Not forgetting that cheese, milk and yoghurt will become 'occasional luxuries'. Why the IMF didn't include this in their report on the Eurozone this week escapes me.
I can see the Daily Mail headline "100,000 Smelly Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys leave For Rump EU.
But, there are also parts of the country where their support has never been greater, in the post-war period.
That's how it starts, but the toxin spreads.
The *overwhelmingly* negative reaction of Middle Tory England to May's tawdry compromise could be the beginning of rural and suburban England turning against the Tories.
I am quite surprised by the sheer scale of the reaction. She is seen as a Traitor.
I can see UKIP hitting 15%, maybe even higher within a year or two. Note the young, alt-right cyber types who have joined recently, who could inject some energy.
Most of the rest of Europe seems to have nationalist, populist party hitting these kinds of numbers and higher.
But if there is "no deal" how will UKIP be relevant?
They probably wouldn't be, unless something else came up.
But the original post was about May's plan. If she gets it through, which she propably wont, then a significant group of Leavers are going to go mental.
I think you have intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood. I am not referring to those that voted for it, I am referring to those "thought leaders" that continue to pretend it has any merit, when the evidence builds every day that it is nothing short of extreme folly. The facts may not have changed fundamentally, but reality is dawning that easy win free trade deals are not there, and notions of "getting back control" were spurious in the first place, and look even more ridiculous when the disgraced former GP Liam Fox suggests we should replace our relationship with the EU to become junior partner in an asymmetric trade relationship with Trump's America
But, there are also parts of the country where their support has never been greater, in the post-war period.
That's how it starts, but the toxin spreads.
The *overwhelmingly* negative reaction of Middle Tory England to May's tawdry compromise could be the beginning of rural and suburban England turning against the Tories.
I am quite surprised by the sheer scale of the reaction. She is seen as a Traitor.
The only "traitors" in this country are those that use that kind of in-British language. A nasty crypto-fascist tendency that has been whipped up by Farage et al, while he sucks up to Putin.
Anyone who is a useful idiot that advances the foreign policy agenda of the Kremlin is in no position to wrap their pathetic inadequacies in the union flag and accuse others of being traitors
But, there are also parts of the country where their support has never been greater, in the post-war period.
That's how it starts, but the toxin spreads.
The *overwhelmingly* negative reaction of Middle Tory England to May's tawdry compromise could be the beginning of rural and suburban England turning against the Tories.
I am quite surprised by the sheer scale of the reaction. She is seen as a Traitor.
Well, indeed. But it's not clear which way the Tories should jump. Splitting the party would just let Corbyn in.
If the common rulebook request is reframed as a trade agreement then that might cut the knot?
"Loiseau said that in the light of the white paper, France was unclear whether May’s government “gets it” on the EU’s refusal to haggle over the indivisibility of the four freedoms of the single market – people, capital, goods and services."
That does not to me sound like the EU is getting ready to fold over the four freedoms. That sounds to me like the EU is absolutely unmoved on this issues as it has been since day zero.
But then again, if we were Country X, approaching the EU from scratch for an agreement in trade, they presumably wouldn't come back saying: but you need to allow freedom of movement, etc ,etc?
There's a bit of a dialogue of the deaf. From the EU's perspective, the UK is behaving as if California were leaving the USA and demanding the continuation of frictionless trade but otherwise wanting the level of independence of Canada.
The UK doesn't recognise that it's been in a political union for 45 years (even though a rejection of political union is the most common intellectual justification for it) and so finds it impossible to frame the negotiations as they actually are.
The main reason Brexit was not the main issue for Labour voters, though it was still third, was Corbyn essentially promised to match May's Brexit in all but name hence keeping Leave voters who were then free to vote against austerity and for the NHS which were the top two Labour issues while also winning Remain voters just by being the default alternative to May's hard Brexit with as has been seen Corbyn making a vague commitment to staying in a customs union.
By the next general election Brexit will have happened and Corbyn cannot be all things to all men. Either he backs what is likely to be a hard Brexit Tory PM for the most party in opposing a second referendum and staying out of the single market and ending free movement and thus risks losing middle class Labour Remainers to the LDs as has already been shown could occur in the Lewisham East by election. Or he reverses course completely and backs a second referendum and staying in the single market and risks losing working class Labour Leave voters to the Tories or UKIP
If the common rulebook request is reframed as a trade agreement then that might cut the knot?
"Loiseau said that in the light of the white paper, France was unclear whether May’s government “gets it” on the EU’s refusal to haggle over the indivisibility of the four freedoms of the single market – people, capital, goods and services."
That does not to me sound like the EU is getting ready to fold over the four freedoms. That sounds to me like the EU is absolutely unmoved on this issues as it has been since day zero.
But then again, if we were Country X, approaching the EU from scratch for an agreement in trade, they presumably wouldn't come back saying: but you need to allow freedom of movement, etc ,etc?
Indeed. Ask Canada, or Japan. Which is why for the best long term deal we need to leave the EU and then start negotiating a trade agreement from the outside.
So one for our trade experts here: how does a bog standard FTA differ from single market membership. Presumably the standards, regs, alignment that @ralphmalph notes are integral to membership (vs access) but what are the actual differences in practice?
That means nothing. Leavers think Brexit is going badly as May wants to stay tied to many EU regulations and too close to the single market and customs union and only replace free movement with work permits not a points system.
Remainers think Brexit is going badly as we will still be leaving the single market and customs union. It is impossible to please both even if you try a compromise as May has done
Given that the Lib Dems picked up few additonal votes at the 2017 General Election, it suggests that Remainers don't feel sufficiently strongly about Brexit to sway them to vote Lib Dem.
Whereas Leavers feel sufficiently strongly about Brexit to vote Conservative.
So whilst the country is split 52% Leave 48% Remain, the 52% really care about the issue whilst fewer of the Remainers feel strongly about Brexit.
In the event of another referendum or general election the strength of feeling amongst Leavers could be decisive.
And yet it is the remain side that can get huge numbers out to a demonstration.
Sun says 35 letters have gone in (in total, so far).
Why are the ERG frit ?
Because they done the math and know May would win a VONC.
I can't see how that's possible -surely it'd only take about a dozen ERGers to vote with the opposition.
VONC in May, not the government. ERG don't want a general election.
Which is a position that defies political logic. If they think they can replace the PM and then fundamentally change Brexit policy without a mandate with a minority government they are dreaming.
If the common rulebook request is reframed as a trade agreement then that might cut the knot?
"Loiseau said that in the light of the white paper, France was unclear whether May’s government “gets it” on the EU’s refusal to haggle over the indivisibility of the four freedoms of the single market – people, capital, goods and services."
That does not to me sound like the EU is getting ready to fold over the four freedoms. That sounds to me like the EU is absolutely unmoved on this issues as it has been since day zero.
