May has deferred for as long as possible, and the Cabinet has not been able to form a consensus on this. Thus, she needs Parliament to vote one way or another. Probably she is “relaxed” about the outcome, she can live in, our out, of a customs union.
It does increasingly feels like the ERG - or perhaps Johnson - are preparing for a challenge, though.
And, come the parliamentary vote, if Corbyn smells blood, surely he’d take the opportunity to depose May, even if it means allowing a free vote on the single market? Deposing May is his quickest route to a Labour government.
If the price of the key to Number 10 is staying in the SM (at least agreeing to do so...) Jezza and John would jump at it.
Except it isn't as such a policy would keep free movement in place and see working class Labour Leave voters in key Midlands and Northern marginal seats abandon the party in droves
Maybe, Maybe not. Lets do it and see.
No ifs or buts about it, leaving free movement in place would see a significant number of Labour Leave seats in the Midlands and North fall to the Tories or even a revived UKIP and Corbyn knows it which is why while he is prepared to stay in the Customs Union he will not agree to stay in the Single Market. Not forgetting Corbyn is also ideologically opposed to the Single Market unlike the Customs Union as it will stop him pushing through the nationalisations he wants to undertake if he becomes PM
Interesting. I think it will be varied in perhaps unexpected ways.
Round here they have lost Mansfield Council and Mayoralty to Independents for most of the the last 20 years. The Tories famously won the Commons' seat last year.
In Ashfield control has been like a 3 way yoyo, but Corbynistas just handed it back to Ashfield Independents (good answer for Pointless in names of political parties :-) who used to be Lib Dems by behaving like dickheads. And the MP's majority is back down to 400.
Thanks. Website says our local Waitrose stock it so will give it a try.
Annoyingly, I can't find the article on the Telegraph website... the headline "Zero booze or bacon if you want to avoid cancer" is clearly misleading but I guess there's a degree of truth in there.
I wouldn't worry. It's probably some Doc or Dietician on the make, or an Academic wanting attention.
Moderation in all things, and don't regret the little bit of time you lose if you enjoyed those sarnies.
Have a gin and look at the printed copy in the morning.
Nope. It is the Nitrosamines found in cured meats that have a role in Bowel Cancer, with a strong and consistent link across studies.
Thanks. Website says our local Waitrose stock it so will give it a try.
Sainsbury have it too. It doesn't have quite the same shelf life, but is real quality. Serrano Ham is naturally Nitrite and Nitrate free too.
Booze is a bit trickier!
Ah that's interesting - we always go for serrano over say parma because we prefer the taste and texture. I am fine on the booze front - I never drink wine with nitrites in it!
Oops just checked, it is Parma Ham that is Nitrite free, not Serrano. Not sure about Iberico.
Ah no! Sod it - we only have it about once a month - probably gonna knock 10 mins off my lifespan.
The reason I know that this £20bn figure is complete nonsense is Switzerland running a reverse version of what is being proposed. If the cost of doing so was anywhere near £20bn there is no way the Swiss would continue to operate it.
Absolutely mental that anyone could believe such nonsense.
Do you know what the equivalent figure is in Switzerland, an economy much smaller than that of the UK ? Also, they always had the infrastructure as they were never part of the EU.
Infrastructure is a capital cost, not an recurring cost. I'll have to see if the figure is available, but from what I can tell 0.05% of GDP is spent on customs facilitation and a further 0.05% on the EU collecting and keeping Swiss tariffs if the goods enter via an EU port.
Of course they are effectively in the single market, allow free movement, signed up to Schengen, etc... Maybe if we did those things we could keep costs to a minimum?
They aren't in the single market and they aren't in any kind of customs union with the EU.
The only reason Switzerland is in Schengen is because it's completely impractical not to be, but the UK and Ireland are in the CTA which enables smooth travel across the border without needing any ID.
Well, I know Wikipedia is not always right but here's what it says...
The relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) are framed by a series of bilateral treaties whereby the Swiss Confederation has adopted various provisions of European Union law in order to participate in the Union's single market, without joining as a member state.
That's correct, but they aren't in the single market or the customs union.
"...in order to participate in the Union's single market..." ??
Max is right. They may participate in some aspects of the Single Market but they are not 'in' it. They are not members of the EEA and so are outside the Single Market.
Ok, thanks. I have to confess I am struggling to understand the difference between 'participating in the single market' and 'being in the single market'.
They choose what they want to participate in. The fabled a la carte model the EU says doesn't exist.
May has deferred for as long as possible, and the Cabinet has not been able to form a consensus on this. Thus, she needs Parliament to vote one way or another. Probably she is “relaxed” about the outcome, she can live in, our out, of a customs union.
It does increasingly feels like the ERG - or perhaps Johnson - are preparing for a challenge, though.
And, come the parliamentary vote, if Corbyn smells blood, surely he’d take the opportunity to depose May, even if it means allowing a free vote on the single market? Deposing May is his quickest route to a Labour government.
If the price of the key to Number 10 is staying in the SM (at least agreeing to do so...) Jezza and John would jump at it.
Except it isn't as such a policy would keep free movement in place and see working class Labour Leave voters in key Midlands and Northern marginal seats abandon the party in droves
Maybe, Maybe not. Lets do it and see.
No ifs or buts about it, leaving free movement in place would see a significant number of Labour Leave seats in the Midlands and North fall to the Tories or even a revived UKIP and Corbyn knows it which is why while he is prepared to stay in the Customs Union he will not agree to stay in the Single Market. Not forgetting Corbyn is also ideologically opposed to the Single Market unlike the Customs Union as it will stop him pushing through the nationalisations he wants to undertake if he becomes PM
I have read this latter point in several places, yet if it is true, how have we
a) just renationalised the East Coast Mainline b) are building the largest construction project in Europe under public ownership (Crossrail) and c) have the world’s fifth largest employer within the public sector (the NHS)
Yes, they aren't in it though. They choose to participate in some parts and decline in some other parts and have completely refused ECJ jurisdiction. The EU has tried to foist the latter on Switzerland time and again but each time the Swiss people reject the idea of a submitting to a foreign court so the EU backs down.
As I've said before, we should fire Davis, Boris and Fox then get the Swiss to do it for us.
The EU reckoned it made a mistake with the Swiss deal, which is why relations are in the deep freeze, and the EU won't accept new stuff the Swiss want, for example on drugs certification. The EU won't repeat the perceived mistake for the UK on the way out of the EU that it made for Switzerland nominally on the way in.
The reason I know that this £20bn figure is complete nonsense is Switzerland running a reverse version of what is being proposed. If the cost of doing so was anywhere near £20bn there is no way the Swiss would continue to operate it.
Absolutely mental that anyone could believe such nonsense.
Do you know what the equivalent figure is in Switzerland, an economy much smaller than that of the UK ? Also, they always had the infrastructure as they were never part of the EU.
Infrastructure is a capital cost, not an recurring cost. I'll have to see if the figure is available, but from what I can tell 0.05% of GDP is spent on customs facilitation and a further 0.05% on the EU collecting and keeping Swiss tariffs if the goods enter via an EU port.
Of course they are effectively in the single market, allow free movement, signed up to Schengen, etc... Maybe if we did those things we could keep costs to a minimum?
They aren't in the single market and they aren't in any kind of customs union with the EU.
The only reason Switzerland is in Schengen is because it's completely impractical not to be, but the UK and Ireland are in the CTA which enables smooth travel across the border without needing any ID.
Well, I know Wikipedia is not always right but here's what it says...
The relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) are framed by a series of bilateral treaties whereby the Swiss Confederation has adopted various provisions of European Union law in order to participate in the Union's single market, without joining as a member state.
That's correct, but they aren't in the single market or the customs union.
"...in order to participate in the Union's single market..." ??
Max is right. They may participate in some aspects of the Single Market but they are not 'in' it. They are not members of the EEA and so are outside the Single Market.
Ok, thanks. I have to confess I am struggling to understand the difference between 'participating in the single market' and 'being in the single market'.
They choose what they want to participate in. The fabled a la carte model the EU says doesn't exist.
The reason I know that this £20bn figure is complete nonsense is Switzerland running a reverse version of what is being proposed. If the cost of doing so was anywhere near £20bn there is no way the Swiss would continue to operate it.
Absolutely mental that anyone could believe such nonsense.
Do you know what the equivalent figure is in Switzerland, an economy much smaller than that of the UK ? Also, they always had the infrastructure as they were never part of the EU.
Infrastructure is a capital cost, not an recurring cost. I'll have to see if the figure is available, but from what I can tell 0.05% of GDP is spent on customs facilitation and a further 0.05% on the EU collecting and keeping Swiss tariffs if the goods enter via an EU port.
Of course they are effectively in the single market, allow free movement, signed up to Schengen, etc... Maybe if we did those things we could keep costs to a minimum?
They aren't in the single market and they aren't in any kind of customs union with the EU.
The only reason Switzerland is in Schengen is because it's completely impractical not to be, but the UK and Ireland are in the CTA which enables smooth travel across the border without needing any ID.
They are in the single market for goods, but not for services.
The EU failed in Britain because to 90% of people it felt like a government of other people, run by other people for the benefit of other people. Therefore the best case was that it *happened* to work out for the UK.
Thanks. Website says our local Waitrose stock it so will give it a try.
