Misleading % based LD bar chart from an EU funded outfit.
Must do better Scott.
Bars are to scale and Ox Econ was one of the more optimistic / correct regarding post Brexit trajectory of UK economy.
At first sight TGOHF's comments are the misleading one's. The bars are indeed to scale and it has nothing to do with LDs (except that it is a bar chart, I suppose).
There will be tax cuts unlike the failures of the last campaign with the dementia tax etc.
The NHS will remain ringfenced. The Laffer curve of course argues the more you cut tax the more revenue you raise in real terms. Tax rises do not always produce more revenue, sometimes the reverse e.g. the 50% top income tax rate under Brown.
Corbyn motivated his base last time and the Tories need to motivate their base next time.
The Laffer curve doesn’t say that at all, is says that for each tax there’s a rate at which revenue is maximised, which may be higher or lower than that which is currently charged. Taxes that are easily avoidable, such as corporation tax are probably too high, whereas taxes difficult to avoid such as property taxes are probably too low.
It is unfortunate that Mrs May is being cajoled into giving Patel's job to a Brexiteer.
To many Tories Brexit is more than merely a policy - it is an article of faith. True believers are, by definition, superior beings to non-believers. Competence, experience and ability do not come into it.
It is unfortunate that Mrs May is being cajoled into giving Patel's job to a Brexiteer. Almost by definition Brexiteers don't believe in overseas aid......
I heard a female journalist say on radio this morning that the standard of MPs at the moment is the poorest in living memory.
What a time to change our system of governance.....
The successor to Nick Palmer as MP for Broxtowe might be a suitable candidate for the vacant post.
If it keeps her in foreign climbs for much of the year, I'd second that!
I suspect on of the EUs main negotiating aims is to pound into British heads the new reality of our minor status in Europe and how things are going to be done from now on. The reality is their is a difference between negotiating amongst 27 when you are one of the largest nations and negotiating one on one when you are 8 times smaller.
Boris, May and Davis have spent the last year humiliating the UK in an effort to prove this point.
Mr. Nick, if the political class reneged upon it there would be ructions. If that happened without a second referendum or a General Election with the EU at the heart of it, the political earthquake could have alarming and significant consequences indeed.
It is unfortunate that Mrs May is being cajoled into giving Patel's job to a Brexiteer. Almost by definition Brexiteers don't believe in overseas aid......
I heard a female journalist say on radio this morning that the standard of MPs at the moment is the poorest in living memory.
What a time to change our system of governance.....
The successor to Nick Palmer as MP for Broxtowe might be a suitable candidate for the vacant post.
It is unfortunate that Mrs May is being cajoled into giving Patel's job to a Brexiteer. Almost by definition Brexiteers don't believe in overseas aid......
I heard a female journalist say on radio this morning that the standard of MPs at the moment is the poorest in living memory.
What a time to change our system of governance.....
Does anybody else wonder why Priti Patel looks so happy on the front pages today?
Mr. Nick, if the political class reneged upon it there would be ructions. If that happened without a second referendum or a General Election with the EU at the heart of it, the political earthquake could have alarming and significant consequences indeed.
Which is why the government has to fall, and a second referendum has to be held, and why the strategy of Remain is exactly this.
The Conservative have always believed in the family and inheritance it is leftwingers who do not, they believe in the state above all and would happily take virtually all of a private estate on death.
Conservatives also believe in personal responsibility and making adequate provision oneself - at least they always used to. Yes, there is a principle of inheritance and I'm not saying there should be no capacity to pass assets on to the next generation but the jump from £23,500 to £100,000 was absurd. Making it £50k would have been a sensible approach.
There are of course measures which already exist such as the use of trusts which minimise exposure to liabilities for residential care costs but families have the choice between caring for a relative themselves (with all that entails) and opting to place the relative in a suitable residential care facility.
I think those who look after elderly relatives at home should be supported as much as possible and the State can play a part in that as can employers but and this is especially the case with dementia sufferers, where the only option is full-time specialist care in a properly-equipped home or other facility, I recognise the extreme circumstances and the need to balance the funding of that care.
The truth is many older people don't need residential care and even fewer need the level of care of dementia sufferers but the fact remains the options are either for the State to take the full cost (with consequent tax rises for all of us) or for families and individuals to consider making adequate provision and the latter is the difficult bit.
It is unfortunate that Mrs May is being cajoled into giving Patel's job to a Brexiteer. Almost by definition Brexiteers don't believe in overseas aid......
I heard a female journalist say on radio this morning that the standard of MPs at the moment is the poorest in living memory.
What a time to change our system of governance.....
Does anybody else wonder why Priti Patel looks so happy on the front pages today?
Positioning for the eventual leadership election.
"Look I didn't like her and unlike you cowards, I made it known. I was born to lead and all I was doing was trying to shape the government because heaven knows it was directionless at the time."
Will appear somewhere in the narrative, come the day.
Mr. Nick, if the political class reneged upon it there would be ructions. If that happened without a second referendum or a General Election with the EU at the heart of it, the political earthquake could have alarming and significant consequences indeed.
Which is why the government has to fall, and a second referendum has to be held, and why the strategy of Remain is exactly this.
As is the EU's strategy.
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
It is unfortunate that Mrs May is being cajoled into giving Patel's job to a Brexiteer.
To many Tories Brexit is more than merely a policy - it is an article of faith. True believers are, by definition, superior beings to non-believers. Competence, experience and ability do not come into it.
Mr. Nick, if the political class reneged upon it there would be ructions. If that happened without a second referendum or a General Election with the EU at the heart of it, the political earthquake could have alarming and significant consequences indeed.
Which is why the government has to fall, and a second referendum has to be held, and why the strategy of Remain is exactly this.
As is the EU's strategy.
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
This government committed to leaving the EU would be better advised to make Brexit, if not a success, at least a tolerable fix that people can live with. Which they are not doing. At all.
Rupert Murdoch has threatened to close down Sky News if 21st Century Fox's bid for Sky is rejected - how do you feel about that as you are trying to stop the takeover. Tom Watson said Sky was an excellent broadcaster ( as we know it has moved to the left quite considerably) and he doesn't think it will happen. Adam Boulton to Tom Watson suggesting it would be a massive own goal and all Watson could do was to look very 'sheepish'.
I do not think this is a Murdoch bluff, he has already closed down Fox News in the UK
Rupert Murdoch has threatened to close down Sky News if 21st Century Fox's bid for Sky is rejected - how do you feel about that as you are trying to stop the takeover. Tom Watson said Sky was an excellent broadcaster ( as we know it has moved to the left quite considerably) and he doesn't think it will happen. Adam Boulton to Tom Watson suggesting it would be a massive own goal and all Watson could do was to look very 'sheepish'.
I do not think this is a Murdoch bluff, he has already closed down Fox News in the UK
Fox News had a tiny tiny viewership. Also, it wasn't a platform to cross sell other Sky channels. Sky News effectively cross sells Sky Sports.
Rupert Murdoch has threatened to close down Sky News if 21st Century Fox's bid for Sky is rejected - how do you feel about that as you are trying to stop the takeover. Tom Watson said Sky was an excellent broadcaster ( as we know it has moved to the left quite considerably) and he doesn't think it will happen. Adam Boulton to Tom Watson suggesting it would be a massive own goal and all Watson could do was to look very 'sheepish'.
I do not think this is a Murdoch bluff, he has already closed down Fox News in the UK
Mr. Nick, if the political class reneged upon it there would be ructions. If that happened without a second referendum or a General Election with the EU at the heart of it, the political earthquake could have alarming and significant consequences indeed.
Which is why the government has to fall, and a second referendum has to be held, and why the strategy of Remain is exactly this.
As is the EU's strategy.
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
This government committed to leaving the EU would be better advised to make Brexit, if not a success, at least a tolerable fix that people can live with. Which they are not doing. At all.
It takes two to negotiate and the EU together with many here in the UK are actively trying to derail the process. I do not see how any can government can square the present impasse.
TM is between a rock and a hard place but so would any other PM .
She has made mistakes and is not a people person but for now there is no alternative
Mr. Nick, if the political class reneged upon it there would be ructions. If that happened without a second referendum or a General Election with the EU at the heart of it, the political earthquake could have alarming and significant consequences indeed.
Which is why the government has to fall, and a second referendum has to be held, and why the strategy of Remain is exactly this.
As is the EU's strategy.
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
This government committed to leaving the EU would be better advised to make Brexit, if not a success, at least a tolerable fix that people can live with. Which they are not doing. At all.
It takes two to negotiate and the EU together with many here in the UK are actively trying to derail the process. I do not see how any can government can square the present impasse.
TM is between a rock and a hard place but so would any other PM .
She has made mistakes and is not a people person but for now there is no alternative
There is absolutely no evidence the EU is trying to derail the process. The problem is a political one: the UK government cannot agree to the payment the EU wants because it would create serious problems inside the Conservative party and spark intense criticism from the Brexit-backing press. The sum itself is negligible in comparison to what a No Deal outcome would cost the UK.
If the government could admit to what it knows: that the EU has by far the stronger hand, then we could move forward.