But then again, if we were Country X, approaching the EU from scratch for an agreement in trade, they presumably wouldn't come back saying: but you need to allow freedom of movement, etc ,etc?
Indeed. Ask Canada, or Japan. Which is why for the best long term deal we need to leave the EU and then start negotiating a trade agreement from the outside.
...and in the short term? are you one who believes all the job losses and business failures are a price worth paying? Or are you still in the la la land that pretends that wont happen?
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
Wither Pearl Harbour ?
Pearl harbour was inflicted by the Japanese on the Americans, the Americans did not inflict it on themselves. The UK has chosen to harm itself through Brexit.
Sun says 35 letters have gone in (in total, so far).
Why are the ERG frit ?
Because they done the math and know May would win a VONC.
I can't see how that's possible -surely it'd only take about a dozen ERGers to vote with the opposition.
VONC in May, not the government. ERG don't want a general election.
Which is a position that defies political logic. If they think they can replace the PM and then fundamentally change Brexit policy without a mandate with a minority government they are dreaming.
Not really. All they have to do to get their desired outcome is to not reach a deal
If the common rulebook request is reframed as a trade agreement then that might cut the knot?
"Loiseau said that in the light of the white paper, France was unclear whether May’s government “gets it” on the EU’s refusal to haggle over the indivisibility of the four freedoms of the single market – people, capital, goods and services."
That does not to me sound like the EU is getting ready to fold over the four freedoms. That sounds to me like the EU is absolutely unmoved on this issues as it has been since day zero.
But then again, if we were Country X, approaching the EU from scratch for an agreement in trade, they presumably wouldn't come back saying: but you need to allow freedom of movement, etc ,etc?
Indeed. Ask Canada, or Japan. Which is why for the best long term deal we need to leave the EU and then start negotiating a trade agreement from the outside.
So one for our trade experts here: how does a bog standard FTA differ from single market membership. Presumably the standards, regs, alignment that @ralphmalph notes are integral to membership (vs access) but what are the actual differences in practice?
1) As I said with a free trade agreement you need to take for example a car to an EU member country agency and get the approval paperwork so the car can be sold in the EU with the EU compliant badge. With membership you get approval at your national regulator.
2) with an FTA your goods are still subject to regulatory checks at the border for stuff like packaging, labelling, 1400w motors, class of bananas, etc. With membership no checks at all for compliance.
3) With and FTA you have to have an importer for your products. Car maker A with subsidiary in the EU places order on FTA country for car, imports with paperwork of compliance, sells to end customer in EU. Memberships means end customer can place order directly on manufacturer.
4) FTA regs are agreed as equivalent. FTA country reg z is deemed equivalent to EU reg Z. This is for product, H&S and environmental. Member must follow all EU regs.
Even that is silly. Even if one disagrees with leaving the EU, advanced nations have made much worse decisions than that since 1937.
I'd say this is one of those things we can only determine after the fact.
Since Brexit, and any concomitant disasters it wreaks, have not yet happened, we can't yet know how great an act of self harm has been inflicted.
I think we can say it's not going to be worse than WWII. It's not going to be worse than the aftermath if Germany invading Poland. Or Japan attacking Pearl Harbour.
Even post WWII the idea that Brexit is worse than the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia etc is just puerile.
The key thing is that the views of the voters haven't changed. So what happens if Remain loses a second time? Well we've just trashed the compromise that's been put together - so hard Brexit is the only thing left.
If the common rulebook request is reframed as a trade agreement then that might cut the knot?
"Loiseau said that in the light of the white paper, France was unclear whether May’s government “gets it” on the EU’s refusal to haggle over the indivisibility of the four freedoms of the single market – people, capital, goods and services."
That does not to me sound like the EU is getting ready to fold over the four freedoms. That sounds to me like the EU is absolutely unmoved on this issues as it has been since day zero.
But then again, if we were Country X, approaching the EU from scratch for an agreement in trade, they presumably wouldn't come back saying: but you need to allow freedom of movement, etc ,etc?
Indeed. Ask Canada, or Japan. Which is why for the best long term deal we need to leave the EU and then start negotiating a trade agreement from the outside.
So one for our trade experts here: how does a bog standard FTA differ from single market membership. Presumably the standards, regs, alignment that @ralphmalph notes are integral to membership (vs access) but what are the actual differences in practice?
1) As I said with a free trade agreement you need to take for example a car to an EU member country agency and get the approval paperwork so the car can be sold in the EU with the EU compliant badge. With membership you get approval at your national regulator.
2) with an FTA your goods are still subject to regulatory checks at the border for stuff like packaging, labelling, 1400w motors, class of bananas, etc. With membership no checks at all for compliance.
3) With and FTA you have to have an importer for your products. Car maker A with subsidiary in the EU places order on FTA country for car, imports with paperwork of compliance, sells to end customer in EU. Memberships means end customer can place order directly on manufacturer.
4) FTA regs are agreed as equivalent. FTA country reg z is deemed equivalent to EU reg Z. This is for product, H&S and environmental. Member must follow all EU regs.
Sun says 35 letters have gone in (in total, so far).
Why are the ERG frit ?
Because they done the math and know May would win a VONC.
I can't see how that's possible -surely it'd only take about a dozen ERGers to vote with the opposition.
VONC in May, not the government. ERG don't want a general election.
Which is a position that defies political logic. If they think they can replace the PM and then fundamentally change Brexit policy without a mandate with a minority government they are dreaming.
Indeed. If the new leader was JRM for instance, the Soubry faction would double in size and he wouldn't get Hard Brexit through parliament.
As far as a VONC among Tory MPs is concerned, May would win if she stood, so the question is will she stand? Sometimes in the past the challenged leader has given up the ghost and stood aside.
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
Wither Pearl Harbour ?
Pearl harbour was inflicted by the Japanese on the Americans, the Americans did not inflict it on themselves. The UK has chosen to harm itself through Brexit.
Japan inflicted Pearl Harbour and it's aftermath on themselves. The nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and the millions of deaths in WWII were a direct consequence of Japan "awaking a sleeping giant" by the folly of Pearl Harbour.
Absolutely mega borrowing figures for the government, again. Implies 1.8% YoY growth from my back of the fag packet calculation.
I'd say quite good rather than mega.
But lets remember the OBR's March 2018 borrowing prediction for the year ending March 2018 was £45.2bn compared with actual borrowing of £39.4bn.
The OBR's borrowing predicting of £37.1bn for 2018/19 looks like it could be about £8bn too high as well.
At this rate looks rather like we could actually be on target to reach a budget surplus by 2020 afterall.
Is this another example of this totally incompetent government?
Not a day too soon, then the gargantuan task of paying down the debt can begin in earnest.