Annoyingly, I can't find the article on the Telegraph website... the headline "Zero booze or bacon if you want to avoid cancer" is clearly misleading but I guess there's a degree of truth in there.
I wouldn't worry. It's probably some Doc or Dietician on the make, or an Academic wanting attention.
Moderation in all things, and don't regret the little bit of time you lose if you enjoyed those sarnies.
Have a gin and look at the printed copy in the morning.
Hah! You're confusing me with someone who buys the Torygraph! Never mind, I expect the same story will pop up in my Grauniad in a few days time
The reason I know that this £20bn figure is complete nonsense is Switzerland running a reverse version of what is being proposed. If the cost of doing so was anywhere near £20bn there is no way the Swiss would continue to operate it.
Absolutely mental that anyone could believe such nonsense.
Do you know what the equivalent figure is in Switzerland, an economy much smaller than that of the UK ? Also, they always had the infrastructure as they were never part of the EU.
Infrastructure is a capital cost, not an recurring cost. I'll have to see if the figure is available, but from what I can tell 0.05% of GDP is spent on customs facilitation and a further 0.05% on the EU collecting and keeping Swiss tariffs if the goods enter via an EU port.
Of course they are effectively in the single market, allow free movement, signed up to Schengen, etc... Maybe if we did those things we could keep costs to a minimum?
They aren't in the single market and they aren't in any kind of customs union with the EU.
The only reason Switzerland is in Schengen is because it's completely impractical not to be, but the UK and Ireland are in the CTA which enables smooth travel across the border without needing any ID.
Well, I know Wikipedia is not always right but here's what it says...
The relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) are framed by a series of bilateral treaties whereby the Swiss Confederation has adopted various provisions of European Union law in order to participate in the Union's single market, without joining as a member state.
That's correct, but they aren't in the single market or the customs union.
"...in order to participate in the Union's single market..." ??
Max is right. They may participate in some aspects of the Single Market but they are not 'in' it. They are not members of the EEA and so are outside the Single Market.
Ok, thanks. I have to confess I am struggling to understand the difference between 'participating in the single market' and 'being in the single market'.
Duh! It’s similar to the clear difference between the Customs Union and a Customs Union
The EU failed in Britain because to 90% of people it felt like a government of other people, run by other people for the benefit of other people. Therefore the best case was that it *happened* to work out for the UK.
The reason I know that this £20bn figure is complete nonsense is Switzerland running a reverse version of what is being proposed. If the cost of doing so was anywhere near £20bn there is no way the Swiss would continue to operate it.
Absolutely mental that anyone could believe such nonsense.
Do you know what the equivalent figure is in Switzerland, an economy much smaller than that of the UK ? Also, they always had the infrastructure as they were never part of the EU.
Infrastructure is a capital cost, not an recurring cost. I'll have to see if the figure is available, but from what I can tell 0.05% of GDP is spent on customs facilitation and a further 0.05% on the EU collecting and keeping Swiss tariffs if the goods enter via an EU port.
Of course they are effectively in the single market, allow free movement, signed up to Schengen, etc... Maybe if we did those things we could keep costs to a minimum?
They aren't in the single market and they aren't in any kind of customs union with the EU.
The only reason Switzerland is in Schengen is because it's completely impractical not to be, but the UK and Ireland are in the CTA which enables smooth travel across the border without needing any ID.
They are in the single market for goods, but not for services.
Does that mean they can't sell us their "How to work with the EU" service?
The reason I know that this £20bn figure is complete nonsense is Switzerland running a reverse version of what is being proposed. If the cost of doing so was anywhere near £20bn there is no way the Swiss would continue to operate it.
Absolutely mental that anyone could believe such nonsense.
Do you know what the equivalent figure is in Switzerland, an economy much smaller than that of the UK ? Also, they always had the infrastructure as they were never part of the EU.
Infrastructure is a capital cost, not an recurring cost. I'll have to see if the figure is available, but from what I can tell 0.05% of GDP is spent on customs facilitation and a further 0.05% on the EU collecting and keeping Swiss tariffs if the goods enter via an EU port.
Of course they are effectively in the single market, allow free movement, signed up to Schengen, etc... Maybe if we did those things we could keep costs to a minimum?
They aren't in the single market and they aren't in any kind of customs union with the EU.
.
Well, I know Wikipedia is not always right but here's what it says...
The relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) are framed by a series of bilateral treaties whereby the Swiss Confederation has adopted various provisions of European Union law in order to participate in the Union's single market, without joining as a member state.
That's correct, but they aren't in the single market or the customs union.
"...in order to participate in the Union's single market..." ??
Max is right. They may participate in some aspects of the Single Market but they are not 'in' it. They are not members of the EEA and so are outside the Single Market.
Ok, thanks. I have to confess I am struggling to understand the difference between 'participating in the single market' and 'being in the single market'.
They choose what they want to participate in. The fabled a la carte model the EU says doesn't exist.
Maybe we should just apply to join Switzerland
in 2016, Switzerland formally withdrew its application for EU membership.[4][5]
May has deferred for as long as possible, and the Cabinet has not been able to form a consensus on this. Thus, she needs Parliament to vote one way or another. Probably she is “relaxed” about the outcome, she can live in, our out, of a customs union.
It does increasingly feels like the ERG - or perhaps Johnson - are preparing for a challenge, though.
And, come the parliamentary vote, if Corbyn smells blood, surely he’d take the opportunity to depose May, even if it means allowing a free vote on the single market? Deposing May is his quickest route to a Labour government.
If the price of the key to Number 10 is staying in the SM (at least agreeing to do so...) Jezza and John would jump at it.
Except it isn't as such a policy would keep free movement in place and see working class Labour Leave voters in key Midlands and Northern marginal seats abandon the party in droves
Maybe, Maybe not. Lets do it and see.
No ifs or buts about it, leaving free movement in place would see a significant number of Labour Leave seats in the Midlands and North fall to the Tories or even a revived UKIP and Corbyn knows it which is why while he is prepared to stay in the Customs Union he will not agree to stay in the Single Market. Not forgetting Corbyn is also ideologically opposed to the Single Market unlike the Customs Union as it will stop him pushing through the nationalisations he wants to undertake if he becomes PM
I have read this latter point in several places, yet if it is true, how have we
a) just renationalised the East Coast Mainline b) are building the largest construction project in Europe under public ownership (Crossrail) and c) have the world’s fifth largest employer within the public sector (the NHS)
a) The government has had to operate within the contracts and laws that exist b) MTR Corporation will run Crossrail under contract from TfL C) If Corbyn tried to end PFI etc in healthcare he could run into problems
It’s getting exciting - in a month we might know what Britain’s post-Brexit trading relationship with the EU will be, the Tory Party might be choosing a new leader, we might be preparing for a general election and Jeremy Corbyn might be PM!
The reason I know that this £20bn figure is complete nonsense is Switzerland running a reverse version of what is being proposed. If the cost of doing so was anywhere near £20bn there is no way the Swiss would continue to operate it.
Absolutely mental that anyone could believe such nonsense.
Do you know what the equivalent figure is in Switzerland, an economy much smaller than that of the UK ? Also, they always had the infrastructure as they were never part of the EU.
Infrastructure is a capital cost, not an recurring cost. I'll have to see if the figure is available, but from what I can tell 0.05% of GDP is spent on customs facilitation and a further 0.05% on the EU collecting and keeping Swiss tariffs if the goods enter via an EU port.
Of course they are effectively in the single market, allow free movement, signed up to Schengen, etc... Maybe if we did those things we could keep costs to a minimum?
They aren't in the single market and they aren't in any kind of customs union with the EU.
The only reason Switzerland is in Schengen is because it's completely impractical not to be, but the UK and Ireland are in the CTA which enables smooth travel across the border without needing any ID.
They are in the single market for goods, but not for services.
Not entirely, their goods trade treaty is not subject to ECJ jurisdiction which puts it firmly in the "not in the single market" camp. Though the bilateral treaties do replicate pretty much the rest of the goods single market.
Again, I've said it about a million times, the Swiss are much better at this than we are. When it comes to immigration, benefits, education, healthcare the Swiss way is far, far superior to our own.
The reason I know that this £20bn figure is complete nonsense is Switzerland running a reverse version of what is being proposed. If the cost of doing so was anywhere near £20bn there is no way the Swiss would continue to operate it.
Absolutely mental that anyone could believe such nonsense.
Do you know what the equivalent figure is in Switzerland, an economy much smaller than that of the UK ? Also, they always had the infrastructure as they were never part of the EU.
Infrastructure is a capital cost, not an recurring cost. I'll have to see if the figure is available, but from what I can tell 0.05% of GDP is spent on customs facilitation and a further 0.05% on the EU collecting and keeping Swiss tariffs if the goods enter via an EU port.
Of course they are effectively in the single market, allow free movement, signed up to Schengen, etc... Maybe if we did those things we could keep costs to a minimum?
They aren't in the single market and they aren't in any kind of customs union with the EU.
The only reason Switzerland is in Schengen is because it's completely impractical not to be, but the UK and Ireland are in the CTA which enables smooth travel across the border without needing any ID.
Well, I know Wikipedia is not always right but here's what it says...
The relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) are framed by a series of bilateral treaties whereby the Swiss Confederation has adopted various provisions of European Union law in order to participate in the Union's single market, without joining as a member state.