Rupert Murdoch has threatened to close down Sky News if 21st Century Fox's bid for Sky is rejected - how do you feel about that as you are trying to stop the takeover. Tom Watson said Sky was an excellent broadcaster ( as we know it has moved to the left quite considerably) and he doesn't think it will happen. Adam Boulton to Tom Watson suggesting it would be a massive own goal and all Watson could do was to look very 'sheepish'.
I do not think this is a Murdoch bluff, he has already closed down Fox News in the UK
Fox News had a tiny tiny viewership. Also, it wasn't a platform to cross sell other Sky channels. Sky News effectively cross sells Sky Sports.
The report yesterday was that Murdoch moved Sky News to the left purposely to try to dilute the opposition to him and his future attempts to take over Sky but if his ownership of Sky News prevents his takeover he feels the whole exercise was a waste of time and he will just close down Sky News as it is losing lots of money
It takes two to negotiate and the EU together with many here in the UK are actively trying to derail the process. I do not see how any can government can square the present impasse.
TM is between a rock and a hard place but so would any other PM .
She had made mistakes and is not a people person but for now there is no alternative
I don't agree that the EU is trying to derail the process. They want us out with the least further damage to them possible. They are uncompromising, but they hold most of the cards, are damaged by our actions and don't owe us any favours. They act pretty much as you would expect them to act, I think.
But even if you think they are unreasonable, we have to deal with our problems ourselves. That rock and a hard place is one that we voted for and the project is entirely owned by the Conservative government. They have to get us out of there. Blaming Remainers and the EU doesn't cut it.
Rupert Murdoch has threatened to close down Sky News if 21st Century Fox's bid for Sky is rejected - how do you feel about that as you are trying to stop the takeover. Tom Watson said Sky was an excellent broadcaster ( as we know it has moved to the left quite considerably) and he doesn't think it will happen. Adam Boulton to Tom Watson suggesting it would be a massive own goal and all Watson could do was to look very 'sheepish'.
I do not think this is a Murdoch bluff, he has already closed down Fox News in the UK
Fox News had a tiny tiny viewership. Also, it wasn't a platform to cross sell other Sky channels. Sky News effectively cross sells Sky Sports.
The report yesterday was that Murdoch moved Sky News to the left purposely to try to dilute the opposition to him and his future attempts to take over Sky but if his ownership of Sky News prevents his takeover he feels the whole exercise was a waste of time and he will just close down Sky News as it is losing lots of money
I am not saying he won't close it down, Murdoch is ruthless with channels (unlike the BBC pissing about with BBC3, yes, no, rebrand, only online, well you might has well not bothered approach), and he has closed ones before because they don't work for him.
However, Fox News had no viewership and as it was just a rebroadcast of the the US (where shows don't even have to pretend to be neutral, but they have to be here) and that got him in trouble.
Sky News is a really useful tool for cross promoting his platform. It does lose money, but it is chicken feed into comparison to the likes of the football deals and the amount he would have to spend to get similar advertising elsewhere.
What sum would you pay the EU to enable us to negotiate on trade?
Any sum the EU wants? If so, it would be political suicide. If Mrs May were to give away £300 billion i.e. give in to blackmail, the Labour Party would be in power within weeks.
Mr. Nick, if the political class reneged upon it there would be ructions. If that happened without a second referendum or a General Election with the EU at the heart of it, the political earthquake could have alarming and significant consequences indeed.
Which is why the government has to fall, and a second referendum has to be held, and why the strategy of Remain is exactly this.
As is the EU's strategy.
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
This government committed to leaving the EU would be better advised to make Brexit, if not a success, at least a tolerable fix that people can live with. Which they are not doing. At all.
It takes two to negotiate and the EU together with many here in the UK are actively trying to derail the process. I do not see how any can government can square the present impasse.
TM is between a rock and a hard place but so would any other PM .
She has made mistakes and is not a people person but for now there is no alternative
There is absolutely no evidence the EU is trying to derail the process. The problem is a political one: the UK government cannot agree to the payment the EU wants because it would create serious problems inside the Conservative party and spark intense criticism from the Brexit-backing press. The sum itself is negligible in comparison to what a No Deal outcome would cost the UK.
If the government could admit to what it knows: that the EU has by far the stronger hand, then we could move forward.
Correct that they can't agree the payment, but sadly they also can't not agree it, if they want anything other than a crash out. What they should be doing is some serious expectations management on the public - get us to anchor (I think the term is) on 60 bn as the mid range figure, and then big themselves up for getting it down to 50 bn with easy payment terms. In other words, what is eminently needed is competent spin doctoring. What the tories lack are competence, and spin doctors.
Mr. Nick, if the political class reneged upon it there would be ructions. If that happened without a second referendum or a General Election with the EU at the heart of it, the political earthquake could have alarming and significant consequences indeed.
Which is why the government has to fall, and a second referendum has to be held, and why the strategy of Remain is exactly this.
As is the EU's strategy.
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
This government committed to leaving the EU would be better advised to make Brexit, if not a success, at least a tolerable fix that people can live with. Which they are not doing. At all.
It takes two to negotiate and the EU together with many here in the UK are actively trying to derail the process. I do not see how any can government can square the present impasse.
TM is between a rock and a hard place but so would any other PM .
She has made mistakes and is not a people person but for now there is no alternative
There is absolutely no evidence the EU is trying to derail the process. The problem is a political one: the UK government cannot agree to the payment the EU wants because it would create serious problems inside the Conservative party and spark intense criticism from the Brexit-backing press. The sum itself is negligible in comparison to what a No Deal outcome would cost the UK.
If the government could admit to what it knows: that the EU has by far the stronger hand, then we could move forward.
The pay off bill is an issue for the whole Country.
Do you really think the Country will stomach a big bill - TM is more in tune with the electorate when she says she will protect tax payers money, than you give her credit for.
Furthermore the EU are in collusion with some in the UK actively delaying negotiations hoping that by running down the timescale the Country will either meet their demands or the Government will collapse and their dream of the UK staying in the EU is fulfilled
I do not think this is a Murdoch bluff, he has already closed down Fox News in the UK
Fox News had a tiny tiny viewership. Also, it wasn't a platform to cross sell other Sky channels. Sky News effectively cross sells Sky Sports.
The report yesterday was that Murdoch moved Sky News to the left purposely to try to dilute the opposition to him and his future attempts to take over Sky but if his ownership of Sky News prevents his takeover he feels the whole exercise was a waste of time and he will just close down Sky News as it is losing lots of money
I am not saying he won't close it down, Murdoch is ruthless with channels (unlike the BBC pissing about with BBC3, yes, no, rebrand, only online, well you might has well not bothered approach), and he has closed ones before because they don't work for him.
However, Fox News had no viewership and as it was just a rebroadcast of the the US (where shows don't even have to pretend to be neutral, but they have to be here) and that got him in trouble.
Sky News is a really useful tool for cross promoting his platform. It does lose money, but it is chicken feed into comparison to the likes of the football deals and the amount he would have to spend to get similar advertising elsewhere.
Sky News is an excellent marketing tool for Sky and I suspect that Murdoch wouldn't be keen to close it, despite the threat, for the same reason that it stays open now: firstly, it delivers a quality product and is valued by decision-makers (among others), and secondly, as a free-to-air channel, it goes a long way to promoting Sky without having to advertise on or in other media at no small cost and while simultaneously subsidising them.
Personally, I think the horror some are showing at the Sky/Fox takeover is utterly misplaced and I see no good reason for preventing the takeover on plurality grounds (or, indeed, any other). What would materially change as a result of it? Some people who *already* hold a controlling stake convert that into a unanimous stake - so what? Where is the shift in power? The broadcasting impartiality rules still apply and even if they didn't, there's no market for a Fox News UK that would justify the cost. The opposition is either naive or is motivated by envy of the Murdochs success and of the political stance they adopt *elsewhere* in their media empire.
Mr. Nick, if the political class reneged upon it there would be ructions. If that happened without a second referendum or a General Election with the EU at the heart of it, the political earthquake could have alarming and significant consequences indeed.
Which is why the government has to fall, and a second referendum has to be held, and why the strategy of Remain is exactly this.
As is the EU's strategy.
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
This government committed to leaving the EU would be better advised to make Brexit, if not a success, at least a tolerable fix that people can live with. Which they are not doing. At all.
It takes two to negotiate and the EU together with many here in the UK are actively trying to derail the process. I do not see how any can government can square the present impasse.
TM is between a rock and a hard place but so would any other PM .
She has made mistakes and is not a people person but for now there is no alternative
There is absolutely no evidence the EU is trying to derail the process. The problem is a political one: the UK government cannot agree to the payment the EU wants because it would create serious problems inside the Conservative party and spark intense criticism from the Brexit-backing press. The sum itself is negligible in comparison to what a No Deal outcome would cost the UK.
If the government could admit to what it knows: that the EU has by far the stronger hand, then we could move forward.
The pay off bill is an issue for the whole Country.
Do you really think the Country will stomach a big bill - TM is more in tune with the electorate when she says she will protect tax payers money, than you give her credit for.