The Bank of England owns about half a trillion of UK Government debt (i.e. a quarter of it) paid for by the magic money tree. About a quarter of that £53 billion interest bill is paid to the Bank of England who remits it back to the Treasury.
Sun says 35 letters have gone in (in total, so far).
Why are the ERG frit ?
Because they done the math and know May would win a VONC.
I can't see how that's possible -surely it'd only take about a dozen ERGers to vote with the opposition.
VONC in May, not the government. ERG don't want a general election.
Which is a position that defies political logic. If they think they can replace the PM and then fundamentally change Brexit policy without a mandate with a minority government they are dreaming.
Not really. All they have to do to get their desired outcome is to not reach a deal
If their desired outcome is to be blamed for the destruction of the UK, yes.
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
I think it is a racing certainty that the Labour Party will come out in favour of another referendum, probably very soon, meaning probably this Autumn.
From the point of view of the Corbynistas that's probably a good result. No need to worry about anti-semitism in the Labour Party if all those pesky Jews have left, eh.....
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
Plenty of Germans voted the Nazi into their Parliament. So that's pretty self inflicted given what happened next.
If the common rulebook request is reframed as a trade agreement then that might cut the knot?
"Loiseau said that in the light of the white paper, France was unclear whether May’s government “gets it” on the EU’s refusal to haggle over the indivisibility of the four freedoms of the single market – people, capital, goods and services."
That does not to me sound like the EU is getting ready to fold over the four freedoms. That sounds to me like the EU is absolutely unmoved on this issues as it has been since day zero.
But then again, if we were Country X, approaching the EU from scratch for an agreement in trade, they presumably wouldn't come back saying: but you need to allow freedom of movement, etc ,etc?
Indeed. Ask Canada, or Japan. Which is why for the best long term deal we need to leave the EU and then start negotiating a trade agreement from the outside.
...and in the short term? are you one who believes all the job losses and business failures are a price worth paying? Or are you still in the la la land that pretends that wont happen?
I think in the short term there will need to be some government support for business, especially small businesses and those with very tight supply chains affected by EU intransigence. Within a year or two, business will have adapted to the new realities and opportunities, as business has done for centuries.
This is preferable to being tied forever into the regulatory regime of an organisation which actively seeks to “punish” the UK, led by large businesses making the same scaremongering suggestions about shutting down that they did about joining the Euro two decades ago.
Even that is silly. Even if one disagrees with leaving the EU, advanced nations have made much worse decisions than that since 1937.
I'd say this is one of those things we can only determine after the fact.
Since Brexit, and any concomitant disasters it wreaks, have not yet happened, we can't yet know how great an act of self harm has been inflicted.
I think we can say it's not going to be worse than WWII. It's not going to be worse than the aftermath if Germany invading Poland. Or Japan attacking Pearl Harbour.
Even post WWII the idea that Brexit is worse than the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia etc is just puerile.
If it's a mistake, then it's a mistake on a par with the Barber Boom and Bust, or shelving In Place of Strife, or shadowing the Deutchsmark and joining the ERM. Unpleasant, yes. But certainly not in the realm of national disasters.
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
Germany chose to invade Poland. Germany chose to invade Russia. Japan chose to attack America.
All three of those resulted in total disaster for the aggressor ultimately. Millions dead on all sides
Even that is silly. Even if one disagrees with leaving the EU, advanced nations have made much worse decisions than that since 1937.
I'd say this is one of those things we can only determine after the fact.
Since Brexit, and any concomitant disasters it wreaks, have not yet happened, we can't yet know how great an act of self harm has been inflicted.
I think we can say it's not going to be worse than WWII. It's not going to be worse than the aftermath if Germany invading Poland. Or Japan attacking Pearl Harbour.
Even post WWII the idea that Brexit is worse than the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia etc is just puerile.
It's the most recent report, which is the only reason I'll quote from it. The IMF's Eurozone report (and as we all know the IMF are Brexiteers to a man/woman) places the forgone growth in the range 0 (EEA-like) to 4% (WTO) by 2030. Of course, that's not chump change, but it does make me cross my eyes a bit when people talk about national disasters. What will come as a shock to people is that London will continue to get wealthier, while sectors like car manufacturing will be much reduced.
The key thing is that the views of the voters haven't changed. So what happens if Remain loses a second time? Well we've just trashed the compromise that's been put together - so hard Brexit is the only thing left.
The knowledge of the voters has changed so whatever decision we make next time will be more informed, and we will have to accept the consequences of that decision.
I don't think you can read into the stability of the polls that people's minds haven't changed. It's really striking how excerpts of the 2016 debates already seem like they come from another era.
From the point of view of the Corbynistas that's probably a good result. No need to worry about anti-semitism in the Labour Party if all those pesky Jews have left, eh.....
Very good responses on the other thread @Cyclefree.
Sadly, I think @TheJezziah is still over there telling himself that Labour doesn't have an anti-semitic problem.
Even that is silly. Even if one disagrees with leaving the EU, advanced nations have made much worse decisions than that since 1937.
I'd say this is one of those things we can only determine after the fact.
Since Brexit, and any concomitant disasters it wreaks, have not yet happened, we can't yet know how great an act of self harm has been inflicted.
I think we can say it's not going to be worse than WWII. It's not going to be worse than the aftermath if Germany invading Poland. Or Japan attacking Pearl Harbour.
Even post WWII the idea that Brexit is worse than the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia etc is just puerile.
It's the most recent report, which is the only reason I'll quote from it. The IMF's Eurozone report (and as we all know the IMF are Brexiteers to a man/woman) places the forgone growth in the range 0 (EEA-like) to 4% (WTO) by 2030. Of course, that's not chump change, but it does make me cross my eyes a bit when people talk about national disasters. What will come as a shock to people is that London will continue to get wealthier, while sectors like car manufacturing will be much reduced.
It's one of the drawbacks of social media that no case can ever be sufficiently exaggerated.
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
the UK declared war on Germany, they didn't declare war on us.
The key thing is that the views of the voters haven't changed. So what happens if Remain loses a second time? Well we've just trashed the compromise that's been put together - so hard Brexit is the only thing left.
The knowledge of the voters has changed so whatever decision we make next time will be more informed, and we will have to accept the consequences of that decision.
I don't think you can read into the stability of the polls that people's minds haven't changed. It's really striking how excerpts of the 2016 debates already seem like they come from another era.
I think that's exactly what the stability of the polls shows. I don't think the knowledge of voters has increased very much either.
The fundamental problem I see is that Leave voters were warned of bad consequences and they chose to ignore those warnings, or they think the upsides will be worth it.
Until the decision is tested, and we have actual experience of how it will go, why would you change your mind on the basis of another batch of warnings?
As I said late last night, her NI position seems quite coherent. And these headlines are setting up a "victory over Europe" situation.