That's correct, but they aren't in the single market or the customs union.
"...in order to participate in the Union's single market..." ??
Max is right. They may participate in some aspects of the Single Market but they are not 'in' it. They are not members of the EEA and so are outside the Single Market.
Ok, thanks. I have to confess I am struggling to understand the difference between 'participating in the single market' and 'being in the single market'.
Duh! It’s similar to the clear difference between the Customs Union and a Customs Union
The EU failed in Britain because to 90% of people it felt like a government of other people, run by other people for the benefit of other people. Therefore the best case was that it *happened* to work out for the UK.
Which 90% was that?
This 90% that do not think of themselves as European:
May has deferred for as long as possible, and the Cabinet has not been able to form a consensus on this. Thus, she needs Parliament to vote one way or another. Probably she is “relaxed” about the outcome, she can live in, our out, of a customs union.
It does increasingly feels like the ERG - or perhaps Johnson - are preparing for a challenge, though.
And, come the parliamentary vote, if Corbyn smells blood, surely he’d take the opportunity to depose May, even if it means allowing a free vote on the single market? Deposing May is his quickest route to a Labour government.
If the price of the key to Number 10 is staying in the SM (at least agreeing to do so...) Jezza and John would jump at it.
Except it isn't as such a policy would keep free movement in place and see working class Labour Leave voters in key Midlands and Northern marginal seats abandon the party in droves
Maybe, Maybe not. Lets do it and see.
No ifs or buts about it, leaving free movement in place would see a significant number of Labour Leave seats in the Midlands and North fall to the Tories or even a revived UKIP and Corbyn knows it which is why while he is prepared to stay in the Customs Union he will not agree to stay in the Single Market. Not forgetting Corbyn is also ideologically opposed to the Single Market unlike the Customs Union as it will stop him pushing through the nationalisations he wants to undertake if he becomes PM
I have read this latter point in several places, yet if it is true, how have we
a) just renationalised the East Coast Mainline b) are building the largest construction project in Europe under public ownership (Crossrail) and c) have the world’s fifth largest employer within the public sector (the NHS)
a) The government has had to operate within the contracts and laws that exist b) MTR Corporation will run Crossrail under contract from TfL C) If Corbyn tried to end PFI etc in healthcare he could run into problems
indeed but TfL and Network Rail own the Line and the project. MTR are a concessionaire who run the trains.
Petty Court politics by the sound of it. And they ask why we are leaving!
Curious. So if it works, where are the Germans going to get an extra Eurofighter from when they need 5 rather than the 4 out of their 128 that they manage to keep working?
But its rather nice to discover that the Germans don't want our help in safeguarding Eastern Europe from the Russians.
Good poll for Labour today: 41% for both main parties, ComRes.
Putting latest EMA in Electoral Calculus gives, compared with GE:
Com 314 (-4) Lab 260 (-2) LD 16 (+4)
Con 12 short of a majority
We need to bring the Scottish equation here, which is not Lab-Con. Labour could easily gain another 10 seats in Scotland.
Labour could gain another ten seats in Scotland but I'm using the Electoral Calculus assumptions for Scotland.
Con 28.6% (-3.6%) Lab 27.0% (-0.1%) SNP 37.5% (+0.6%)
Result is
Ceredigion LIB gain from PC Fife North LIB gain from SNP Glasgow North East SNP gain from LAB Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath SNP gain from LAB Richmond Park LIB gain from CON Rutherglen and Hamilton SNP gain from LAB Southampton Itchen LAB gain from CON St Ives LIB gain from CON Stirling SNP gain from CON
Good poll for Labour today: 41% for both main parties, ComRes.
Putting latest EMA in Electoral Calculus gives, compared with GE:
Com 314 (-4) Lab 260 (-2) LD 16 (+4)
Con 12 short of a majority
Why anyone affords even the slightest bit of credence to midterm polling these days is beyond me.
This latest ‘dead heat’ is just the latest set of numbers to emerge from the pollsters’ bingo machine.
It might be end of term polling rather than midterm polling if there is an early general election so might be of interest to anyone contemplating an early election.
It's a current best guess based on smoothing the latest polls and using Electoral Calculus modelling assumptions. It is not a prediction in any way of the likely result in 2022.
A chemist, a physicist and a pollster marooned on a desert island.
A pallet full of tinned baked beans washes up.
“Don’t worry”, says the chemist, “the water will react with the metal and eventually corrode it so we can open the tins.”
“No need to wait,” says the physicist, “if we take these rocks, we can strike the tins until they buckle and break open.”
The pollster pipes up. “First let us assume we have a tin opener.”
The good news for the chemist & physicist is that - when they get the tins open - the pollster will only need to eat a few to know what they all taste like.
It might be end of term polling rather than midterm polling if there is an early general election so might be of interest to anyone contemplating an early election.
If 2017 proved anything it's midterm polls are not predictive (except in a very broad sense) even if they become end-of-term polls courtesy of a snap general election.
Good poll for Labour today: 41% for both main parties, ComRes.
Putting latest EMA in Electoral Calculus gives, compared with GE:
Com 314 (-4) Lab 260 (-2) LD 16 (+4)
Con 12 short of a majority
Why anyone affords even the slightest bit of credence to midterm polling these days is beyond me.
This latest ‘dead heat’ is just the latest set of numbers to emerge from the pollsters’ bingo machine.
It might be end of term polling rather than midterm polling if there is an early general election so might be of interest to anyone contemplating an early election.
It's a current best guess based on smoothing the latest polls and using Electoral Calculus modelling assumptions. It is not a prediction in any way of the likely result in 2022.
The polling consistently suggests Hung Parliament. Which, given the polling 13 short months ago, would make an Autumn election an insane gamble.
A chemist, a physicist and a pollster marooned on a desert island.
A pallet full of tinned baked beans washes up.
“Don’t worry”, says the chemist, “the water will react with the metal and eventually corrode it so we can open the tins.”
“No need to wait,” says the physicist, “if we take these rocks, we can strike the tins until they buckle and break open.”
The pollster pipes up. “First let us assume we have a tin opener.”
The good news for the chemist & physicist is that - when they get the tins open - the pollster will only need to eat a few to know what they all taste like.
Petty Court politics by the sound of it. And they ask why we are leaving!
OK, I give up. Why are we leaving? The glorious trade benefits do not seem to be materialising and the extra money for the NHS is in devalued currency. Border control is currently running at "the Irish can control the border, it's nothing to do with us" whilst rocking back and forth. So that leaves sovereignity, the ability to do exactly as we like...provided we agree it with everybody else. Excellent. That was the plan. I was worried for a moment...
Good poll for Labour today: 41% for both main parties, ComRes.
Putting latest EMA in Electoral Calculus gives, compared with GE:
Com 314 (-4) Lab 260 (-2) LD 16 (+4)
Con 12 short of a majority
Why anyone affords even the slightest bit of credence to midterm polling these days is beyond me.
This latest ‘dead heat’ is just the latest set of numbers to emerge from the pollsters’ bingo machine.
It might be end of term polling rather than midterm polling if there is an early general election so might be of interest to anyone contemplating an early election.
It's a current best guess based on smoothing the latest polls and using Electoral Calculus modelling assumptions. It is not a prediction in any way of the likely result in 2022.
The polling consistently suggests Hung Parliament. Which, given the polling 13 short months ago, would make an Autumn election an insane gamble.
Which is unfortunately different from saying it won't happen...
Good poll for Labour today: 41% for both main parties, ComRes.
Putting latest EMA in Electoral Calculus gives, compared with GE:
Com 314 (-4) Lab 260 (-2) LD 16 (+4)
Con 12 short of a majority
Why anyone affords even the slightest bit of credence to midterm polling these days is beyond me.
This latest ‘dead heat’ is just the latest set of numbers to emerge from the pollsters’ bingo machine.
It might be end of term polling rather than midterm polling if there is an early general election so might be of interest to anyone contemplating an early election.
It's a current best guess based on smoothing the latest polls and using Electoral Calculus modelling assumptions. It is not a prediction in any way of the likely result in 2022.
The polling consistently suggests Hung Parliament. Which, given the polling 13 short months ago, would make an Autumn election an insane gamble.
Which is unfortunately different from saying it won't happen...
Well indeed. Would not be the most unlikely political event of the past 3 years I grant you...
Petty Court politics by the sound of it. And they ask why we are leaving!
OK, I give up. Why are we leaving? The glorious trade benefits do not seem to be materialising and the extra money for the NHS is in devalued currency. Border control is currently running at "the Irish can control the border, it's nothing to do with us" whilst rocking back and forth. So that leaves sovereignity, the ability to do exactly as we like...provided we agree it with everybody else. Excellent. That was the plan. I was worried for a moment...
Petty Court politics by the sound of it. And they ask why we are leaving!
OK, I give up. Why are we leaving? The glorious trade benefits do not seem to be materialising and the extra money for the NHS is in devalued currency. Border control is currently running at "the Irish can control the border, it's nothing to do with us" whilst rocking back and forth. So that leaves sovereignity, the ability to do exactly as we like...provided we agree it with everybody else. Excellent. That was the plan. I was worried for a moment...