Furthermore the EU are in collusion with some in the UK actively delaying negotiations hoping that by running down the timescale the Country will either meet their demands or the Government will collapse and their dream of the UK staying in the EU is fulfilled
What the fuck does the country know is a big bill? A billion, 50 billion? 200 billion? a trillion?
Find me ten people in the High Street who could tell you what our current GDP is and I'll buy you a packet of Bourbon Creams.
No one has any idea. As @Ishmael_Z has said, the govt should be managing expectations and putting about a number that they will come under. Whether that's £60bn coming in at £50bn or £80bn coming in at £60bn.
The pay off bill is an issue for the whole Country.
Do you really think the Country will stomach a big bill - TM is more in tune with the electorate when she says she will protect tax payers money, than you give her credit for.
Furthermore the EU are in collusion with some in the UK actively delaying negotiations hoping that by running down the timescale the Country will either meet their demands or the Government will collapse and their dream of the UK staying in the EU is fulfilled
Ishmael is right. It's about public expectations. Is successfully leaving the EU worth €60 billion or isn't it? It seems many Leavers don't value their project very highly.
Rupert Murdoch has threatened to close down Sky News if 21st Century Fox's bid for Sky is rejected - how do you feel about that as you are trying to stop the takeover. Tom Watson said Sky was an excellent broadcaster ( as we know it has moved to the left quite considerably) and he doesn't think it will happen. Adam Boulton to Tom Watson suggesting it would be a massive own goal and all Watson could do was to look very 'sheepish'.
I do not think this is a Murdoch bluff, he has already closed down Fox News in the UK
Fox News had a tiny tiny viewership. Also, it wasn't a platform to cross sell other Sky channels. Sky News effectively cross sells Sky Sports.
The report yesterday was that Murdoch moved Sky News to the left purposely to try to dilute the opposition to him and his future attempts to take over Sky but if his ownership of Sky News prevents his takeover he feels the whole exercise was a waste of time and he will just close down Sky News as it is losing lots of money
I am not saying he won't close it down, Murdoch is ruthless with channels (unlike the BBC pissing about with BBC3, yes, no, rebrand, only online, well you might has well not bothered approach), and he has closed ones before because they don't work for him.
However, Fox News had no viewership and as it was just a rebroadcast of the the US (where shows don't even have to pretend to be neutral, but they have to be here) and that got him in trouble.
Sky News is a really useful tool for cross promoting his platform. It does lose money, but it is chicken feed into comparison to the likes of the football deals and the amount he would have to spend to get similar advertising elsewhere.
I would be very disappointed to see Sky News close, despite their left leaning reporting, but he has made it clear he will close it if he does not get his deal. Adam Boulton seemed quite concerned
Rupert Murdoch has threatened to close down Sky News if 21st Century Fox's bid for Sky is rejected - how do you feel about that as you are trying to stop the takeover. Tom Watson said Sky was an excellent broadcaster ( as we know it has moved to the left quite considerably) and he doesn't think it will happen. Adam Boulton to Tom Watson suggesting it would be a massive own goal and all Watson could do was to look very 'sheepish'.
I do not think this is a Murdoch bluff, he has already closed down Fox News in the UK
Fox News had a tiny tiny viewership. Also, it wasn't a platform to cross sell other Sky channels. Sky News effectively cross sells Sky Sports.
The report yesterday was that Murdoch moved Sky News to the left purposely to try to dilute the opposition to him and his future attempts to take over Sky but if his ownership of Sky News prevents his takeover he feels the whole exercise was a waste of time and he will just close down Sky News as it is losing lots of money
I am not saying he won't close it down, Murdoch is ruthless with channels (unlike the BBC pissing about with BBC3, yes, no, rebrand, only online, well you might has well not bothered approach), and he has closed ones before because they don't work for him.
However, Fox News had no viewership and as it was just a rebroadcast of the the US (where shows don't even have to pretend to be neutral, but they have to be here) and that got him in trouble.
Sky News is a really useful tool for cross promoting his platform. It does lose money, but it is chicken feed into comparison to the likes of the football deals and the amount he would have to spend to get similar advertising elsewhere.
I would be very disappointed to see Sky News close, despite their left leaning reporting, but he has made it clear he will close it if he does not get his deal. Adam Boulton seemed quite concerned
It would be very bad if Sky news closed down. It would leave the BBC as the only 24hr news channel that isn't state propaganda like RT or Al Jazeera.
What sum would you pay the EU to enable us to negotiate on trade?
Any sum the EU wants? If so, it would be political suicide. If Mrs May were to give away £300 billion i.e. give in to blackmail, the Labour Party would be in power within weeks.
What would Starmer pay?
Blackmail is such an ugly word, I prefer the term incentive based decision making.
But the reality is we're paying for the transition and the budgets we've already agreed to.
Gone are these days, though perhaps German car manufacturers might still save our bacon.
Some on here are right that a Tony Blair character would find some way to give into blackmail without seeming to, but blackmail is being attempted. Have the EU an audited and fully-costed bill? Of course not, and that is the issue.
And of course, the EU are heartened by some in the UK playing along.
That's one reason I have little faith in politicians when good spin-doctoring makes the ideal candidate. But I have even less faith in EU politicians.
Some on here are right that a Tony Blair character would find some way to give into blackmail without seeming to, but blackmail is being attempted. Have the EU an audited and fully-costed bill? Of course not, and that is the issue.
And of course, the EU are heartened by some in the UK playing along.
That's one reason I have little faith in politicians when good spin-doctoring makes the ideal candidate. But I have even less faith in EU politicians.
They pay us £200 billion for wasting our time, and I calculated the same way the EU do. On the back of a fag packet
You criticise, perhaps wisely, various sums but I am interested in what you think is an appropriate sum and why. If it's back of a fag packet then I don't see how your judgement can be taken any more seriously than anyone else, and certainly not the participants to the negotiations.
If you don't know but it just "seems" high, then that is a perfectly understandable position to take, although not without its pitfalls (cf. sovereignty).
Fascinating to go back to this 1975 discussion between Roy Jenkins and Tony Benn. Precisely the same arguments then, including that the European Community would of course give us the deal we want because the Germans want to sell us their cars and the Italians their wine (before the days of prosecco). Also that if the EC don't play ball we can substitute world markets. And staying in the EC would not a no-change option as we would be obliged to join a common currency. The counter arguments are that we are in a weak position because the relative sizes of the economy and that outside the Community we would be rule takers, not rule makers.
Nothing changes, except politicians were much more fluent and articulate in those days.
EDIT. It seems you can't embed youtube videos with time marks. Start at 33 minutes in this video.
The big problem for the EU is the Reste a Liquider - the money that has been promised to projects in this budgetary cycle that was not agreed in the 2014 budget agreement.
This runs to over €300B
The EU want us to pay for this in the same contributory ratio as we would have had we been members (so in other words, Germany and UK would be the big contributors to this). So its not just the budget to 2020, but the overspend.
This is leading the 'Keep UK in' hopes in the EU, especially in Germany. With QMV now the order of the day in Brussels, removing the UK will see that overspend, and the demands for Germany to pay time and time again, almost certainly increase. This will lead to friction.
Germany and the other Northern contributors will feel more at the mercy of a set of basket case nations which blame it for all their economic ills via the Euro project.
The EU (or some in positions of power in it) , believe that if the UK could be coerced into changing its mind, the EU would become unbreakable - the strongest potential leaver brought back into the fold, and the budgetary expansion secured for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Nick, if the political class reneged upon it there would be ructions. If that happened without a second referendum or a General Election with the EU at the heart of it, the political earthquake could have alarming and significant consequences indeed.
Which is why the government has to fall, and a second referendum has to be held, and why the strategy of Remain is exactly this.
As is the EU's strategy.
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
This government committed to leaving the EU would be better advised to make Brexit, if not a success, at least a tolerable fix that people can live with. Which they are not doing. At all.
It takes two to negotiate and the EU together with many here in the UK are actively trying to derail the process. I do not see how any can government can square the present impasse.
TM is between a rock and a hard place but so would any other PM .
She has made mistakes and is not a people person but for now there is no alternative
There is absolutely no evidence the EU is trying to derail the process. The problem is a political one: the UK government cannot agree to the payment the EU wants because it would create serious problems inside the Conservative party and spark intense criticism from the Brexit-backing press. The sum itself is negligible in comparison to what a No Deal outcome would cost the UK.
If the government could admit to what it knows: that the EU has by far the stronger hand, then we could move forward.
The pay off bill is an issue for the whole Country.
Do you really think the Country will stomach a big bill - TM is more in tune with the electorate when she says she will protect tax payers money, than you give her credit for.
Furthermore the EU are in collusion with some in the UK actively delaying negotiations hoping that by running down the timescale the Country will either meet their demands or the Government will collapse and their dream of the UK staying in the EU is fulfilled
The country voted to leave the EU and wants the politicians to get on with it and get the best possible outcome. Part of that outcome involves getting a trade deal with the EU. We only get a trade deal if we agree to pay an exit fee. The EU gets to set the exit fee. It's that simple.