The backstop document proposed that the whole of the UK would stay in the Customs Union and that there would be no border in the Irish Sea. Her Chequers paper reiterated that and so did Jolyon Maugham's "scoop" quote.
Juncker said that they would examine closely whether the backstop could apply to the whole of the UK and likewise he had been asked again by Chequers.
She is now "challenging" the EU to be flexible. The only way they will do this, IMO, is to accept her plan to allow a common rulebook for the whole of the UK, not just for NI.
This will then be spun as a victory for all concerned.
Does rely on the EU accepting Chequers, extending the alignment to the whole of the UK, that said.
Didn't Barnier rule this out ?
I thought he’d said that the backstop can only apply to NI and not to the UK as a whole, this from the March “Legal text of the December agreement”. Hence the comments about the EU trying to effectively annex NI and force a border in the Irish Sea. Barnier thinks that allowing the backstop to cover the whole of the UK would be “cherry-picking”.
The 6 counties are to the EU what Crimea was to Russia in 2014. And to take the analogy further, the consequence may be that there are as many passenger airline flights from London to Paris/Dublin after 29/3/18 as there are currently between Kiev and Moscow/St.Petersburg.
Absolutely mega borrowing figures for the government, again. Implies 1.8% YoY growth from my back of the fag packet calculation.
I'd say quite good rather than mega.
But lets remember the OBR's March 2018 borrowing prediction for the year ending March 2018 was £45.2bn compared with actual borrowing of £39.4bn.
The OBR's borrowing predicting of £37.1bn for 2018/19 looks like it could be about £8bn too high as well.
At this rate looks rather like we could actually be on target to reach a budget surplus by 2020 afterall.
Is this another example of this totally incompetent government?
Not a day too soon, then the gargantuan task of paying down the debt can begin in earnest.
The Bank of England owns about half a trillion of UK Government debt (i.e. a quarter of it) paid for by the magic money tree. About a quarter of that £53 billion interest bill is paid to the Bank of England who remits it back to the Treasury.
It’s about a fifth that’s interest on the QE yes. Still more than £40bn a year that the government is paying just in interest for past overspending. Maybe we should also include the annual repayments by various departments on PFI contracts to the total, a significant amount of the health and education budgets.
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
the UK declared war on Germany, they didn't declare war on us.
The key thing is that the views of the voters haven't changed. So what happens if Remain loses a second time? Well we've just trashed the compromise that's been put together - so hard Brexit is the only thing left.
The knowledge of the voters has changed so whatever decision we make next time will be more informed, and we will have to accept the consequences of that decision.
I don't think you can read into the stability of the polls that people's minds haven't changed. It's really striking how excerpts of the 2016 debates already seem like they come from another era.
I think that's exactly what the stability of the polls shows. I don't think the knowledge of voters has increased very much either.
The fundamental problem I see is that Leave voters were warned of bad consequences and they chose to ignore those warnings, or they think the upsides will be worth it.
Until the decision is tested, and we have actual experience of how it will go, why would you change your mind on the basis of another batch of warnings?
It's not as simple as saying that voters chose to ignore warnings. They were asked to ignore warnings by apparently serious and credible people. The difference will come when the people who told them to ignore the warnings peer over the abyss and people can see the look of fear in their eyes.
Unfortunately we'll need to get a lot closer to the cliff edge for that to happen.
As I said late last night, her NI position seems quite coherent. And these headlines are setting up a "victory over Europe" situation.
The backstop document proposed that the whole of the UK would stay in the Customs Union and that there would be no border in the Irish Sea. Her Chequers paper reiterated that and so did Jolyon Maugham's "scoop" quote.
Juncker said that they would examine closely whether the backstop could apply to the whole of the UK and likewise he had been asked again by Chequers.
She is now "challenging" the EU to be flexible. The only way they will do this, IMO, is to accept her plan to allow a common rulebook for the whole of the UK, not just for NI.
This will then be spun as a victory for all concerned.
Does rely on the EU accepting Chequers, extending the alignment to the whole of the UK, that said.
Didn't Barnier rule this out ?
I thought he’d said that the backstop can only apply to NI and not to the UK as a whole, this from the March “Legal text of the December agreement”. Hence the comments about the EU trying to effectively annex NI and force a border in the Irish Sea. Barnier thinks that allowing the backstop to cover the whole of the UK would be “cherry-picking”.
The 6 counties are to the EU what Crimea was to Russia in 2014. And to take the analogy further, the consequence may be that there are as many passenger airline flights from London to Paris/Dublin after 29/3/18 as there are currently between Kiev and Moscow/St.Petersburg.
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
Germany chose to invade Poland. Germany chose to invade Russia. Japan chose to attack America.
All three of those resulted in total disaster for the aggressor ultimately. Millions dead on all sides
But Brexit is worse?
we now need a name for Brexit induced insanity
Remonanism - for those who have wanked themselves beyond rationality
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
Plenty of Germans voted the Nazi into their Parliament. So that's pretty self inflicted given what happened next.
Comparison with the Nazi's,what is it with remain and WW2.
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
Plenty of Germans voted the Nazi into their Parliament. So that's pretty self inflicted given what happened next.
Comparison with the Nazi's,what is it with remain and WW2.
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
Plenty of Germans voted the Nazi into their Parliament. So that's pretty self inflicted given what happened next.
Comparison with the Nazi's,what is it with remain and WW2.
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
the UK declared war on Germany, they didn't declare war on us.
Makes you wonder why we bothered tbh.
the big mistake was WW1
they could have had Belgium, Lux and france for very little hassle and we would have avoided Nazism, Communism and round 2.
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
Germany chose to invade Poland. Germany chose to invade Russia. Japan chose to attack America.
All three of those resulted in total disaster for the aggressor ultimately. Millions dead on all sides
But Brexit is worse?
we now need a name for Brexit induced insanity
Remonanism - for those who have wanked themselves beyond rationality
Can anyone think of one for ultra leavers ?
There are people who are mad, on the Leave side. I encounter them on Facebook. But, they have equivalents on the other side.
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
the UK declared war on Germany, they didn't declare war on us.
Makes you wonder why we bothered tbh.
the big mistake was WW1
the could have had Belgium, Lux and france for very little hassle and we would have avoided Nazism, Communism and round 2.
We should have let Napoleon have his way. German cuisine is uninspiring. If we're going to have a hegemon, let it be French.
I think that's exactly what the stability of the polls shows.
Just to add to my response below, polls between May's appointment as PM and her calling the General Election showed stable big leads, but as soon as she wanted to translate that into votes, everything changed. I think you'd see the same with the Remain/Leave polls if a second referendum were called.
As I said late last night, her NI position seems quite coherent. And these headlines are setting up a "victory over Europe" situation.