Who will say that? Barely any Tories I know for whom the Union is sacrosanct and the Customs Union is something they will shrug their shoulders about, barely any working class Leavers who only really care about ending free movement and leaving the single market, maybe the most ideological Leaver for whom leaving the Customs Union comes before anything else like Richard North and maybe Cummings but barely anyone has heard of them anyway
The Irish PM has already indicated that CU alone will not be enough to abide by the Good Friday agreement, we will also need to abide by the SM as well. That means freedom of movement. Tory MPs might be happy to accept that, a lot of Leave voters will not. NI may have a special place in the heart to the Conservative Party but the vast majority (I would guess) of people have never been there, have no plans and don't have this view of Northern Ireland must be defended at all costs.
No actually he has not said that, he just said he would need to align with some of the single market rules and regulations not actually remain a member of it which if we remained in the customs union would not be much of a jump. That also still means free movement could end and be replaced by work permits as the UK government intends.
The Tory Party as a whole is certainly far more committed to the Union and I would expect the majority of voters too than leaving the Customs Union so Liam Fox can get a few trade deals not necessarily any better than we have now and maybe worse after years of negotiation
You are deluding yourself. For the CU to solve the NI border the way the EU wants, we would have to abide by ALL the SM regulations - otherwise there would still need to be border checks according to the EU. Which will mean:
1. Ongoing contributions to Brussels - against May's red line 2. ECJ jurisdiction - against May's red line 3. FOM (dressed up as something else - shall we use the term 'work permits'?) - against May's red line.
I know that you are a Tory and thus used to selling the country down the river on Europe - Heath, Maastricht, Lisbon Treaty non-referendum, Cameron's fake 're-negotiation' and now Brexit. But just be honest about what you are doing rather than pretending that you are in any way trying to carry out the referendum result.
Anyhoo, to take your mind off Brexit for a brief moment. I have recently discovered Yale's course YouTube channel, and one of the online lecture courses is the The Early Middle Ages, 284--1000 with Paul Friedman. I know we have some people interested in that period of history, so enjoy:
As I am sure you are aware, Cameron promised a referendum on this if he won office - a 'cast iron' guarantee no less. A bit like the guarantees that May has given over Brexit - which she will now refuse to implement.
Petty Court politics by the sound of it. And they ask why we are leaving!
OK, I give up. Why are we leaving? The glorious trade benefits do not seem to be materialising and the extra money for the NHS is in devalued currency. Border control is currently running at "the Irish can control the border, it's nothing to do with us" whilst rocking back and forth. So that leaves sovereignity, the ability to do exactly as we like...provided we agree it with everybody else. Excellent. That was the plan. I was worried for a moment...
We are leaving because of the benefits of control. The more pertinent question is why some are sabotaging the process to prevent that happening.
Who will say that? Barely any Tories I know for whom the Union is sacrosanct and the Customs Union is something they will shrug their shoulders about, barely any working class Leavers who only really care about ending free movement and leaving the single market, maybe the most ideological Leaver for whom leaving the Customs Union comes before anything else like Richard North and maybe Cummings but barely anyone has heard of them anyway
The Irish PM has already indicated that CU alone will not be enough to abide by the Good Friday agreement, we will also need to abide by the SM as well. That means freedom of movement. Tory MPs might be happy to accept that, a lot of Leave voters will not. NI may have a special place in the heart to the Conservative Party but the vast majority (I would guess) of people have never been there, have no plans and don't have this view of Northern Ireland must be defended at all costs.
No actually he has not said that, he just said he would need to align with some of the single market rules and regulations not actually remain a member of it which if we remained in the customs union would not be much of a jump. That also still means free movement could end and be replaced by work permits as the UK government intends.
The Tory Party as a whole is certainly far more committed to the Union and I would expect the majority of voters too than leaving the Customs Union so Liam Fox can get a few trade deals not necessarily any better than we have now and maybe worse after years of negotiation
You are deluding yourself. For the CU to solve the NI border the way the EU wants, we would have to abide by ALL the SM regulations - otherwise there would still need to be border checks according to the EU. Which will mean:
1. Ongoing contributions to Brussels - against May's red line 2. ECJ jurisdiction - against May's red line 3. FOM (dressed up as something else - shall we use the term 'work permits'?) - against May's red line.
I know that you are a Tory and thus used to selling the country down the river on Europe - Heath, Maastricht, Lisbon Treaty non-referendum, Cameron's fake 're-negotiation' and now Brexit. But just be honest about what you are doing rather than pretending that you are in any way trying to carry out the referendum result.
May has always been clear she would replace FoM with work permits so there is no breaching of her red lines there. The referendum result to Leave the EU is also being carried out.
Yes I am a Tory, I am not UKIP, if people want ultra hard Brexit ie out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market, no regulatory alignment and a hard border in Ireland and no FTA and WTO terms they can still vote for them
As I am sure you are aware, Cameron promised a referendum on this if he won office - a 'cast iron' guarantee no less. A bit like the guarantees that May has given over Brexit - which she will now refuse to implement.
Why didn't Labour put Lisbon to a referendum while they were in office?
As I am sure you are aware, Cameron promised a referendum on this if he won office - a 'cast iron' guarantee no less. A bit like the guarantees that May has given over Brexit - which she will now refuse to implement.
No he did not. That is totally incorrect.
Cameron promised if he won the General Election in 2007 that Gordon Brown was going to call then he would hold a referendum before Lisbon was ratified.
Brown chickened out of holding the 2007 election though and ratified Lisbon prior to Cameron being elected at which point Cameron, still as Leader of the Opposition, said that he could no longer hold a Lisbon referendum because of it already being ratified. He got elected as PM on the basis of the 2010 manifesto not the cancelled 2007 one.
Selmayr.....the gift that keeps on giving.....to Brexiteers:
A German-backed clique of Brussels officials in the European Commission is fighting to exclude Britain from the Galileo satellite project.
French officials privately said they were unhappy with proposals that would block Britain from the government and military navigation system after Brexit. Other nations standing in solidarity with Britain and defending the country against Brussels officials include Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the Baltic states.
Led by Martin Selmayr, the commission's top mandarin, the Brussels group is causing some concern among diplomats who believe they could be acting beyond their remit.
The 2017 election was called with an extra 2 weeks' notice in case Labour opposed it, to allow for a repeal of FTPA. And that was when there was a Conservative majority to do it.
On what basis did they allow for two weeks in 2017? Wouldn't such a quick repeal require the Speaker's support?
If the Tories were to find it hard to achieve a majority in the Commons for repealing the FTPA they'd have even greater difficulty in the Lords.
The easiest way would be to amend it so that "equal to or greater than two thirds" is replaced with "greater than a half".
Proposing a no confidence motion in themselves would be amusing. If I were Jeremy Corbyn I'd ask why the government ministers don't all simply resign - first their executive offices and then, the kitchen being too hot for them, their Commons seats too. And before the by-elections, the leader of the largest party should be asked to try to form a government.
He'd agree to back a no confidence motion in the end, but boy, could he get some powerful blows in against the Tory party.
"You don't even have confidence in yourselves! If there's to be an election, why will you even stand in it?"
"Oh yes we do have confidence in ourselves! We're just using a procedural mechanism!"
"You're sitting on the Speaker's right right now. Can you govern this country or can't you?"
In practice Theresa May is unlikely to call (for) another general election; she is more likely to resign by the end of next month and let a new leader call (for) it; and if either she or a new leader does call (for) it, Corbyn will help them out and there will be a two-thirds majority for dissolution. Then (because times are so crazy) he will probably lose the election and if there's not a Tory majority there could be another Tory plurality and times would get even crazier.
"You can't trust the electorate" might become the received opinion - with some justification.
As I am sure you are aware, Cameron promised a referendum on this if he won office - a 'cast iron' guarantee no less. A bit like the guarantees that May has given over Brexit - which she will now refuse to implement.
Why didn't Labour put Lisbon to a referendum while they were in office?
First rule of referendums: Never call a referendum if you are not 100% sure of getting the 'right' result.
Unfortunately for David Cameron, he never reached that page of the referendum rulebook.
No it wasn't. The bill was never 100bn; this was just thrown out there to make the British feel better about the eventual climbdown.
The UK agreed to pay EVERYTHING that the EU asked for - can you name any area where we did not accept full financial liability? The only compromise was that the liabilities would be paid over time rather than up front as the EU wanted. But the UK cannot avoid paying it all once the Withdrawal Agreement was signed.
Face it - the UK has paid 40bn in return for nothing simply because the Remainers were not prepared to execute Brexit and to let them have two more years to try and avoid it.
No actually he has not said that, he just said he would need to align with some of the single market rules and regulations not actually remain a member of it which if we remained in the customs union would not be much of a jump. That also still means free movement could end and be replaced by work permits as the UK government intends.
The Tory Party as a whole is certainly far more committed to the Union and I would expect the majority of voters too than leaving the Customs Union so Liam Fox can get a few trade deals not necessarily any better than we have now and maybe worse after years of negotiation
You are deluding yourself. For the CU to solve the NI border the way the EU wants, we would have to abide by ALL the SM regulations - otherwise there would still need to be border checks according to the EU. Which will mean:
1. Ongoing contributions to Brussels - against May's red line 2. ECJ jurisdiction - against May's red line 3. FOM (dressed up as something else - shall we use the term 'work permits'?) - against May's red line.