Mr. Nick, if the political class reneged upon it there would be ructions. If that happened without a second referendum or a General Election with the EU at the heart of it, the political earthquake could have alarming and significant consequences indeed.
Which is why the government has to fall, and a second referendum has to be held, and why the strategy of Remain is exactly this.
As is the EU's strategy.
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
This government committed to leaving the EU would be better advised to make Brexit, if not a success, at least a tolerable fix that people can live with. Which they are not doing. At all.
It takes two to negotiate and the EU together with many here in the UK are actively trying to derail the process. I do not see how any can government can square the present impasse.
TM is between a rock and a hard place but so would any other PM .
She has made mistakes and is not a people person but for now there is no alternative
There is absolutely no evidence the EU is trying to derail the process. The problem is a political one: the UK government cannot agree to the payment the EU wants because it would create serious problems inside the Conservative party and spark intense criticism from the Brexit-backing press. The sum itself is negligible in comparison to what a No Deal outcome would cost the UK.
If the government could admit to what it knows: that the EU has by far the stronger hand, then we could move forward.
Correct that they can't agree the payment, but sadly they also can't not agree it, if they want anything other than a crash out. What they should be doing is some serious expectations management on the public - get us to anchor (I think the term is) on 60 bn as the mid range figure, and then big themselves up for getting it down to 50 bn with easy payment terms. In other words, what is eminently needed is competent spin doctoring. What the tories lack are competence, and spin doctors.
I agree 100%. Compared to the alternative a £50 billion exit fee is a drop in the ocean.
I love the way they've immediately worked out the human driver of the other vehicle was to blame ...
Verdict first, evidence later.
The Welsh model of justice.
It's happening here in Cambridge as well. We have a very expensive guided bus system (or more accurately, misguided bus). There have been a fair few crashes, and every time the bus driver seems to get the blame and gets sacked usually only a day or two after the accident. No-one seems to be looking into whether that's actually fair, and if there are important causal factors contributing to the incidents.
I predict that one day this will lead to a very serious crash.
(The final report into the tragic Croydon tram crash might show similar problems).
What sum would you pay the EU to enable us to negotiate on trade?
Any sum the EU wants? If so, it would be political suicide. If Mrs May were to give away £300 billion i.e. give in to blackmail, the Labour Party would be in power within weeks.
What would Starmer pay?
The EU is not asking for £300 billion. All reports indicate a sum of between £50 billion and £60 billion. Given the alternative, I would pay that. As you indicate, the EU could have been asking us for a whole lot more. But they're not.
Mr. Nick, if the political class reneged upon it there would be ructions. If that happened without a second referendum or a General Election with the EU at the heart of it, the political earthquake could have alarming and significant consequences indeed.
Which is why the government has to fall, and a second referendum has to be held, and why the strategy of Remain is exactly this.
As is the EU's strategy.
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
A democratic vote to reject the poor deal on offer would be a fine example of democracy.
Mr. B2, many would suspect a deliberately poor deal was offered precisely to try and change the result of the referendum.
A second referendum would be far better than the political class just ignoring the result of the first, but would still engender bitterness and division.
The big problem for the EU is the Reste a Liquider - the money that has been promised to projects in this budgetary cycle that was not agreed in the 2014 budget agreement.
This runs to over €300B
The EU want us to pay for this in the same contributory ratio as we would have had we been members (so in other words, Germany and UK would be the big contributors to this). So its not just the budget to 2020, but the overspend.
This is leading the 'Keep UK in' hopes in the EU, especially in Germany. With QMV now the order of the day in Brussels, removing the UK will see that overspend, and the demands for Germany to pay time and time again, almost certainly increase. This will lead to friction.
Germany and the other Northern contributors will feel more at the mercy of a set of basket case nations which blame it for all their economic ills via the Euro project.
The EU (or some in positions of power in it) , believe that if the UK could be coerced into changing its mind, the EU would become unbreakable - the strongest potential leaver brought back into the fold, and the budgetary expansion secured for the foreseeable future.
Yes, it is clear that this is the approach of the larger EU countries.
It is also clear that they still haven't understood that British people do not like to be coerced into a political union.
If any politician or group of politicians in Britain are fool enough to sign up us to staying in the EU, the democratic consequences would be far, far greater than any imaginable outcome of no deal.
The country voted to leave the EU and wants the politicians to get on with it and get the best possible outcome. Part of that outcome involves getting a trade deal with the EU. We only get a trade deal if we agree to pay an exit fee. The EU gets to set the exit fee. It's that simple.
It's not that simple, because there is no commitment from the EU to give us a trade deal even if we sign a cheque today for the entire out-with-the-fairies sum they seem to be demanding (which is, let's not forget, something like 5 years' worth of our contribution as a full member, has no rational basis in the treaties, and which is more than the annual defence budget).
That has been the problem all along: they are refusing to have the conversation necessary to unlock any deal, namely what we get in return.
Clearly, there is a 'bad deal' scenario which is massively worse than a 'no deal' scenario, namely one where we do agree to give them megabucks and then the trade deal never actually happens or is paltry.
I really don't know the government can do to resolve this mess. Just agreeing to pay megabucks wouldn't resolve it.
Southam Observer : I agree 100%. Compared to the alternative a £50 billion exit fee is a drop in the ocean.
£50B is not a massive problem, or at least it isn't if we know exactly what liabilities are covered for it and what the deal is likely to be at the end of it. If the EU then take that agreement and then play very rough with the future relations part of the negotiation, then the chances of any money actually being paid without recourse to international arbitration is very low - meaning 'No deal' and a very nasty fall out for everyone.
Their attitude over Citizens rights is actually more of a sticking point, because they desperately want the big win there - ECJ control over third country affairs. In this way I wonder if they wish to ape the judicial over reach that the US often seems to extend, because they see themselves as a rival to the US as a power. There's an opportunity here for them to flex their muscles.
They pay us £200 billion for wasting our time, and I calculated the same way the EU do. On the back of a fag packet
You criticise, perhaps wisely, various sums but I am interested in what you think is an appropriate sum and why. If it's back of a fag packet then I don't see how your judgement can be taken any more seriously than anyone else, and certainly not the participants to the negotiations.
If you don't know but it just "seems" high, then that is a perfectly understandable position to take, although not without its pitfalls (cf. sovereignty).
The appropriate sum is that provided for in the Treaties, the Treaties that the EU swear by and find it unable to deviate from in any other part of the negotiation.
Refer the amount of any payment to an independent international arbitrator and get on with the trade talks, if the EU won’t agree to get then they’re trying to blackmail us.
Mr. Nick, if the political class reneged upon it there would be ructions. If that happened without a second referendum or a General Election with the EU at the heart of it, the political earthquake could have alarming and significant consequences indeed.
Which is why the government has to fall, and a second referendum has to be held, and why the strategy of Remain is exactly this.
As is the EU's strategy.
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
This government committed to leaving the EU would be better advised to make Brexit, if not a success, at least a tolerable fix that people can live with. Which they are not doing. At all.
It takes two to negotiate and the EU together with many here in the UK are actively trying to derail the process. I do not see how any can government can square the present impasse.
TM is between a rock and a hard place but so would any other PM .
She has made mistakes and is not a people person but for now there is no alternative
There is absolutely no evidence the EU is trying to derail the process. The problem is a political one: the UK government cannot agree to the payment the EU wants because it would create serious problems inside the Conservative party and spark intense criticism from the Brexit-backing press. The sum itself is negligible in comparison to what a No Deal outcome would cost the UK.
If the government could admit to what it knows: that the EU has by far the stronger hand, then we could move forward.
The pay off bill is an issue for the whole Country.
Do you really think the Country will stomach a big bill - TM is more in tune with the electorate when she says she will protect tax payers money, than you give her credit for.
Furthermore the EU are in collusion with some in the UK actively delaying negotiations hoping that by running down the timescale the Country will either meet their demands or the Government will collapse and their dream of the UK staying in the EU is fulfilled
The country voted to leave the EU and wants the politicians to get on with it and get the best possible outcome. Part of that outcome involves getting a trade deal with the EU. We only get a trade deal if we agree to pay an exit fee. The EU gets to set the exit fee. It's that simple.
Mr. Nick, if the political class reneged upon it there would be ructions. If that happened without a second referendum or a General Election with the EU at the heart of it, the political earthquake could have alarming and significant consequences indeed.
Which is why the government has to fall, and a second referendum has to be held, and why the strategy of Remain is exactly this.
As is the EU's strategy.
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
This government committed to leaving the EU would be better advised to make Brexit, if not a success, at least a tolerable fix that people can live with. Which they are not doing. At all.
It takes two to negotiate and the EU together with many here in the UK are actively trying to derail the process. I do not see how any can government can square the present impasse.
TM is between a rock and a hard place but so would any other PM .
She has made mistakes and is not a people person but for now there is no alternative
There is absolutely no evidence the EU is trying to derail the process. The problem is a political one: the UK government cannot agree to the payment the EU wants because it would create serious problems inside the Conservative party and spark intense criticism from the Brexit-backing press. The sum itself is negligible in comparison to what a No Deal outcome would cost the UK.
If the government could admit to what it knows: that the EU has by far the stronger hand, then we could move forward.