The backstop document proposed that the whole of the UK would stay in the Customs Union and that there would be no border in the Irish Sea. Her Chequers paper reiterated that and so did Jolyon Maugham's "scoop" quote.
Juncker said that they would examine closely whether the backstop could apply to the whole of the UK and likewise he had been asked again by Chequers.
She is now "challenging" the EU to be flexible. The only way they will do this, IMO, is to accept her plan to allow a common rulebook for the whole of the UK, not just for NI.
This will then be spun as a victory for all concerned.
Does rely on the EU accepting Chequers, extending the alignment to the whole of the UK, that said.
Didn't Barnier rule this out ?
I thought he’d said that the backstop can only apply to NI and not to the UK as a whole, this from the March “Legal text of the December agreement”. Hence the comments about the EU trying to effectively annex NI and force a border in the Irish Sea. Barnier thinks that allowing the backstop to cover the whole of the UK would be “cherry-picking”.
The 6 counties are to the EU what Crimea was to Russia in 2014. And to take the analogy further, the consequence may be that there are as many passenger airline flights from London to Paris/Dublin after 29/3/18 as there are currently between Kiev and Moscow/St.Petersburg.
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
the UK declared war on Germany, they didn't declare war on us.
Makes you wonder why we bothered tbh.
the big mistake was WW1
the could have had Belgium, Lux and france for very little hassle and we would have avoided Nazism, Communism and round 2.
We should have let Napoleon have his way. German cuisine is uninspiring. If we're going to have a hegemon, let it be French.
The key thing is that the views of the voters haven't changed. So what happens if Remain loses a second time? Well we've just trashed the compromise that's been put together - so hard Brexit is the only thing left.
The knowledge of the voters has changed so whatever decision we make next time will be more informed, and we will have to accept the consequences of that decision.
I don't think you can read into the stability of the polls that people's minds haven't changed. It's really striking how excerpts of the 2016 debates already seem like they come from another era.
I think that's exactly what the stability of the polls shows. I don't think the knowledge of voters has increased very much either.
The fundamental problem I see is that Leave voters were warned of bad consequences and they chose to ignore those warnings, or they think the upsides will be worth it.
Until the decision is tested, and we have actual experience of how it will go, why would you change your mind on the basis of another batch of warnings?
It's not as simple as saying that voters chose to ignore warnings. They were asked to ignore warnings by apparently serious and credible people. The difference will come when the people who told them to ignore the warnings peer over the abyss and people can see the look of fear in their eyes.
Unfortunately we'll need to get a lot closer to the cliff edge for that to happen.
what complete garbage
the voters will simply say the politicians are totally crap, couldn't organise a piss up in a urinal and will vote even more against a discredited establishment
I don't think there is any EU desire to "punish" the UK, the UK is too good at punishing itself at the moment. We have brought all this on ourselves. There is no scaremongering here, this is serious stuff. hard brexit will have massive economic and political ramifications, and the benefits have not been articulated to outweigh what is a massive risk.
The grown ups in government realise this as they have seen the analysis. The US and or China will not give us a favourable trade deal that will in any way compensate for that that we will lose, and we will end up losing a lot more sovereignty and independence in order to achieve desperately try not to lose our place in the world, but to some people on the far right all this (including advancing Russian foreign policy) is a price worth paying.
The key thing is that the views of the voters haven't changed. So what happens if Remain loses a second time? Well we've just trashed the compromise that's been put together - so hard Brexit is the only thing left.
The knowledge of the voters has changed so whatever decision we make next time will be more informed, and we will have to accept the consequences of that decision.
I don't think you can read into the stability of the polls that people's minds haven't changed. It's really striking how excerpts of the 2016 debates already seem like they come from another era.
I think that's exactly what the stability of the polls shows. I don't think the knowledge of voters has increased very much either.
The fundamental problem I see is that Leave voters were warned of bad consequences and they chose to ignore those warnings, or they think the upsides will be worth it.
Until the decision is tested, and we have actual experience of how it will go, why would you change your mind on the basis of another batch of warnings?
It's not as simple as saying that voters chose to ignore warnings. They were asked to ignore warnings by apparently serious and credible people. The difference will come when the people who told them to ignore the warnings peer over the abyss and people can see the look of fear in their eyes.
Unfortunately we'll need to get a lot closer to the cliff edge for that to happen.
Who are these serious and credible people who are now going to panic and back Remain? If you mean Boris, Gove, Hannan, JRM - I don't think they are going to change their minds.
If you think about the metaphor of a cliff edge, it's only actually apparent you have a problem when you're on the other side of the edge.
The key thing is that the views of the voters haven't changed. So what happens if Remain loses a second time? Well we've just trashed the compromise that's been put together - so hard Brexit is the only thing left.
The knowledge of the voters has changed so whatever decision we make next time will be more informed, and we will have to accept the consequences of that decision.
I don't think you can read into the stability of the polls that people's minds haven't changed. It's really striking how excerpts of the 2016 debates already seem like they come from another era.
I think that's exactly what the stability of the polls shows. I don't think the knowledge of voters has increased very much either.
The fundamental problem I see is that Leave voters were warned of bad consequences and they chose to ignore those warnings, or they think the upsides will be worth it.
Until the decision is tested, and we have actual experience of how it will go, why would you change your mind on the basis of another batch of warnings?
It's not as simple as saying that voters chose to ignore warnings. They were asked to ignore warnings by apparently serious and credible people. The difference will come when the people who told them to ignore the warnings peer over the abyss and people can see the look of fear in their eyes.
Unfortunately we'll need to get a lot closer to the cliff edge for that to happen.
what complete garbage
the voters will simply say the politicians are totally crap, couldn't organise a piss up in a urinal and will vote even more against a discredited establishment
I think that probably so, but that discredited establishment will be the Brexiteers.
The key thing is that the views of the voters haven't changed. So what happens if Remain loses a second time? Well we've just trashed the compromise that's been put together - so hard Brexit is the only thing left.
The knowledge of the voters has changed so whatever decision we make next time will be more informed, and we will have to accept the consequences of that decision.
I don't think you can read into the stability of the polls that people's minds haven't changed. It's really striking how excerpts of the 2016 debates already seem like they come from another era.
I think that's exactly what the stability of the polls shows. I don't think the knowledge of voters has increased very much either.
The fundamental problem I see is that Leave voters were warned of bad consequences and they chose to ignore those warnings, or they think the upsides will be worth it.
Until the decision is tested, and we have actual experience of how it will go, why would you change your mind on the basis of another batch of warnings?
It's not as simple as saying that voters chose to ignore warnings. They were asked to ignore warnings by apparently serious and credible people. The difference will come when the people who told them to ignore the warnings peer over the abyss and people can see the look of fear in their eyes.