I know that you are a Tory and thus used to selling the country down the river on Europe - Heath, Maastricht, Lisbon Treaty non-referendum, Cameron's fake 're-negotiation' and now Brexit. But just be honest about what you are doing rather than pretending that you are in any way trying to carry out the referendum result.
May has always been clear she would replace FoM with work permits so there is no breaching of her red lines there. The referendum result to Leave the EU is also being carried out.
Yes I am a Tory, I am not UKIP, if people want ultra hard Brexit ie out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market, no regulatory alignment and a hard border in Ireland and no FTA and WTO terms they can still vote for them
We did vote for it. That was the Vote Leave manifesto.
No actually he has not said that, he just said he would need to align with some of the single market rules and regulations not actually remain a member of it which if we remained in the customs union would not be much of a jump. That also still means free movement could end and be replaced by work permits as the UK government intends.
The Tory Party as a whole is certainly far more committed to the Union and I would expect the majority of voters too than leaving the Customs Union so Liam Fox can get a few trade deals not necessarily any better than we have now and maybe worse after years of negotiation
You are deluding yourself. For the CU to solve the NI border the way the EU wants, we would have to abide by ALL the SM regulations - otherwise there would still need to be border checks according to the EU. Which will mean:
1. Ongoing contributions to Brussels - against May's red line 2. ECJ jurisdiction - against May's red line 3. FOM (dressed up as something else - shall we use the term 'work permits'?) - against May's red line.
I know that you are a Tory and thus used to selling the country down the river on Europe - Heath, Maastricht, Lisbon Treaty non-referendum, Cameron's fake 're-negotiation' and now Brexit. But just be honest about what you are doing rather than pretending that you are in any way trying to carry out the referendum result.
May has always been clear she would replace FoM with work permits so there is no breaching of her red lines there. The referendum result to Leave the EU is also being carried out.
Yes I am a Tory, I am not UKIP, if people want ultra hard Brexit ie out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market, no regulatory alignment and a hard border in Ireland and no FTA and WTO terms they can still vote for them
We did vote for it. That was the Vote Leave manifesto.
out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market, no regulatory alignment and a hard border in Ireland and no FTA and WTO terms
Really? Where did Vote Leave say that?
Surely the problem since Brexit has been that the Vote Leave manifesto lacked specificity?
But if you can point to them explicitly saying all that we will be out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market, no regulatory alignment and a hard border in Ireland and no FTA and WTO terms then that would bring much needed clarity to the debate!
No actually he has not said that, he just said he would need to align with some of the single market rules and regulations not actually remain a member of it which if we remained in the customs union would not be much of a jump. That also still means free movement could end and be replaced by work permits as the UK government intends.
The Tory Party as a whole is certainly far more committed to the Union and I would expect the majority of voters too than leaving the Customs Union so Liam Fox can get a few trade deals not necessarily any better than we have now and maybe worse after years of negotiation
You are deluding yourself. For the CU to solve the NI border the way the EU wants, we would have to abide by ALL the SM regulations - otherwise there would still need to be border checks according to the EU. Which will mean:
1. Ongoing contributions to Brussels - against May's red line 2. ECJ jurisdiction - against May's red line 3. FOM (dressed up as something else - shall we use the term 'work permits'?) - against May's red line.
I know that you are a Tory and thus used to selling the country down the river on Europe - Heath, Maastricht, Lisbon Treaty non-referendum, Cameron's fake 're-negotiation' and now Brexit. But just be honest about what you are doing rather than pretending that you are in any way trying to carry out the referendum result.
May has always been clear she would replace FoM with work permits so there is no breaching of her red lines there. The referendum result to Leave the EU is also being carried out.
Yes I am a Tory, I am not UKIP, if people want ultra hard Brexit ie out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market, no regulatory alignment and a hard border in Ireland and no FTA and WTO terms they can still vote for them
We did vote for it. That was the Vote Leave manifesto.
The Vote Leave manifesto was not WTO terms and the general election result was quite clear on that too
No it wasn't. The bill was never 100bn; this was just thrown out there to make the British feel better about the eventual climbdown.
The UK agreed to pay EVERYTHING that the EU asked for
I really don't know if you are just ignorant and making shit up, or actually mendacious.
I'm going to assume the former.
Did the EU ever think it would get €100bn plus transition payments? No.
But everything the EU demanded, and the rational, is all in the public domain. I also have pretty good inside knowledge of what happened. The EU was engaged in anchoring, but David Davis held firm on a large number of issues:
- we ended up with no contingent liabilities associated with Ireland and Ukraine - we ended up less than a fifth of what was asked for with regard to post 2020/21 'commitments' - pensions numbers were based around our (sensible) discount rate, and not their one
Given we asked for a transition period, the real bill was c. £20bn - which is barely more than our share of the net asset deficit of the EU (€18bn). David Davis did a pretty good job.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump may not legally block Twitter users from his account on the social media platform based on their political views.
No it wasn't. The bill was never 100bn; this was just thrown out there to make the British feel better about the eventual climbdown.
The UK agreed to pay EVERYTHING that the EU asked for
I really don't know if you are just ignorant and making shit up, or actually mendacious.
I'm going to assume the former.
Did the EU ever think it would get €100bn plus transition payments? No.
But everything the EU demanded, and the rational, is all in the public domain. I also have pretty good inside knowledge of what happened. The EU was engaged in anchoring, but David Davis held firm on a large number of issues:
- we ended up with no contingent liabilities associated with Ireland and Ukraine - we ended up less than a fifth of what was asked for with regard to post 2020/21 'commitments' - pensions numbers were based around our (sensible) discount rate, and not their one
Given we asked for a transition period, the real bill was c. £20bn - which is barely more than our share of the net asset deficit of the EU (€18bn). David Davis did a pretty good job.
Davis has been underestimated by the left and the EU since taking on the role.
No it wasn't. The bill was never 100bn; this was just thrown out there to make the British feel better about the eventual climbdown.
The UK agreed to pay EVERYTHING that the EU asked for
I really don't know if you are just ignorant and making shit up, or actually mendacious.
I'm going to assume the former.
Did the EU ever think it would get €100bn plus transition payments? No.
But everything the EU demanded, and the rational, is all in the public domain. I also have pretty good inside knowledge of what happened. The EU was engaged in anchoring, but David Davis held firm on a large number of issues:
- we ended up with no contingent liabilities associated with Ireland and Ukraine - we ended up less than a fifth of what was asked for with regard to post 2020/21 'commitments' - pensions numbers were based around our (sensible) discount rate, and not their one
Given we asked for a transition period, the real bill was c. £20bn - which is barely more than our share of the net asset deficit of the EU (€18bn). David Davis did a pretty good job.
Davis has been underestimated by the left and the EU since taking on the role.
I think he continues to be underestimated by all sides still.
No it wasn't. The bill was never 100bn; this was just thrown out there to make the British feel better about the eventual climbdown.
The UK agreed to pay EVERYTHING that the EU asked for
I really don't know if you are just ignorant and making shit up, or actually mendacious.
I'm going to assume the former.
Did the EU ever think it would get €100bn plus transition payments? No.
But everything the EU demanded, and the rational, is all in the public domain. I also have pretty good inside knowledge of what happened. The EU was engaged in anchoring, but David Davis held firm on a large number of issues:
- we ended up with no contingent liabilities associated with Ireland and Ukraine - we ended up less than a fifth of what was asked for with regard to post 2020/21 'commitments' - pensions numbers were based around our (sensible) discount rate, and not their one
Given we asked for a transition period, the real bill was c. £20bn - which is barely more than our share of the net asset deficit of the EU (€18bn). David Davis did a pretty good job.
Davis has been underestimated by the left and the EU since taking on the role.
I think he continues to be underestimated by all sides still.
Helmut Kohl joked that he had profited much by being underestimated by his enemies...
No it wasn't. The bill was never 100bn; this was just thrown out there to make the British feel better about the eventual climbdown.
The UK agreed to pay EVERYTHING that the EU asked for
I really don't know if you are just ignorant and making shit up, or actually mendacious.
I'm going to assume the former.
Did the EU ever think it would get €100bn plus transition payments? No.
But everything the EU demanded, and the rational, is all in the public domain. I also have pretty good inside knowledge of what happened. The EU was engaged in anchoring, but David Davis held firm on a large number of issues:
- we ended up with no contingent liabilities associated with Ireland and Ukraine - we ended up less than a fifth of what was asked for with regard to post 2020/21 'commitments' - pensions numbers were based around our (sensible) discount rate, and not their one
Given we asked for a transition period, the real bill was c. £20bn - which is barely more than our share of the net asset deficit of the EU (€18bn). David Davis did a pretty good job.
Davis has been underestimated by the left and the EU since taking on the role.
He was described to me as "the only adult in the room"* in a meeting between him, Johnson, Fox, and Hammond.
No it wasn't. The bill was never 100bn; this was just thrown out there to make the British feel better about the eventual climbdown.
The UK agreed to pay EVERYTHING that the EU asked for
I really don't know if you are just ignorant and making shit up, or actually mendacious.
I'm going to assume the former.
Did the EU ever think it would get €100bn plus transition payments? No.
But everything the EU demanded, and the rational, is all in the public domain. I also have pretty good inside knowledge of what happened. The EU was engaged in anchoring, but David Davis held firm on a large number of issues:
- we ended up with no contingent liabilities associated with Ireland and Ukraine - we ended up less than a fifth of what was asked for with regard to post 2020/21 'commitments' - pensions numbers were based around our (sensible) discount rate, and not their one
Given we asked for a transition period, the real bill was c. £20bn - which is barely more than our share of the net asset deficit of the EU (€18bn). David Davis did a pretty good job.