The pay off bill is an issue for the whole Country.
Do you really think the Country will stomach a big bill - TM is more in tune with the electorate when she says she will protect tax payers money, than you give her credit for.
Furthermore the EU are in collusion with some in the UK actively delaying negotiations hoping that by running down the timescale the Country will either meet their demands or the Government will collapse and their dream of the UK staying in the EU is fulfilled
The country voted to leave the EU and wants the politicians to get on with it and get the best possible outcome. Part of that outcome involves getting a trade deal with the EU. We only get a trade deal if we agree to pay an exit fee. The EU gets to set the exit fee. It's that simple.
Please point to where in the Treaties of the EU there’s any mention of an exit fee?
I remember Richard Nabavi et al screaming at me & others that we were "loony" to say a permanent deficit was fine a few years ago....
"Boles said the government should accept that “the age of austerity” is over and that, while said austerity was the right policy when the annual deficit stood at 10% of GDP, but it was “absolutely fine” for it to remain at its current level of around 2.6% indefinitely.
"We should stop trying to cut [the deficit] any further. We should drop our surplus target because the urgent priority now is to get productivity up and to get real wages up....
Many governments run deficits of that sort of level [ie, around 2.6%] year on year. So long as you are spending the money on investment, there is a very good prospect that that will generate a return in the economy that enables you to pay the debt down.""
Mr. B2, many would suspect a deliberately poor deal was offered precisely to try and change the result of the referendum.
A second referendum would be far better than the political class just ignoring the result of the first, but would still engender bitterness and division.
The second referendum would not simply be a re-run of the first, because the negotiated deal would be known. What if it's dreadful, do we have to accept it regardless?
I remember Richard Nabavi et al screaming at me & others that we were "loony" to say a permanent deficit was fine a few years ago....
I have never said that. Of course you can run a permanent deficit of 2% to 3%, on average over the economic cycle, provided of course that your initial debt level isn't excessive.
The country voted to leave the EU and wants the politicians to get on with it and get the best possible outcome. Part of that outcome involves getting a trade deal with the EU. We only get a trade deal if we agree to pay an exit fee. The EU gets to set the exit fee. It's that simple.
It's not that simple, because there is no commitment from the EU to give us a trade deal even if we sign a cheque today for the entire out-with-the-fairies sum they seem to be demanding (which is, let's not forget, something like 5 years' worth of our contribution as a full member, has no rational basis in the treaties, and which is more than the annual defence budget).
That has been the problem all along: they are refusing to have the conversation necessary to unlock any deal, namely what we get in return.
Clearly, there is a 'bad deal' scenario which is massively worse than a 'no deal' scenario, namely one where we do agree to give them megabucks and then the trade deal never actually happens or is paltry.
I really don't know the government can do to resolve this mess. Just agreeing to pay megabucks wouldn't resolve it.
Prepare for the unthinkable.
Start building customs posts.
Work out tariff rostas.
Start trade talks in earnest with other nations. Especially Aus, NZ, Canada.
Start writing impact studies on cutting corporation tax to 12-15% for the first 10 years for companies relocating to Britain (I don't really want this to happen, but it would scare the bejesus out of the EU commission)
The big problem for the EU is the Reste a Liquider - the money that has been promised to projects in this budgetary cycle that was not agreed in the 2014 budget agreement.
This runs to over €300B
The EU want us to pay for this in the same contributory ratio as we would have had we been members (so in other words, Germany and UK would be the big contributors to this). So its not just the budget to 2020, but the overspend.
This is leading the 'Keep UK in' hopes in the EU, especially in Germany. With QMV now the order of the day in Brussels, removing the UK will see that overspend, and the demands for Germany to pay time and time again, almost certainly increase. This will lead to friction.
Germany and the other Northern contributors will feel more at the mercy of a set of basket case nations which blame it for all their economic ills via the Euro project.
The EU (or some in positions of power in it) , believe that if the UK could be coerced into changing its mind, the EU would become unbreakable - the strongest potential leaver brought back into the fold, and the budgetary expansion secured for the foreseeable future.
Yes, it is clear that this is the approach of the larger EU countries.
It is also clear that they still haven't understood that British people do not like to be coerced into a political union.
If any politician or group of politicians in Britain are fool enough to sign up us to staying in the EU, the democratic consequences would be far, far greater than any imaginable outcome of no deal.
All bets off at that point. I really would fear for the fallout. Democracy itself would’ve been seen to have been ineffective.
Mr. B2, many would suspect a deliberately poor deal was offered precisely to try and change the result of the referendum.
A second referendum would be far better than the political class just ignoring the result of the first, but would still engender bitterness and division.
The second referendum would not simply be a re-run of the first, because the negotiated deal would be known. What if it's dreadful, do we have to accept it regardless?
And it is not as if we have harmony and unity right now.
A second referendum would be far better than the political class just ignoring the result of the first, but would still engender bitterness and division.
Leavers and Remainers are about 12 months away from going full Yugoslavia and killing each other's kids anyway so it's not like there isn't bitterness and division now.
The big problem for the EU is the Reste a Liquider - the money that has been promised to projects in this budgetary cycle that was not agreed in the 2014 budget agreement.
This runs to over €300B
The EU want us to pay for this in the same contributory ratio as we would have had we been members (so in other words, Germany and UK would be the big contributors to this). So its not just the budget to 2020, but the overspend.
This is leading the 'Keep UK in' hopes in the EU, especially in Germany. With QMV now the order of the day in Brussels, removing the UK will see that overspend, and the demands for Germany to pay time and time again, almost certainly increase. This will lead to friction.
Germany and the other Northern contributors will feel more at the mercy of a set of basket case nations which blame it for all their economic ills via the Euro project.
The EU (or some in positions of power in it) , believe that if the UK could be coerced into changing its mind, the EU would become unbreakable - the strongest potential leaver brought back into the fold, and the budgetary expansion secured for the foreseeable future.
That’s completely right, and a huge part of why we want to leave in the first place. The British people don’t see themselves as belonging to an EU demos, would rather we look after our own Brits before those of elsewhere. British politicians who decide to genuflect at the altar of the EU can expect the electorate to give their own verdict when the time comes.
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
This government committed to leaving the EU would be better advised to make Brexit, if not a success, at least a tolerable fix that people can live with. Which they are not doing. At all.
It takes two to negotiate and the EU together with many here in the UK are actively trying to derail the process. I do not see how any can government can square the present impasse.
TM is between a rock and a hard place but so would any other PM .
She has made mistakes and is not a people person but for now there is no alternative
There is absolutely no evidence the EU is trying to derail the process. The problem is a political one: the UK government cannot agree to the payment the EU wants because it would create serious problems inside the Conservative party and spark intense criticism from the Brexit-backing press. The sum itself is negligible in comparison to what a No Deal outcome would cost the UK.
If the government could admit to what it knows: that the EU has by far the stronger hand, then we could move forward.
The pay off bill is an issue for the whole Country.
Do you really think the Country will stomach a big bill - TM is more in tune with the electorate when she says she will protect tax payers money, than you give her credit for.
Furthermore the EU are in collusion with some in the UK actively delaying negotiations hoping that by running down the timescale the Country will either meet their demands or the Government will collapse and their dream of the UK staying in the EU is fulfilled
What the fuck does the country know is a big bill? A billion, 50 billion? 200 billion? a trillion?
Find me ten people in the High Street who could tell you what our current GDP is and I'll buy you a packet of Bourbon Creams.
No one has any idea. As @Ishmael_Z has said, the govt should be managing expectations and putting about a number that they will come under. Whether that's £60bn coming in at £50bn or £80bn coming in at £60bn.
It's not the country that she has to get the bill past: it's the likes of JRM in her own party. Could she face him and that wing down with the support of some on the opposition benches? Yes, but it would destroy her government and it'd still leave several other red line issues unresolved - FoM, the ECJ, expat rights and the Irish border. What then?
There will be tax cuts unlike the failures of the last campaign with the dementia tax etc.
The NHS will remain ringfenced. The Laffer curve of course argues the more you cut tax the more revenue you raise in real terms. Tax rises do not always produce more revenue, sometimes the reverse e.g. the 50% top income tax rate under Brown.
Corbyn motivated his base last time and the Tories need to motivate their base next time.
The Laffer curve doesn’t say that at all, is says that for each tax there’s a rate at which revenue is maximised, which may be higher or lower than that which is currently charged. Taxes that are easily avoidable, such as corporation tax are probably too high, whereas taxes difficult to avoid such as property taxes are probably too low.
It says tax which is too high can reduce revenues just the same as having no tax at all.
What sum would you pay the EU to enable us to negotiate on trade?
Any sum the EU wants? If so, it would be political suicide. If Mrs May were to give away £300 billion i.e. give in to blackmail, the Labour Party would be in power within weeks.
What would Starmer pay?
Er! When Starmer is in charge of the government department dealing with Brexsh*t in a Labour Government, then perhaps it would be a relevant question to ask, otherwise, it would be like Churchill asking Hitler how he would use the RAF to fight the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain (sorry guys, but my memories of learning Roman battles and wars are fading with time, interesting though they are)...