Unfortunately we'll need to get a lot closer to the cliff edge for that to happen.
what complete garbage
the voters will simply say the politicians are totally crap, couldn't organise a piss up in a urinal and will vote even more against a discredited establishment
What better way to vote against the UK establishment than to vote for full-fat EU membership?
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
Germany chose to invade Poland. Germany chose to invade Russia. Japan chose to attack America.
All three of those resulted in total disaster for the aggressor ultimately. Millions dead on all sides
But Brexit is worse?
we now need a name for Brexit induced insanity
Remonanism - for those who have wanked themselves beyond rationality
Can anyone think of one for ultra leavers ?
There are people who are mad, on the Leave side. I encounter them on Facebook. But, they have equivalents on the other side.
absolutely
but Im struggling to think of a suitable name for the condition
As I said late last night, her NI position seems quite coherent. And these headlines are setting up a "victory over Europe" situation.
The backstop document proposed that the whole of the UK would stay in the Customs Union and that there would be no border in the Irish Sea. Her Chequers paper reiterated that and so did Jolyon Maugham's "scoop" quote.
Juncker said that they would examine closely whether the backstop could apply to the whole of the UK and likewise he had been asked again by Chequers.
She is now "challenging" the EU to be flexible. The only way they will do this, IMO, is to accept her plan to allow a common rulebook for the whole of the UK, not just for NI.
This will then be spun as a victory for all concerned.
Does rely on the EU accepting Chequers, extending the alignment to the whole of the UK, that said.
Didn't Barnier rule this out ?
I thought he’d said that the backstop can only apply to NI and not to the UK as a whole, this from the March “Legal text of the December agreement”. Hence the comments about the EU trying to effectively annex NI and force a border in the Irish Sea. Barnier thinks that allowing the backstop to cover the whole of the UK would be “cherry-picking”.
The 6 counties are to the EU what Crimea was to Russia in 2014. And to take the analogy further, the consequence may be that there are as many passenger airline flights from London to Paris/Dublin after 29/3/18 as there are currently between Kiev and Moscow/St.Petersburg.
Do you think we could be at war with the EU?
A cold war - yes - but not a hot one.
You both read too many war comics when you were children "Achtung Spitfire".
I think it is a racing certainty that the Labour Party will come out in favour of another referendum, probably very soon, meaning probably this Autumn.
Rubbish, Thornberry categorically ruled one out yesterday as has Corbyn as they have insisted they must respect the Leave vote which won most Labour seats
I think that's exactly what the stability of the polls shows.
Just to add to my response below, polls between May's appointment as PM and her calling the General Election showed stable big leads, but as soon as she wanted to translate that into votes, everything changed. I think you'd see the same with the Remain/Leave polls if a second referendum were called.
Last time, Remain blew a polling lead. It's possible that this time will be different.
Personally I think there would be a significant proportion of Remain who would object to re-opening the debate, would see that as unfair, and so would switch to Leave.
I can't imagine many Leavers saying, thank goodness for Tony Blair giving me the opportunity to admit I was wrong last time.
The key thing is that the views of the voters haven't changed. So what happens if Remain loses a second time? Well we've just trashed the compromise that's been put together - so hard Brexit is the only thing left.
The knowledge of the voters has changed so whatever decision we make next time will be more informed, and we will have to accept the consequences of that decision.
I don't think you can read into the stability of the polls that people's minds haven't changed. It's really striking how excerpts of the 2016 debates already seem like they come from another era.
I think that's exactly what the stability of the polls shows. I don't think the knowledge of voters has increased very much either.
The fundamental problem I see is that Leave voters were warned of bad consequences and they chose to ignore those warnings, or they think the upsides will be worth it.
Until the decision is tested, and we have actual experience of how it will go, why would you change your mind on the basis of another batch of warnings?
It's not as simple as saying that voters chose to ignore warnings. They were asked to ignore warnings by apparently serious and credible people. The difference will come when the people who told them to ignore the warnings peer over the abyss and people can see the look of fear in their eyes.
Unfortunately we'll need to get a lot closer to the cliff edge for that to happen.
what complete garbage
the voters will simply say the politicians are totally crap, couldn't organise a piss up in a urinal and will vote even more against a discredited establishment
which is why referenda are a very poor way of deciding important matters. Our system of democracy is meant to put people in place who properly weigh up weighty matters
The key thing is that the views of the voters haven't changed. So what happens if Remain loses a second time? Well we've just trashed the compromise that's been put together - so hard Brexit is the only thing left.
The knowledge of the voters has changed so whatever decision we make next time will be more informed, and we will have to accept the consequences of that decision.
I don't think you can read into the stability of the polls that people's minds haven't changed. It's really striking how excerpts of the 2016 debates already seem like they come from another era.
I think that's exactly what the stability of the polls shows. I don't think the knowledge of voters has increased very much either.
The fundamental problem I see is that Leave voters were warned of bad consequences and they chose to ignore those warnings, or they think the upsides will be worth it.
Until the decision is tested, and we have actual experience of how it will go, why would you change your mind on the basis of another batch of warnings?
It's not as simple as saying that voters chose to ignore warnings. They were asked to ignore warnings by apparently serious and credible people. The difference will come when the people who told them to ignore the warnings peer over the abyss and people can see the look of fear in their eyes.
Unfortunately we'll need to get a lot closer to the cliff edge for that to happen.
what complete garbage
the voters will simply say the politicians are totally crap, couldn't organise a piss up in a urinal and will vote even more against a discredited establishment
I think that probably so, but that discredited establishment will be the Brexiteers.
It will be all the political parties to varying degrees. The Jezza revolution will be shadowed by a harder right twin.
"The Spanish Civil War"? A war in which a million people were killed, and a brutal dictatorship came to power?
Get real..
I said Brexit was the biggest act of national self-harm SINCE the Spanish civil war, which it is.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
So Brexit is a bigger act of national self harm than any of WWII?
But WW2 was not inflicted by the participants on themselves - in most cases they were forced into it by invasion or threat of invasion. it was, of course, very harmful but most of the participants did not choose out of their own free will to enter the war.
Germany chose to invade Poland. Germany chose to invade Russia. Japan chose to attack America.
All three of those resulted in total disaster for the aggressor ultimately. Millions dead on all sides
But Brexit is worse?
we now need a name for Brexit induced insanity
Remonanism - for those who have wanked themselves beyond rationality
Can anyone think of one for ultra leavers ?
If you want something comparable to RemOnanists, I suggest Hand ReLeavers.
the voters will simply say the politicians are totally crap, couldn't organise a piss up in a urinal and will vote even more against a discredited establishment
And who will they vote for? Labour?
Both sides are equally bonkers. The only advantage Labour has is that their ability to wreck things is potential whilst the current shower are in the process of actually doing it.
Guaranteed nutters as against potential nutters. It is not exactly a sparkling choice...