Davis has been underestimated by the left and the EU since taking on the role.
He was described to me as "the only adult in the room"* in a meeting between him, Johnson, Fox, and Hammond.
Gosh.
Do actually have to wonder whether he is underestimated on the next PM market, then....
No it wasn't. The bill was never 100bn; this was just thrown out there to make the British feel better about the eventual climbdown.
The UK agreed to pay EVERYTHING that the EU asked for
I really don't know if you are just ignorant and making shit up, or actually mendacious.
I'm going to assume the former.
Did the EU ever think it would get €100bn plus transition payments? No.
But everything the EU demanded, and the rational, is all in the public domain. I also have pretty good inside knowledge of what happened. The EU was engaged in anchoring, but David Davis held firm on a large number of issues:
- we ended up with no contingent liabilities associated with Ireland and Ukraine - we ended up less than a fifth of what was asked for with regard to post 2020/21 'commitments' - pensions numbers were based around our (sensible) discount rate, and not their one
Given we asked for a transition period, the real bill was c. £20bn - which is barely more than our share of the net asset deficit of the EU (€18bn). David Davis did a pretty good job.
Davis has been underestimated by the left and the EU since taking on the role.
And by the party which voted for David Cameron to be leader?
No it wasn't. The bill was never 100bn; this was just thrown out there to make the British feel better about the eventual climbdown.
The UK agreed to pay EVERYTHING that the EU asked for
I really don't know if you are just ignorant and making shit up, or actually mendacious.
I'm going to assume the former.
Did the EU ever think it would get €100bn plus transition payments? No.
But everything the EU demanded, and the rational, is all in the public domain. I also have pretty good inside knowledge of what happened. The EU was engaged in anchoring, but David Davis held firm on a large number of issues:
- we ended up with no contingent liabilities associated with Ireland and Ukraine - we ended up less than a fifth of what was asked for with regard to post 2020/21 'commitments' - pensions numbers were based around our (sensible) discount rate, and not their one
Given we asked for a transition period, the real bill was c. £20bn - which is barely more than our share of the net asset deficit of the EU (€18bn). David Davis did a pretty good job.
Davis has been underestimated by the left and the EU since taking on the role.
He was described to me as "the only adult in the room"* in a meeting between him, Johnson, Fox, and Hammond.
Gosh.
Do actually have to wonder whether he is underestimated on the next PM market, then....
One of the things that makes him an effective minister is that he's concerned with his brief, not his chances of making it into Number Ten. My personal view - and this is just my feeling, and I don't have any actual evidence - is that if he was a decade younger...
Petty Court politics by the sound of it. And they ask why we are leaving!
OK, I give up. Why are we leaving? The glorious trade benefits do not seem to be materialising and the extra money for the NHS is in devalued currency. Border control is currently running at "the Irish can control the border, it's nothing to do with us" whilst rocking back and forth. So that leaves sovereignity, the ability to do exactly as we like...provided we agree it with everybody else. Excellent. That was the plan. I was worried for a moment...
We are leaving because of the benefits of control. The more pertinent question is why some are sabotaging the process to prevent that happening.
But it is TMay and her gang of scavengers who have taken back control..... Especially control of us. Ordinary people are increasingly powerless.
No it wasn't. The bill was never 100bn; this was just thrown out there to make the British feel better about the eventual climbdown.
The UK agreed to pay EVERYTHING that the EU asked for
I really don't know if you are just ignorant and making shit up, or actually mendacious.
I'm going to assume the former.
Did the EU ever think it would get €100bn plus transition payments? No.
But everything the EU demanded, and the rational, is all in the public domain. I also have pretty good inside knowledge of what happened. The EU was engaged in anchoring, but David Davis held firm on a large number of issues:
- we ended up with no contingent liabilities associated with Ireland and Ukraine - we ended up less than a fifth of what was asked for with regard to post 2020/21 'commitments' - pensions numbers were based around our (sensible) discount rate, and not their one
Given we asked for a transition period, the real bill was c. £20bn - which is barely more than our share of the net asset deficit of the EU (€18bn). David Davis did a pretty good job.
We went over this time and time again. The net asset position of the EU is not relevant to this conversation. We were not liable for ANY of these amounts, so negotiating a 'discount' on something you don't owe is not exactly a triumph.
Your comments are highly misleading. The pensions payments are being paid AS THEY FALL DUE - so the discount rate is not relevant, EXCEPT in calculating the 'headline' figure for UK public consumption - it won't affect what we actually pay. The post 20/21 commitments were massively inflated with vague and totally unsubstantiated figures (eg ongoing agricultural subsidies) just so that could be 'conceded' later.
The transition period would cost approx 18bn - but if we had really needed this we could have just delayed A50 until May had a clue what she was doing. This of course now has no value, because we are going to end up at the end of the transition period where we are now - without an acceptable deal. But in any event, the UK has paid a further 22n WHICH IT DID NOT OWE in return for absolutely NOTHING. May lied - she said the payment was linked to the trade deal. An utter, utter lie.
People end up in jail for frauds of this magnitude.
No it wasn't. The bill was never 100bn; this was just thrown out there to make the British feel better about the eventual climbdown.
The UK agreed to pay EVERYTHING that the EU asked for
I really don't know if you are just ignorant and making shit up, or actually mendacious.
I'm going to assume the former.
Did the EU ever think it would get €100bn plus transition payments? No.
But everything the EU demanded, and the rational, is all in the public domain. I also have pretty good inside knowledge of what happened. The EU was engaged in anchoring, but David Davis held firm on a large number of issues:
- we ended up with no contingent liabilities associated with Ireland and Ukraine - we ended up less than a fifth of what was asked for with regard to post 2020/21 'commitments' - pensions numbers were based around our (sensible) discount rate, and not their one
Given we asked for a transition period, the real bill was c. £20bn - which is barely more than our share of the net asset deficit of the EU (€18bn). David Davis did a pretty good job.
Davis has been underestimated by the left and the EU since taking on the role.
He was described to me as "the only adult in the room"* in a meeting between him, Johnson, Fox, and Hammond.
Gosh.
Do actually have to wonder whether he is underestimated on the next PM market, then....
One of the things that makes him an effective minister is that he's concerned with his brief, not his chances of making it into Number Ten. My personal view - and this is just my feeling, and I don't have any actual evidence - is that if he was a decade younger...
Perhaps but now the age comparison is with Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn and Vince Cable. Philip Hammond is no spring chicken, and the best known foreign leaders are Donald Trump and Angela Merkel.
No actually he has not said that, he just said he would need to align with some of the single market rules and regulations not actually remain a member of it which if we remained in the customs union would not be much of a jump. That also still means free movement could end and be replaced by work permits as the UK government intends.
The Tory Party as a whole is certainly far more committed to the Union and I would expect the majority of voters too than leaving the Customs Union so Liam Fox can get a few trade deals not necessarily any better than we have now and maybe worse after years of negotiation
You are deluding yourself. For the CU to solve the NI border the way the EU wants, we would have to abide by ALL the SM regulations - otherwise there would still need to be border checks according to the EU. Which will mean:
1. Ongoing contributions to Brussels - against May's red line 2. ECJ jurisdiction - against May's red line 3. FOM (dressed up as something else - shall we use the term 'work permits'?) - against May's red line.
I know that you are a Tory and thus used to selling the country down the river on Europe - Heath, Maastricht, Lisbon Treaty non-referendum, Cameron's fake 're-negotiation' and now Brexit. But just be honest about what you are doing rather than pretending that you are in any way trying to carry out the referendum result.
May has always been clear she would replace FoM with work permits so there is no breaching of her red lines there. The referendum result to Leave the EU is also being carried out.
Yes I am a Tory, I am not UKIP, if people want ultra hard Brexit ie out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market, no regulatory alignment and a hard border in Ireland and no FTA and WTO terms they can still vote for them
We did vote for it. That was the Vote Leave manifesto.
The Vote Leave manifesto was not WTO terms and the general election result was quite clear on that too
The Vote Leave manifesto, and that of your own party, was full control of our borders, full control of our trade policy and full control of our laws. That means leaving the SM and CU and having the ability to make our own trade rules and regulations.
Both groups wanted an FTA with the EU if possible on these terms. If not possible both groups discussed WTO as the fallback.
None of this is going to be delivered by the Tories.
We went over this time and time again. The net asset position of the EU is not relevant to this conversation. We were not liable for ANY of these amounts, so negotiating a 'discount' on something you don't owe is not exactly a triumph.
Your comments are highly misleading. The pensions payments are being paid AS THEY FALL DUE - so the discount rate is not relevant, EXCEPT in calculating the 'headline' figure for UK public consumption - it won't affect what we actually pay. The post 20/21 commitments were massively inflated with vague and totally unsubstantiated figures (eg ongoing agricultural subsidies) just so that could be 'conceded' later.
The transition period would cost approx 18bn - but if we had really needed this we could have just delayed A50 until May had a clue what she was doing. This of course now has no value, because we are going to end up at the end of the transition period where we are now - without an acceptable deal. But in any event, the UK has paid a further 22n WHICH IT DID NOT OWE in return for absolutely NOTHING. May lied - she said the payment was linked to the trade deal. An utter, utter lie.