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
This government committed to leaving the EU would be better advised to make Brexit, if not a success, at least a tolerable fix that people can live with. Which they are not doing. At all.
It takes alternative
There is absolutely no evidence the EU is trying to derail the process. The problem is a political one: the UK government cannot agree to the payment the EU wants because it would create serious problems inside the Conservative party and spark intense criticism from the Brexit-backing press. The sum itself is negligible in comparison to what a No Deal outcome would cost the UK.
If the government could admit to what it knows: that the EU has by far the stronger hand, then we could move forward.
The pay off bill is an issue for the whole Country.
Do you really think the Country will stomach a big bill - TM is more in tune with the electorate when she says she will protect tax payers money, than you give her credit for.
Furthermore the EU are in collusion with some in the UK actively delaying negotiations hoping that by running down the timescale the Country will either meet their demands or the Government will collapse and their dream of the UK staying in the EU is fulfilled
What the fuck does the country know is a big bill? A billion, 50 billion? 200 billion? a trillion?
Find me ten people in the High Street who could tell you what our current GDP is and I'll buy you a packet of Bourbon Creams.
No one has any idea. As @Ishmael_Z has said, the govt should be managing expectations and putting about a number that they will come under. Whether that's £60bn coming in at £50bn or £80bn coming in at £60bn.
It's not the country that she has to get the bill past: it's the likes of JRM in her own party. Could she face him and that wing down with the support of some on the opposition benches? Yes, but it would destroy her government and it'd still leave several other red line issues unresolved - FoM, the ECJ, expat rights and the Irish border. What then?
Well that is of course the point. IMO she should ask (arguably the only thing that will prevent absolute chaos in 2019) for an extension to A50 by two years. But that would drive her euroloons further into the abyss and they would likely come for her.
But at some point she has to face them down or she will trash the country.
Mr. Song, because a second referendum gives an incentive to the EU to offer us a deal in the hope it'll be rejected by the electorate, and to pro-EU MPs to undermine our position so we make the least progress possible.
Similarly, I'm unsurprised the trade talks which there were many notes of optimism about happening this December are, in fact, apparently very unlikely to happen as hoped. It's in the EU's interest for no progress to be made for as long as possible, to wring concessions out of us at the last minute.
Mr. Roger, if Germany and France donated as much as we do to Middle Eastern refugee camps and had copied Cameron's approach to migration, both Europe and refugees would be far better off.
Rumours in the Hollywood gossip columns today that the paedophile scandal is now very close to being printed. Lots of A-listers willing to talk if it means the focus is on those much higher up in the industry - and society in general.
There is absolutely no evidence the EU is trying to derail the process. The problem is a political one: the UK government cannot agree to the payment the EU wants because it would create serious problems inside the Conservative party and spark intense criticism from the Brexit-backing press. The sum itself is negligible in comparison to what a No Deal outcome would cost the UK.
If the government could admit to what it knows: that the EU has by far the stronger hand, then we could move forward.
The pay off bill is an issue for the whole Country.
Do you really think the Country will stomach a big bill - TM is more in tune with the electorate when she says she will protect tax payers money, than you give her credit for.
Furthermore the EU are in collusion with some in the UK actively delaying negotiations hoping that by running down the timescale the Country will either meet their demands or the Government will collapse and their dream of the UK staying in the EU is fulfilled
What the fuck does the country know is a big bill? A billion, 50 billion? 200 billion? a trillion?
Find me ten people in the High Street who could tell you what our current GDP is and I'll buy you a packet of Bourbon Creams.
No one has any idea. As @Ishmael_Z has said, the govt should be managing expectations and putting about a number that they will come under. Whether that's £60bn coming in at £50bn or £80bn coming in at £60bn.
It's not the country that she has to get the bill past: it's the likes of JRM in her own party. Could she face him and that wing down with the support of some on the opposition benches? Yes, but it would destroy her government and it'd still leave several other red line issues unresolved - FoM, the ECJ, expat rights and the Irish border. What then?
Well that is of course the point. IMO she should ask (arguably the only thing that will prevent absolute chaos in 2019) for an extension to A50 by two years. But that would drive her euroloons further into the abyss and they would likely come for her.
But at some point she has to face them down or she will trash the country.
There will be tax cuts unlike the failures of the last campaign with the dementia tax etc.
The NHS will remain ringfenced. The Laffer curve of course argues the more you cut tax the more revenue you raise in real terms. Tax rises do not always produce more revenue, sometimes the reverse e.g. the 50% top income tax rate under Brown.
Corbyn motivated his base last time and the Tories need to motivate their base next time.
The Laffer curve doesn’t say that at all, is says that for each tax there’s a rate at which revenue is maximised, which may be higher or lower than that which is currently charged. Taxes that are easily avoidable, such as corporation tax are probably too high, whereas taxes difficult to avoid such as property taxes are probably too low.
It says tax which is too high can reduce revenues just the same as having no tax at all.
Of course tax rates that are too high can reduce revenues, the government should seek for each tax to maximise their revenue rather than any other reason.
Supporters of other parties see for example high income tax rates on higher earners as forcing “the rich” to pay “their fair share”, but what it does in practice is encourage them to spend money on accountants or even drive them offshore completely.
There will be tax cuts unlike the failures of the last campaign with the dementia tax etc.
The NHS will remain ringfenced. The Laffer curve of course argues the more you cut tax the more revenue you raise in real terms. Tax rises do not always produce more revenue, sometimes the reverse e.g. the 50% top income tax rate under Brown.
Corbyn motivated his base last time and the Tories need to motivate their base next time.
The Laffer curve doesn’t say that at all, is says that for each tax there’s a rate at which revenue is maximised, which may be higher or lower than that which is currently charged. Taxes that are easily avoidable, such as corporation tax are probably too high, whereas taxes difficult to avoid such as property taxes are probably too low.
It says tax which is too high can reduce revenues just the same as having no tax at all.
Of course tax rates that are too high can reduce revenues, the government should seek for each tax to maximise their revenue rather than any other reason.
Supporters of other parties see for example high income tax rates on higher earners as forcing “the rich” to pay “their fair share”, but what it does in practice is encourage them to spend money on accountants or even drive them offshore completely.
Which is why taxation needs to be shifted from mobile income to stationary property.
Why do Brexiteers always remind me of Millwall supporters....
WE DONT LIKE TO BE PUSHED AROUND. WE"RE ENGLISH AND WE DO WHAT WE WANT!
Thank God for the Metropolitan elite or we really would be pariahs
That sort of attitude and the sneering condescension towards working class people in areas of high EU immigration that led to the Leave vote. I voted Remain because I wanted Cameron and Osborne to stay and consider the economic benefits of the EU trump the disadvantages. However next time you're in Sussex take a stroll through the grimy streets of Bognor Regis, and you might understand the reason why people were happy to vote Leave.
There is absolutely no evidence the EU is trying to derail the process. The problem is a political one: the UK government cannot agree to the payment the EU wants because it would create serious problems inside the Conservative party and spark intense criticism from the Brexit-backing press. The sum itself is negligible in comparison to what a No Deal outcome would cost the UK.
If the government could admit to what it knows: that the EU has by far the stronger hand, then we could move forward.
The pay off bill is an issue for the whole Country.
Do you really think the Country will stomach a big bill - TM is more in tune with the electorate when she says she will protect tax payers money, than you give her credit for.
Furthermore the EU are in collusion with some in the UK actively delaying negotiations hoping that by running down the timescale the Country will either meet their demands or the Government will collapse and their dream of the UK staying in the EU is fulfilled
What the fuck does the country know is a big bill? A billion, 50 billion? 200 billion? a trillion?
Find me ten people in the High Street who could tell you what our current GDP is and I'll buy you a packet of Bourbon Creams.
No one has any idea. As @Ishmael_Z has said, the govt should be managing expectations and putting about a number that they will come under. Whether that's £60bn coming in at £50bn or £80bn coming in at £60bn.
It's not the country that she has to get the bill past: it's the likes of JRM in her own party. Could she face him and that wing down with the support of some on the opposition benches? Yes, but it would destroy her government and it'd still leave several other red line issues unresolved - FoM, the ECJ, expat rights and the Irish border. What then?
Well that is of course the point. IMO she should ask (arguably the only thing that will prevent absolute chaos in 2019) for an extension to A50 by two years. But that would drive her euroloons further into the abyss and they would likely come for her.
But at some point she has to face them down or she will trash the country.
Time for a Corn Law thread?
Please do so.
I’ll do a thread on Brexit will do to the Tories what WWI did to the Liberals.
There will be tax cuts unlike the failures of the last campaign with the dementia tax etc.
The NHS will remain ringfenced. The Laffer curve of course argues the more you cut tax the more revenue you raise in real terms. Tax rises do not always produce more revenue, sometimes the reverse e.g. the 50% top income tax rate under Brown.
Corbyn motivated his base last time and the Tories need to motivate their base next time.
The Laffer curve doesn’t say that at all, is says that for each tax there’s a rate at which revenue is maximised, which may be higher or lower than that which is currently charged. Taxes that are easily avoidable, such as corporation tax are probably too high, whereas taxes difficult to avoid such as property taxes are probably too low.