The key thing is that the views of the voters haven't changed. So what happens if Remain loses a second time? Well we've just trashed the compromise that's been put together - so hard Brexit is the only thing left.
The knowledge of the voters has changed so whatever decision we make next time will be more informed, and we will have to accept the consequences of that decision.
I don't think you can read into the stability of the polls that people's minds haven't changed. It's really striking how excerpts of the 2016 debates already seem like they come from another era.
I think that's exactly what the stability of the polls shows. I don't think the knowledge of voters has increased very much either.
The fundamental problem I see is that Leave voters were warned of bad consequences and they chose to ignore those warnings, or they think the upsides will be worth it.
Until the decision is tested, and we have actual experience of how it will go, why would you change your mind on the basis of another batch of warnings?
It's not as simple as saying that voters chose to ignore warnings. They were asked to ignore warnings by apparently serious and credible people. The difference will come when the people who told them to ignore the warnings peer over the abyss and people can see the look of fear in their eyes.
Unfortunately we'll need to get a lot closer to the cliff edge for that to happen.
what complete garbage
the voters will simply say the politicians are totally crap, couldn't organise a piss up in a urinal and will vote even more against a discredited establishment
What better way to vote against the UK establishment than to vote for full-fat EU membership?
I think that if there were a second referendum tomorrow then there would be a (perhaps resounding) victory for Leave.
You are not telling me that the workers in Sainsbury's in Grantham will have followed, understood, cared, or been bothered about any of the detail to have emerged since the last time. As far as they know they voted for something and want the govt to get an effing move on.
Those workers in Sainsbury's who voted Remain have followed events with an equal attention to detail and would be irritated that they are being asked to vote again and some might therefore switch their vote.
The fact that some bien pensant dilettante previous Leave journalist or campaigner has seen the light is neither here nor there.
I think that's exactly what the stability of the polls shows.
Just to add to my response below, polls between May's appointment as PM and her calling the General Election showed stable big leads, but as soon as she wanted to translate that into votes, everything changed. I think you'd see the same with the Remain/Leave polls if a second referendum were called.
Last time, Remain blew a polling lead. It's possible that this time will be different.
Personally I think there would be a significant proportion of Remain who would object to re-opening the debate, would see that as unfair, and so would switch to Leave.
I can't imagine many Leavers saying, thank goodness for Tony Blair giving me the opportunity to admit I was wrong last time.
I think that kind of knee-jerk reaction to being asked against would last a week at most. It couldn't be translated into actual votes at the end of a campaign in which the real choices were explained in stark terms to people.
I think that if there were a second referendum tomorrow then there would be a (perhaps resounding) victory for Leave.
You are not telling me that the workers in Sainsbury's in Grantham will have followed, understood, cared, or been bothered about any of the detail to have emerged since the last time. As far as they know they voted for something and want the govt to get an effing move on.
Those workers in Sainsbury's who voted Remain have followed events with an equal attention to detail and would be irritated that they are being asked to vote again and some might therefore switch their vote.
The fact that some bien pensant dilettante previous Leave journalist or campaigner has seen the light is neither here nor there.
Brexit derangement syndrome is a serious condition that can affect anyone at any time. Somebody you love could be suffering from BRS today.
Some of the symptoms of Brexit Derangement Syndrome include:
Excessive frothing Having a face made of gammon Thinking Jacob Rees-Mogg is a "good chap" General confusion that the world is complex Anger at foreign people for existing
Talk to your relatives about Brexit Derangement Syndrome today. If you don't, who will?
I think that's exactly what the stability of the polls shows.
Just to add to my response below, polls between May's appointment as PM and her calling the General Election showed stable big leads, but as soon as she wanted to translate that into votes, everything changed. I think you'd see the same with the Remain/Leave polls if a second referendum were called.
Last time, Remain blew a polling lead. It's possible that this time will be different.
Personally I think there would be a significant proportion of Remain who would object to re-opening the debate, would see that as unfair, and so would switch to Leave.
I can't imagine many Leavers saying, thank goodness for Tony Blair giving me the opportunity to admit I was wrong last time.
I think that kind of knee-jerk reaction to being asked against would last a week at most. It couldn't be translated into actual votes at the end of a campaign in which the real choices were explained in stark terms to people.
I think a second referendum on Remain/Leave would be mostly decided by change in turnout. It is quite likely that there would be a younger turnout, and the disenchanted CDEs would stay at home.
I think that's exactly what the stability of the polls shows.
Just to add to my response below, polls between May's appointment as PM and her calling the General Election showed stable big leads, but as soon as she wanted to translate that into votes, everything changed. I think you'd see the same with the Remain/Leave polls if a second referendum were called.
Last time, Remain blew a polling lead. It's possible that this time will be different.
Personally I think there would be a significant proportion of Remain who would object to re-opening the debate, would see that as unfair, and so would switch to Leave.
I can't imagine many Leavers saying, thank goodness for Tony Blair giving me the opportunity to admit I was wrong last time.
I think that kind of knee-jerk reaction to being asked against would last a week at most. It couldn't be translated into actual votes at the end of a campaign in which the real choices were explained in stark terms to people.
I think a second referendum on Remain/Leave would be mostly decided by change in turnout. It is quite likely that there would be a younger turnout, and the disenchanted CDEs would stay at home.
That's a plausible reason why Remain might do better. Post Brexit/Corbyn, young people are more fired up.
Much more so than this "now they have seen the consequences" stuff.
Brexit derangement syndrome is a serious condition that can affect anyone at any time. Somebody you love could be suffering from BRS today.
Some of the symptoms of Brexit Derangement Syndrome include:
Excessive frothing Having a face made of gammon Thinking Jacob Rees-Mogg is a "good chap" General confusion that the world is complex Anger at foreign people for existing
Talk to your relatives about Brexit Derangement Syndrome today. If you don't, who will?
I think that if there were a second referendum tomorrow then there would be a (perhaps resounding) victory for Leave.
You are not telling me that the workers in Sainsbury's in Grantham will have followed, understood, cared, or been bothered about any of the detail to have emerged since the last time. As far as they know they voted for something and want the govt to get an effing move on.
Those workers in Sainsbury's who voted Remain have followed events with an equal attention to detail and would be irritated that they are being asked to vote again and some might therefore switch their vote.
The fact that some bien pensant dilettante previous Leave journalist or campaigner has seen the light is neither here nor there.
The last referendum was a proxy for "Are you happy with the status quo?" The next referendum will be a proxy for "Do you want to hear the word Brexit every day for the next 10 years?"
Absolutely mega borrowing figures for the government, again. Implies 1.8% YoY growth from my back of the fag packet calculation.
I'd say quite good rather than mega.
But lets remember the OBR's March 2018 borrowing prediction for the year ending March 2018 was £45.2bn compared with actual borrowing of £39.4bn.