People end up in jail for frauds of this magnitude.
No, you make shit up, and claim it as fact. #
You said we agreed to pay everything they demanded. You even used ALL CAPITALS.
We didn't pay what they asked regarding contingent liabilities. We didn't pay what they demanded regarding committments post 2020/21. We didn't pay upfront for pensions.
Basically, everything you say is wrong. But that's OK, because you've moved the goalpost 60 yards to the right and now are complaining about May lying.
May has deferred for as long as possible, and the Cabinet has not been able to form a consensus on this. Thus, she needs Parliament to vote one way or another. Probably she is “relaxed” about the outcome, she can live in, our out, of a customs union.
It does increasingly feels like the ERG - or perhaps Johnson - are preparing for a challenge, though.
And, come the parliamentary vote, if Corbyn smells blood, surely he’d take the opportunity to depose May, even if it means allowing a free vote on the single market? Deposing May is his quickest route to a Labour government.
If the price of the key to Number 10 is staying in the SM (at least agreeing to do so...) Jezza and John would jump at it.
Except it isn't as such a policy would keep free movement in place and see working class Labour Leave voters in key Midlands and Northern marginal seats abandon the party in droves
Maybe, Maybe not. Lets do it and see.
No ifs or buts about it, leaving free movement in place would see a significant number of Labour Leave seats in the Midlands and North fall to the Tories or even a revived UKIP and Corbyn knows it which is why while he is prepared to stay in the Customs Union he will not agree to stay in the Single Market. Not forgetting Corbyn is also ideologically opposed to the Single Market unlike the Customs Union as it will stop him pushing through the nationalisations he wants to undertake if he becomes PM
I have read this latter point in several places, yet if it is true, how have we
a) just renationalised the East Coast Mainline b) are building the largest construction project in Europe under public ownership (Crossrail) and c) have the world’s fifth largest employer within the public sector (the NHS)
This article makes the case that while a national rail monopoly is not possible under EU rules, it would be possible to, for instance, have a state-owned company for track and one for trains, as in Spain or the Netherlands. Other options for publicly run railways also available.
We went over this time and time again. The net asset position of the EU is not relevant to this conversation. We were not liable for ANY of these amounts, so negotiating a 'discount' on something you don't owe is not exactly a triumph.
Your comments are highly misleading. The pensions payments are being paid AS THEY FALL DUE - so the discount rate is not relevant, EXCEPT in calculating the 'headline' figure for UK public consumption - it won't affect what we actually pay. The post 20/21 commitments were massively inflated with vague and totally unsubstantiated figures (eg ongoing agricultural subsidies) just so that could be 'conceded' later.
The transition period would cost approx 18bn - but if we had really needed this we could have just delayed A50 until May had a clue what she was doing. This of course now has no value, because we are going to end up at the end of the transition period where we are now - without an acceptable deal. But in any event, the UK has paid a further 22n WHICH IT DID NOT OWE in return for absolutely NOTHING. May lied - she said the payment was linked to the trade deal. An utter, utter lie.
People end up in jail for frauds of this magnitude.
The temptation to simply avoid engaging here is quite strong but...
As a member of the EU we were responsible for the employment of staff. Of course we have an ongoing liability for the pensions we promised them. Some of those staff were British, most weren't. In respect of ongoing pensions for UK staff we can offset that liability to others by agreeing that we will take over payment of them. In so far as there are more non UK staff we need to discount payments that will be paid over time by others. This we have done.
The transition period covers most of the budget period that we signed up for and agreed to pay including programs for eastern Europe that are designed to bring them closer to the EU norm and which will make them better customers in the long run. Winding down payments we had already agreed to make is not on any sensible view a part of the leaving bill. Had we delayed the Article 50 we would of course have paid this anyway as members.
We will agree to pay ongoing payments in relation to institutions that we want to continue to benefit from beyond the transition period. That is our choice and subject to EU agreement about us remaining some sort of associate member of those institutions.
We went over this time and time again. The net asset position of the EU is not relevant to this conversation. We were not liable for ANY of these amounts, so negotiating a 'discount' on something you don't owe is not exactly a triumph.
Your comments are highly misleading. The pensions payments are being paid AS THEY FALL DUE - so the discount rate is not relevant, EXCEPT in calculating the 'headline' figure for UK public consumption - it won't affect what we actually pay. The post 20/21 commitments were massively inflated with vague and totally unsubstantiated figures (eg ongoing agricultural subsidies) just so that could be 'conceded' later.
The transition period would cost approx 18bn - but if we had really needed this we could have just delayed A50 until May had a clue what she was doing. This of course now has no value, because we are going to end up at the end of the transition period where we are now - without an acceptable deal. But in any event, the UK has paid a further 22n WHICH IT DID NOT OWE in return for absolutely NOTHING. May lied - she said the payment was linked to the trade deal. An utter, utter lie.
People end up in jail for frauds of this magnitude.
No, you make shit up, and claim it as fact. #
You said we agreed to pay everything they demanded. You even used ALL CAPITALS.
We didn't pay what they asked regarding contingent liabilities. We didn't pay what they demanded regarding committments post 2020/21. We didn't pay upfront for pensions.
Basically, everything you say is wrong. But that's OK, because you've moved the goalpost 60 yards to the right and now are complaining about May lying.
Wrong.
It is NOT TRUE to say that we don't have to pay contingent liabilities. All that was agreed is that we did not to pay them up front, we only had to pay if and when they fell due. It is simply the assessment of what might form due that makes up the total headline figure. If the liabilities end up higher, so does the UK bill. This is clear from the text and the OBR analysis. It is simply that a lot of the 'extra' amount was made up of theoretical liabilities that in all likelihood will never crystallise.
Negotiators are working on how to present the settlement as a net estimate, with the UK side pressing for an implied figure of between €40-45bn once UK receipts and other deductions are taken into account. “They have promised to cover it all, we don’t care what they say their estimate is,” said one senior EU diplomat. “We’re happy to help them present it.”
That would have been a sensible approach in a sensible world. In the real world which is full of absurd claim and counterclaim, many of which have real political consequences it proved more than somewhat naive.
Just seen the Telegraph front page, on which Corbyn apparently has called for Ireland to be united. Hmm, frankly. Reminds me of that buffoon (his name escapes me, alas) from Labour who kept wibbling about giving Gibraltar to Spain.
Just seen the Telegraph front page, on which Corbyn apparently has called for Ireland to be united. Hmm, frankly. Reminds me of that buffoon (his name escapes me, alas) from Labour who kept wibbling about giving Gibraltar to Spain.
Peter Hain? (He's also the one who called Lisbon a 'tidying up exercise,' so I was a bit surprised to see the claim on a previous thread that the Labour minister in question had subsequently been convicted of fraud.)
Just seen the Telegraph front page, on which Corbyn apparently has called for Ireland to be united. Hmm, frankly. Reminds me of that buffoon (his name escapes me, alas) from Labour who kept wibbling about giving Gibraltar to Spain.
"Buffoon" doesn't really narrow it down much but do you mean Peter Hain?
F1: Raikkonen and Bottas are 9.5/10 (add half a point with boost) to 'win' first practice today, fifth the odds top three. Might be worth a small sum. On pace, it's a six car window. Hard to gauge sandbagging and the like, both Ferrari and Mercedes seem to do it a bit more than Red Bull. On the other hand, Red Bull may focus more on race pace.
Just seen the Telegraph front page, on which Corbyn apparently has called for Ireland to be united. Hmm, frankly. Reminds me of that buffoon (his name escapes me, alas) from Labour who kept wibbling about giving Gibraltar to Spain.
Peter Hain? (He's also the one who called Lisbon a 'tidying up exercise,' so I was a bit surprised to see the claim on a previous thread that the Labour minister in question had subsequently been convicted of fraud.)
The SQA has once again covered itself in glory by giving a source piece which got the date of death of Mary Queen of Scots wrong by 20 years in the National 5 this year, claiming it happened in 1567. Children (at least those who noticed) were allegedly deeply traumatised which may say even more about how their educational experience is preparing them for life. It seems incredible to me that this sort of thing is not picked up.
Comments
a) just renationalised the East Coast Mainline
b) are building the largest construction project in Europe under public ownership (Crossrail) and
c) have the world’s fifth largest employer within the public sector (the NHS)
Com 314 (-4)
Lab 260 (-2)
LD 16 (+4)
Con 12 short of a majority
Hah! You're confusing me with someone who buys the Torygraph! Never mind, I expect the same story will pop up in my Grauniad in a few days time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland–European_Union_relations
b) MTR Corporation will run Crossrail under contract from TfL
C) If Corbyn tried to end PFI etc in healthcare he could run into problems
On that note, goodnight.
Again, I've said it about a million times, the Swiss are much better at this than we are. When it comes to immigration, benefits, education, healthcare the Swiss way is far, far superior to our own.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/do-you-think-of-yourself-as-european-2/
Including the 75-80% who do not trust the EU
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/do-you-tend-to-trust-or-tend-not-to-trust-european-parliament/
This latest ‘dead heat’ is just the latest set of numbers to emerge from the pollsters’ bingo machine.