It says tax which is too high can reduce revenues just the same as having no tax at all.
Of course tax rates that are too high can reduce revenues, the government should seek for each tax to maximise their revenue rather than any other reason.
Supporters of other parties see for example high income tax rates on higher earners as forcing “the rich” to pay “their fair share”, but what it does in practice is encourage them to spend money on accountants or even drive them offshore completely.
If HMRC scrutinised tax returns as thoroughly and critically as the DWP scrutinises benefit claims the tax take would increase massively. The vast majority of tax returns are never queried or audited - I do two returns each year, my personal one and a company one. In more than 20 years HMRC has never queried anything.
If any politician or group of politicians in Britain are fool enough to sign up us to staying in the EU, the democratic consequences would be far, far greater than any imaginable outcome of no deal.
I’ll do a thread on Brexit will do to the Tories what WWI did to the Liberals.
Brexit could do to the Tories what WWI did to the Liberals, but there has to be a viable party for Tory voters to go to.
In the 1920's the Liberals came under attack from both the Tories and the rapidly emerging Labour Party... At the moment there doesn't seem to be such an external threat to the Tories.
The most likely scenario is that Con lose the election, Jezza takes over and under new leadership the Tories rapidly regroup to take on Corbyn?
If any politician or group of politicians in Britain are fool enough to sign up us to staying in the EU, the democratic consequences would be far, far greater than any imaginable outcome of no deal.
Even Corbyn gets this..
They won't - they will find a way of getting us to do it for them. Ref 2 : the deal nobody understands.
If any politician or group of politicians in Britain are fool enough to sign up us to staying in the EU, the democratic consequences would be far, far greater than any imaginable outcome of no deal.
Even Corbyn gets this..
They won't - they will find a way of getting us to do it for them. Ref 2 : the deal nobody understands.
The timing & mechanics of a second referendum make it impractical.
There isn't the will or the way.
Labour might be daft enough to have one after we have left about rejoining but well good luck getting turnout for that one.
Mr. Song, because a second referendum gives an incentive to the EU to offer us a deal in the hope it'll be rejected by the electorate, and to pro-EU MPs to undermine our position so we make the least progress possible.
Similarly, I'm unsurprised the trade talks which there were many notes of optimism about happening this December are, in fact, apparently very unlikely to happen as hoped. It's in the EU's interest for no progress to be made for as long as possible, to wring concessions out of us at the last minute.
Your attitude seems to be that the pro-EU (surely even more Pro-UK) MPs are saboteurs. Didn't we have an election about that?
The Conservative have always believed in the family and inheritance it is leftwingers who do not, they believe in the state above all and would happily take virtually all of a private estate on death.
Conservatives also believe in personal responsibility and making adequate provision oneself - at least they always used to. Yes, there is a principle of inheritance and I'm not saying there should be no capacity to pass assets on to the next generation but the jump from £23,500 to £100,000 was absurd. Making it £50k would have been a sensible approach.
There are of course measures which already exist such as the use of trusts which minimise exposure to liabilities for residential care costs but families have the choice between caring for a relative themselves (with all that entails) and opting to place the relative in a suitable residential care facility.
I think those who look after elderly relatives at home should be supported as much as possible and the State can play a part in that as can employers but and this is especially the case with dementia sufferers, where the only option is full-time specialist care in a properly-equipped home or other facility, I recognise the extreme circumstances and the need to balance the funding of that care.
The truth is many older people don't need residential care and even fewer need the level of care of dementia sufferers but the fact remains the options are either for the State to take the full cost (with consequent tax rises for all of us) or for families and individuals to consider making adequate provision and the latter is the difficult bit.
Yes and it is the epitome of personal responsibility to make savings of assets to pass on to your children without having the state taking most of them. If you have £500k of assets to suggest the state should take 90% of it is outrageous and on any case may leave some of the children of the deceased more reliant on the state and welfare and taxpayers thsn would be the case through inheritance of family assets.
Full time care should be funded by social insurance as I have already said and ad is done in the Netherlands and Japan.
If any politician or group of politicians in Britain are fool enough to sign up us to staying in the EU, the democratic consequences would be far, far greater than any imaginable outcome of no deal.
Even Corbyn gets this..
They won't - they will find a way of getting us to do it for them. Ref 2 : the deal nobody understands.
The notion of a second referendum, so soon, will be almost as corrosive for public trust.
If any politician or group of politicians in Britain are fool enough to sign up us to staying in the EU, the democratic consequences would be far, far greater than any imaginable outcome of no deal.
Even Corbyn gets this..
They won't - they will find a way of getting us to do it for them. Ref 2 : the deal nobody understands.
The notion of a second referendum, so soon, will be almost as corrosive for public trust.
Ok, you've bought the 'pig in a poke'. When we find out the quality of the animal I'm afraid you won't have any opportunity to get your money back.
I’ll do a thread on Brexit will do to the Tories what WWI did to the Liberals.
Brexit could do to the Tories what WWI did to the Liberals, but there has to be a viable party for Tory voters to go to.
In the 1920's the Liberals came under attack from both the Tories and the rapidly emerging Labour Party... At the moment there doesn't seem to be such an external threat to the Tories.
The most likely scenario is that Con lose the election, Jezza takes over and under new leadership the Tories rapidly regroup to take on Corbyn?
Regarding your last sentence, I heard the same in the 90s about regrouping in opposition to take on Blair.
Took 13 years, and thanks largely to David Cameron, the only Tory to win a majority in the last quarter of a century.
If any politician or group of politicians in Britain are fool enough to sign up us to staying in the EU, the democratic consequences would be far, far greater than any imaginable outcome of no deal.
Even Corbyn gets this..
They won't - they will find a way of getting us to do it for them. Ref 2 : the deal nobody understands.
The notion of a second referendum, so soon, will be almost as corrosive for public trust.
I suspect Farage etc would push for a boycott of any 2nd referendum.
There is absolutely no evidence the EU is trying to derail the process. The problem is a political one: the UK government cannot agree to the payment the EU wants because it would create serious problems inside the Conservative party and spark intense criticism from the Brexit-backing press. The sum itself is negligible in comparison to what a No Deal outcome would cost the UK.
If the government could admit to what it knows: that the EU has by far the stronger hand, then we could move forward.
The pay off bill is an issue for the whole Country.
Do you really think the Country will stomach a big bill - TM is more in tune with the electorate when she says she will protect tax payers money, than you give her credit for.
Furthermore the EU are in collusion with some in the UK actively delaying negotiations hoping that by running down the timescale the Country will either meet their demands or the Government will collapse and their dream of the UK staying in the EU is fulfilled
What the fuck does the country know is a big bill? A billion, 50 billion? 200 billion? a trillion?
Find me ten people in the High Street who could tell you what our current GDP is and I'll buy you a packet of Bourbon Creams.
No one has any idea. As @Ishmael_Z has said, the govt should be managing expectations and putting about a number that they will come under. Whether that's £60bn coming in at £50bn or £80bn coming in at £60bn.
It's not the country that she has to get the bill past: it's the likes of JRM in her own rder. What then?
Well that is of course the point. IMO she should ask (arguably the only thing that will prevent absolute chaos in 2019) for an extension to A50 by two years. But that would drive her euroloons further into the abyss and they would likely come for her.
But at some point she has to face them down or she will trash the country.
Time for a Corn Law thread?
Please do so.
I’ll do a thread on Brexit will do to the Tories what WWI did to the Liberals.
The only way Brexit could do to the Tories what WW1 (or more realistically universal suffrage in 1918) did to the Liberals when Labour replaced them is if the Tories abandoned Brexit and UKIP overtook them as the main party of the right a la Canada 1993.
Comments
Taxes that are easily avoidable, such as corporation tax are probably too high, whereas taxes difficult to avoid such as property taxes are probably too low.
If his report is true it raises deeply worrying questions for the Welsh Labour Party and for Carwyn Jones and his advisors.
This story has a long way to go
I suspect on of the EUs main negotiating aims is to pound into British heads the new reality of our minor status in Europe and how things are going to be done from now on. The reality is their is a difference between negotiating amongst 27 when you are one of the largest nations and negotiating one on one when you are 8 times smaller.
Boris, May and Davis have spent the last year humiliating the UK in an effort to prove this point.
There are of course measures which already exist such as the use of trusts which minimise exposure to liabilities for residential care costs but families have the choice between caring for a relative themselves (with all that entails) and opting to place the relative in a suitable residential care facility.
I think those who look after elderly relatives at home should be supported as much as possible and the State can play a part in that as can employers but and this is especially the case with dementia sufferers, where the only option is full-time specialist care in a properly-equipped home or other facility, I recognise the extreme circumstances and the need to balance the funding of that care.
The truth is many older people don't need residential care and even fewer need the level of care of dementia sufferers but the fact remains the options are either for the State to take the full cost (with consequent tax rises for all of us) or for families and individuals to consider making adequate provision and the latter is the difficult bit.
"Look I didn't like her and unlike you cowards, I made it known. I was born to lead and all I was doing was trying to shape the government because heaven knows it was directionless at the time."
