apart we can leave without the sum. We don't transfer them the sum before the trade deals start.
The advantage of a trebuchet-based justice system is that when you're hurtling through the air towards the cold embrace of the North Sea, nobody can hear you advocate ethnic quotas.
Try telling voters that they can't use their own money to go on holiday - as was the case pre-1979 - but that it's OK because that's what used to happen in the 1970's.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-41675196
If austerity means reducing public spending overall, it isn't happening, and in fact has rarely happened since the government started talking about it seven years ago. In the April-to-September period, central government spent £360bn, about 3% more than in the same period in the previous financial year.
What redeems the public finances is the fact that in spite of all the other economic indicators pointing to a slowdown, the amount of tax collected - VAT, income tax, national insurance, stamp duty - grew faster.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41691656
Iceland leading Germany 1-0 after 30 mins in women's world cup qualifier:
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.135413955
It's not austerity as Ireland, Spain, or Greece have experienced austerity, but it's still quite tough.
Something we should all remember.
You don't need to go back to 1600s Puritanism for bikinis or a woman's back to be censored. Any time pre-1920 would do - indeed for most of recorded history in this country such things would have been widely censored, or at the very least considered socially unacceptable.
http://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/warsaw-keeps-an-eye-on-neighbouring-czech-elections/
Interesting, although since it had had the second highest Tory vote share in 2015, the scope for further gains was likely limited, even if going down is noteworthy.