Con 28.6% (-3.6%)
Lab 27.0% (-0.1%)
SNP 37.5% (+0.6%)
Result is
Ceredigion LIB gain from PC
Fife North LIB gain from SNP
Glasgow North East SNP gain from LAB
Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath SNP gain from LAB
Richmond Park LIB gain from CON
Rutherglen and Hamilton SNP gain from LAB
Southampton Itchen LAB gain from CON
St Ives LIB gain from CON
Stirling SNP gain from CON
It's a current best guess based on smoothing the latest polls and using Electoral Calculus modelling assumptions. It is not a prediction in any way of the likely result in 2022.
A pallet full of tinned baked beans washes up.
“Don’t worry”, says the chemist, “the water will react with the metal and eventually corrode it so we can open the tins.”
“No need to wait,” says the physicist, “if we take these rocks, we can strike the tins until they buckle and break open.”
The pollster pipes up. “First let us assume we have a tin opener.”
1. Ongoing contributions to Brussels - against May's red line
2. ECJ jurisdiction - against May's red line
3. FOM (dressed up as something else - shall we use the term 'work permits'?) - against May's red line.
I know that you are a Tory and thus used to selling the country down the river on Europe - Heath, Maastricht, Lisbon Treaty non-referendum, Cameron's fake 're-negotiation' and now Brexit. But just be honest about what you are doing rather than pretending that you are in any way trying to carry out the referendum result.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL77A337915A76F660
Yes I am a Tory, I am not UKIP, if people want ultra hard Brexit ie out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market, no regulatory alignment and a hard border in Ireland and no FTA and WTO terms they can still vote for them
Cameron promised if he won the General Election in 2007 that Gordon Brown was going to call then he would hold a referendum before Lisbon was ratified.
Brown chickened out of holding the 2007 election though and ratified Lisbon prior to Cameron being elected at which point Cameron, still as Leader of the Opposition, said that he could no longer hold a Lisbon referendum because of it already being ratified. He got elected as PM on the basis of the 2010 manifesto not the cancelled 2007 one.
A German-backed clique of Brussels officials in the European Commission is fighting to exclude Britain from the Galileo satellite project.
French officials privately said they were unhappy with proposals that would block Britain from the government and military navigation system after Brexit. Other nations standing in solidarity with Britain and defending the country against Brussels officials include Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the Baltic states.
Led by Martin Selmayr, the commission's top mandarin, the Brussels group is causing some concern among diplomats who believe they could be acting beyond their remit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5764867/German-plot-exclude-Britain-EU-Galileo-satellite-programme.html
Well, it was progress on the £100 billion we'd been told we'd have to pay:
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-uk-will-not-pay-100-billion-euro-eu-exit-bill-says-brexit-minister-2017-5/?IR=T
If the Tories were to find it hard to achieve a majority in the Commons for repealing the FTPA they'd have even greater difficulty in the Lords.
The easiest way would be to amend it so that "equal to or greater than two thirds" is replaced with "greater than a half".
Proposing a no confidence motion in themselves would be amusing. If I were Jeremy Corbyn I'd ask why the government ministers don't all simply resign - first their executive offices and then, the kitchen being too hot for them, their Commons seats too. And before the by-elections, the leader of the largest party should be asked to try to form a government.
He'd agree to back a no confidence motion in the end, but boy, could he get some powerful blows in against the Tory party.
"You don't even have confidence in yourselves! If there's to be an election, why will you even stand in it?"
"Oh yes we do have confidence in ourselves! We're just using a procedural mechanism!"
"You're sitting on the Speaker's right right now. Can you govern this country or can't you?"
In practice Theresa May is unlikely to call (for) another general election; she is more likely to resign by the end of next month and let a new leader call (for) it; and if either she or a new leader does call (for) it, Corbyn will help them out and there will be a two-thirds majority for dissolution. Then (because times are so crazy) he will probably lose the election and if there's not a Tory majority there could be another Tory plurality and times would get even crazier.
"You can't trust the electorate" might become the received opinion - with some justification.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/king_of_pyongyang
WATCH: Yulia Skripal declares she ‘wants to return to Russia’, leaving Tory Salisbury Poisoning Narrative in tatters [VIDEO]
https://evolvepolitics.com/watch-yulia-skripal-declares-she-wants-to-return-to-russia-leaving-tory-salisbury-poisoning-narrative-in-tatters-video/
The details omitted:
In the longer term I hope to return home to my country.
I’m grateful for the offers of assistance from the Russian Embassy but at the moment I do not wish to avail myself of their services
Why would that be?
Unfortunately for David Cameron, he never reached that page of the referendum rulebook.
The UK agreed to pay EVERYTHING that the EU asked for - can you name any area where we did not accept full financial liability? The only compromise was that the liabilities would be paid over time rather than up front as the EU wanted. But the UK cannot avoid paying it all once the Withdrawal Agreement was signed.
Face it - the UK has paid 40bn in return for nothing simply because the Remainers were not prepared to execute Brexit and to let them have two more years to try and avoid it.
Really? Where did Vote Leave say that?
Surely the problem since Brexit has been that the Vote Leave manifesto lacked specificity?
But if you can point to them explicitly saying all that we will be out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market, no regulatory alignment and a hard border in Ireland and no FTA and WTO terms then that would bring much needed clarity to the debate!
I'm going to assume the former.
Did the EU ever think it would get €100bn plus transition payments? No.
But everything the EU demanded, and the rational, is all in the public domain. I also have pretty good inside knowledge of what happened. The EU was engaged in anchoring, but David Davis held firm on a large number of issues:
- we ended up with no contingent liabilities associated with Ireland and Ukraine
- we ended up less than a fifth of what was asked for with regard to post 2020/21 'commitments'
- pensions numbers were based around our (sensible) discount rate, and not their one
Given we asked for a transition period, the real bill was c. £20bn - which is barely more than our share of the net asset deficit of the EU (€18bn). David Davis did a pretty good job.
https://twitter.com/WachterBDI/status/999399560337416193
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump may not legally block Twitter users from his account on the social media platform based on their political views.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-twitter/trump-may-not-block-twitter-users-over-political-views-judge-idUKKCN1IO2QS
Do actually have to wonder whether he is underestimated on the next PM market, then....
https://twitter.com/DMcWilliams_UK/status/999382936720953344
Your comments are highly misleading. The pensions payments are being paid AS THEY FALL DUE - so the discount rate is not relevant, EXCEPT in calculating the 'headline' figure for UK public consumption - it won't affect what we actually pay. The post 20/21 commitments were massively inflated with vague and totally unsubstantiated figures (eg ongoing agricultural subsidies) just so that could be 'conceded' later.
The transition period would cost approx 18bn - but if we had really needed this we could have just delayed A50 until May had a clue what she was doing. This of course now has no value, because we are going to end up at the end of the transition period where we are now - without an acceptable deal. But in any event, the UK has paid a further 22n WHICH IT DID NOT OWE in return for absolutely NOTHING. May lied - she said the payment was linked to the trade deal. An utter, utter lie.
People end up in jail for frauds of this magnitude.
Both groups wanted an FTA with the EU if possible on these terms. If not possible both groups discussed WTO as the fallback.
None of this is going to be delivered by the Tories.
You said we agreed to pay everything they demanded. You even used ALL CAPITALS.
We didn't pay what they asked regarding contingent liabilities. We didn't pay what they demanded regarding committments post 2020/21. We didn't pay upfront for pensions.
Basically, everything you say is wrong. But that's OK, because you've moved the goalpost 60 yards to the right and now are complaining about May lying.
F1: Monaco's first two practice sessions are today.
On-topic: that's good. I was worried politics was becoming too boring and predictable.
https://theconversation.com/renationalising-britains-railways-eu-law-not-a-barrier-96759
As a member of the EU we were responsible for the employment of staff. Of course we have an ongoing liability for the pensions we promised them. Some of those staff were British, most weren't. In respect of ongoing pensions for UK staff we can offset that liability to others by agreeing that we will take over payment of them. In so far as there are more non UK staff we need to discount payments that will be paid over time by others. This we have done.
The transition period covers most of the budget period that we signed up for and agreed to pay including programs for eastern Europe that are designed to bring them closer to the EU norm and which will make them better customers in the long run. Winding down payments we had already agreed to make is not on any sensible view a part of the leaving bill. Had we delayed the Article 50 we would of course have paid this anyway as members.
We will agree to pay ongoing payments in relation to institutions that we want to continue to benefit from beyond the transition period. That is our choice and subject to EU agreement about us remaining some sort of associate member of those institutions.
It is NOT TRUE to say that we don't have to pay contingent liabilities. All that was agreed is that we did not to pay them up front, we only had to pay if and when they fell due. It is simply the assessment of what might form due that makes up the total headline figure. If the liabilities end up higher, so does the UK bill. This is clear from the text and the OBR analysis. It is simply that a lot of the 'extra' amount was made up of theoretical liabilities that in all likelihood will never crystallise.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/uk-bows-to-eu-demands-with-breakthrough-offer-on-brexit-bill-1.3308771
Negotiators are working on how to present the settlement as a net estimate, with the UK side pressing for an implied figure of between €40-45bn once UK receipts and other deductions are taken into account. “They have promised to cover it all, we don’t care what they say their estimate is,” said one senior EU diplomat. “We’re happy to help them present it.”
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/theresa-may-no-running-commentary-on-brexit-negotiations-10568803