Will appear somewhere in the narrative, come the day.
My fear is that should this happen the consequences for democracy and our Country would be far worse than the present very real problems
Rupert Murdoch has threatened to close down Sky News if 21st Century Fox's bid for Sky is rejected - how do you feel about that as you are trying to stop the takeover. Tom Watson said Sky was an excellent broadcaster ( as we know it has moved to the left quite considerably) and he doesn't think it will happen. Adam Boulton to Tom Watson suggesting it would be a massive own goal and all Watson could do was to look very 'sheepish'.
I do not think this is a Murdoch bluff, he has already closed down Fox News in the UK
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41925767
Remember Rog said we are going to see Kev in a great light in the future....
TM is between a rock and a hard place but so would any other PM .
She has made mistakes and is not a people person but for now there is no alternative
If the government could admit to what it knows: that the EU has by far the stronger hand, then we could move forward.
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/928575473931702272
But even if you think they are unreasonable, we have to deal with our problems ourselves. That rock and a hard place is one that we voted for and the project is entirely owned by the Conservative government. They have to get us out of there. Blaming Remainers and the EU doesn't cut it.
However, Fox News had no viewership and as it was just a rebroadcast of the the US (where shows don't even have to pretend to be neutral, but they have to be here) and that got him in trouble.
Sky News is a really useful tool for cross promoting his platform. It does lose money, but it is chicken feed into comparison to the likes of the football deals and the amount he would have to spend to get similar advertising elsewhere.
What sum would you pay the EU to enable us to negotiate on trade?
Any sum the EU wants? If so, it would be political suicide. If Mrs May were to give away £300 billion i.e. give in to blackmail, the Labour Party would be in power within weeks.
What would Starmer pay?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41923814
I love the way they've immediately worked out the human driver of the other vehicle was to blame ...
Do you really think the Country will stomach a big bill - TM is more in tune with the electorate when she says she will protect tax payers money, than you give her credit for.
Furthermore the EU are in collusion with some in the UK actively delaying negotiations hoping that by running down the timescale the Country will either meet their demands or the Government will collapse and their dream of the UK staying in the EU is fulfilled
Personally, I think the horror some are showing at the Sky/Fox takeover is utterly misplaced and I see no good reason for preventing the takeover on plurality grounds (or, indeed, any other). What would materially change as a result of it? Some people who *already* hold a controlling stake convert that into a unanimous stake - so what? Where is the shift in power? The broadcasting impartiality rules still apply and even if they didn't, there's no market for a Fox News UK that would justify the cost. The opposition is either naive or is motivated by envy of the Murdochs success and of the political stance they adopt *elsewhere* in their media empire.
Find me ten people in the High Street who could tell you what our current GDP is and I'll buy you a packet of Bourbon Creams.
No one has any idea. As @Ishmael_Z has said, the govt should be managing expectations and putting about a number that they will come under. Whether that's £60bn coming in at £50bn or £80bn coming in at £60bn.
https://www.inquisitr.com/4608279/a-reddit-user-exposed-kevin-spacey-as-a-pedophile-years-ago-after-seeing-him-with-shirtless-boys-in-thailand/
But the reality is we're paying for the transition and the budgets we've already agreed to.
Gone are these days, though perhaps German car manufacturers might still save our bacon.
And of course, the EU are heartened by some in the UK playing along.
That's one reason I have little faith in politicians when good spin-doctoring makes the ideal candidate. But I have even less faith in EU politicians.
I may be wrong and would be surprised, but an appointment would normally have been announced by now I would have thought
"What's your number and how did you get to it?"
They pay us £200 billion for wasting our time, and I calculated the same way the EU do. On the back of a fag packet
The Welsh model of justice.
If you don't know but it just "seems" high, then that is a perfectly understandable position to take, although not without its pitfalls (cf. sovereignty).
Nothing changes, except politicians were much more fluent and articulate in those days.
EDIT. It seems you can't embed youtube videos with time marks. Start at 33 minutes in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo&feature=youtu.be&t=2023 Blackmail is such an ugly word, I prefer the term incentive based decision making.
But the reality is we're paying for the transition and the budgets we've already agreed to.
Gone are these days, though perhaps German car manufacturers might still save our bacon.
This runs to over €300B
The EU want us to pay for this in the same contributory ratio as we would have had we been members (so in other words, Germany and UK would be the big contributors to this). So its not just the budget to 2020, but the overspend.
This is leading the 'Keep UK in' hopes in the EU, especially in Germany. With QMV now the order of the day in Brussels, removing the UK will see that overspend, and the demands for Germany to pay time and time again, almost certainly increase. This will lead to friction.
Germany and the other Northern contributors will feel more at the mercy of a set of basket case nations which blame it for all their economic ills via the Euro project.
The EU (or some in positions of power in it) , believe that if the UK could be coerced into changing its mind, the EU would become unbreakable - the strongest potential leaver brought back into the fold, and the budgetary expansion secured for the foreseeable future.
I predict that one day this will lead to a very serious crash.
(The final report into the tragic Croydon tram crash might show similar problems).
A second referendum would be far better than the political class just ignoring the result of the first, but would still engender bitterness and division.
It is also clear that they still haven't understood that British people do not like to be coerced into a political union.
If any politician or group of politicians in Britain are fool enough to sign up us to staying in the EU, the democratic consequences would be far, far greater than any imaginable outcome of no deal.
That has been the problem all along: they are refusing to have the conversation necessary to unlock any deal, namely what we get in return.
Clearly, there is a 'bad deal' scenario which is massively worse than a 'no deal' scenario, namely one where we do agree to give them megabucks and then the trade deal never actually happens or is paltry.
I really don't know the government can do to resolve this mess. Just agreeing to pay megabucks wouldn't resolve it.
Southam Observer :
I agree 100%. Compared to the alternative a £50 billion exit fee is a drop in the ocean.
£50B is not a massive problem, or at least it isn't if we know exactly what liabilities are covered for it and what the deal is likely to be at the end of it. If the EU then take that agreement and then play very rough with the future relations part of the negotiation, then the chances of any money actually being paid without recourse to international arbitration is very low - meaning 'No deal' and a very nasty fall out for everyone.
Their attitude over Citizens rights is actually more of a sticking point, because they desperately want the big win there - ECJ control over third country affairs. In this way I wonder if they wish to ape the judicial over reach that the US often seems to extend, because they see themselves as a rival to the US as a power. There's an opportunity here for them to flex their muscles.
Refer the amount of any payment to an independent international arbitrator and get on with the trade talks, if the EU won’t agree to get then they’re trying to blackmail us.
"Boles said the government should accept that “the age of austerity” is over and that, while said austerity was the right policy when the annual deficit stood at 10% of GDP, but it was “absolutely fine” for it to remain at its current level of around 2.6% indefinitely.
"We should stop trying to cut [the deficit] any further. We should drop our surplus target because the urgent priority now is to get productivity up and to get real wages up....
Many governments run deficits of that sort of level [ie, around 2.6%] year on year. So long as you are spending the money on investment, there is a very good prospect that that will generate a return in the economy that enables you to pay the debt down.""
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/09/theresa-may-under-pressure-to-replace-patel-with-brexit-enthusiast-politics-live
What if it's dreadful, do we have to accept it regardless?
Start building customs posts.
Work out tariff rostas.
Start trade talks in earnest with other nations. Especially Aus, NZ, Canada.
Start writing impact studies on cutting corporation tax to 12-15% for the first 10 years for companies relocating to Britain (I don't really want this to happen, but it would scare the bejesus out of the EU commission)
etc etc
But at some point she has to face them down or she will trash the country.
WE DONT LIKE TO BE PUSHED AROUND. WE"RE ENGLISH AND WE DO WHAT WE WANT!
Thank God for the Metropolitan elite or we really would be pariahs
Similarly, I'm unsurprised the trade talks which there were many notes of optimism about happening this December are, in fact, apparently very unlikely to happen as hoped. It's in the EU's interest for no progress to be made for as long as possible, to wring concessions out of us at the last minute.
Supporters of other parties see for example high income tax rates on higher earners as forcing “the rich” to pay “their fair share”, but what it does in practice is encourage them to spend money on accountants or even drive them offshore completely.
I voted Remain because I wanted Cameron and Osborne to stay and consider the economic benefits of the EU trump the disadvantages. However next time you're in Sussex take a stroll through the grimy streets of Bognor Regis, and you might understand the reason why people were happy to vote Leave.
I’ll do a thread on Brexit will do to the Tories what WWI did to the Liberals.
In the 1920's the Liberals came under attack from both the Tories and the rapidly emerging Labour Party... At the moment there doesn't seem to be such an external threat to the Tories.
The most likely scenario is that Con lose the election, Jezza takes over and under new leadership the Tories rapidly regroup to take on Corbyn?
There isn't the will or the way.
Labour might be daft enough to have one after we have left about rejoining but well good luck getting turnout for that one.
Full time care should be funded by social insurance as I have already said and ad is done in the Netherlands and Japan.
Took 13 years, and thanks largely to David Cameron, the only Tory to win a majority in the last quarter of a century.