The OBR's borrowing predicting of £37.1bn for 2018/19 looks like it could be about £8bn too high as well.
At this rate looks rather like we could actually be on target to reach a budget surplus by 2020 afterall.
Is this another example of this totally incompetent government?
Not a day too soon, then the gargantuan task of paying down the debt can begin in earnest.
The Bank of England owns about half a trillion of UK Government debt (i.e. a quarter of it) paid for by the magic money tree. About a quarter of that £53 billion interest bill is paid to the Bank of England who remits it back to the Treasury.
It’s about a fifth that’s interest on the QE yes. Still more than £40bn a year that the government is paying just in interest for past overspending. Maybe we should also include the annual repayments by various departments on PFI contracts to the total, a significant amount of the health and education budgets.
Thanks Gordon.
The £40b is about 6% of government income (tax revenue).
For a plc, average interest payments are about 20% of EBITDA (I'm guessing).
For the average houseowner, interest payments including mortgage are about 25% of income (again I'm guessing).
My point is that it is very common to borrow and for interest payments to take a substantial part of income. Our national debt looks on the low side to me.
I totally agree with your point about PFI contracts. I thought they were a disaster from the beginning. An Enron off balance sheet trick to distort the national accounts.
I think that if there were a second referendum tomorrow then there would be a (perhaps resounding) victory for Leave.
You are not telling me that the workers in Sainsbury's in Grantham will have followed, understood, cared, or been bothered about any of the detail to have emerged since the last time. As far as they know they voted for something and want the govt to get an effing move on.
Those workers in Sainsbury's who voted Remain have followed events with an equal attention to detail and would be irritated that they are being asked to vote again and some might therefore switch their vote.
The fact that some bien pensant dilettante previous Leave journalist or campaigner has seen the light is neither here nor there.
The last referendum was a proxy for "Are you happy with the status quo?" The next referendum will be a proxy for "Do you want to hear the word Brexit every day for the next 10 years?"
I think people will hear Brexit every day for the next 10 years whatever any result.
the voters will simply say the politicians are totally crap, couldn't organise a piss up in a urinal and will vote even more against a discredited establishment
And who will they vote for? Labour?
Both sides are equally bonkers. The only advantage Labour has is that their ability to wreck things is potential whilst the current shower are in the process of actually doing it.
Guaranteed nutters as against potential nutters. It is not exactly a sparkling choice...
I thought you were on the record for saying you'll vote Jezza ? Non ?
But the fact remains the people will simply go to extremes because the self proclaimed sensible people visibly have no sense. They don't do what they say. They prefer to squabble rather than run the country. They will get replaced by those who will. What the outcome of that may be God knows but it wont be the mood music we have today as a whole lot of other gripes and discontent will get caught up with it.
I think that if there were a second referendum tomorrow then there would be a (perhaps resounding) victory for Leave.
You are not telling me that the workers in Sainsbury's in Grantham will have followed, understood, cared, or been bothered about any of the detail to have emerged since the last time. As far as they know they voted for something and want the govt to get an effing move on.
Those workers in Sainsbury's who voted Remain have followed events with an equal attention to detail and would be irritated that they are being asked to vote again and some might therefore switch their vote.
The fact that some bien pensant dilettante previous Leave journalist or campaigner has seen the light is neither here nor there.
The last referendum was a proxy for "Are you happy with the status quo?" The next referendum will be a proxy for "Do you want to hear the word Brexit every day for the next 10 years?"
And if Remain wins do you think most Leavers would just lie down and take it? No, they would be cybernats on steroids
I think that if there were a second referendum tomorrow then there would be a (perhaps resounding) victory for Leave.
You are not telling me that the workers in Sainsbury's in Grantham will have followed, understood, cared, or been bothered about any of the detail to have emerged since the last time. As far as they know they voted for something and want the govt to get an effing move on.
Those workers in Sainsbury's who voted Remain have followed events with an equal attention to detail and would be irritated that they are being asked to vote again and some might therefore switch their vote.
The fact that some bien pensant dilettante previous Leave journalist or campaigner has seen the light is neither here nor there.
The last referendum was a proxy for "Are you happy with the status quo?" The next referendum will be a proxy for "Do you want to hear the word Brexit every day for the next 10 years?"
I think people will hear Brexit every day for the next 10 years whatever any result.
They certainly will if they look below the line here.
Comments
But the original post was about May's plan. If she gets it through, which she propably wont, then a significant group of Leavers are going to go mental.
Here's Tony Blair on it all:
https://twitter.com/InstituteGC/status/1020013890950877184
Anyone who is a useful idiot that advances the foreign policy agenda of the Kremlin is in no position to wrap their pathetic inadequacies in the union flag and accuse others of being traitors
The UK doesn't recognise that it's been in a political union for 45 years (even though a rejection of political union is the most common intellectual justification for it) and so finds it impossible to frame the negotiations as they actually are.
I did not say it was a comparable event to the Spanish Civil War, which it Is not.
By the next general election Brexit will have happened and Corbyn cannot be all things to all men.
Either he backs what is likely to be a hard Brexit Tory PM for the most party in opposing a second referendum and staying out of the single market and ending free movement and thus risks losing middle class Labour Remainers to the LDs as has already been shown could occur in the Lewisham East by election. Or he reverses course completely and backs a second referendum and staying in the single market and risks losing working class Labour Leave voters to the Tories or UKIP
Any Tory MP voting for the latter would find himself deselected if not expelled from the party.
Remainers think Brexit is going badly as we will still be leaving the single market and customs union.
It is impossible to please both even if you try a compromise as May has done
Since Brexit, and any concomitant disasters it wreaks, have not yet happened, we can't yet know how great an act of self harm has been inflicted.
2) with an FTA your goods are still subject to regulatory checks at the border for stuff like packaging, labelling, 1400w motors, class of bananas, etc. With membership no checks at all for compliance.
3) With and FTA you have to have an importer for your products. Car maker A with subsidiary in the EU places order on FTA country for car, imports with paperwork of compliance, sells to end customer in EU. Memberships means end customer can place order directly on manufacturer.
4) FTA regs are agreed as equivalent. FTA country reg z is deemed equivalent to EU reg Z. This is for product, H&S and environmental. Member must follow all EU regs.
Those are the main ones.
Even post WWII the idea that Brexit is worse than the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia etc is just puerile.
So what happens if Remain loses a second time?
Well we've just trashed the compromise that's been put together - so hard Brexit is the only thing left.
As far as a VONC among Tory MPs is concerned, May would win if she stood, so the question is will she stand? Sometimes in the past the challenged leader has given up the ghost and stood aside.
http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/this-theatre-of-absurd-is-making.html
This is preferable to being tied forever into the regulatory regime of an organisation which actively seeks to “punish” the UK, led by large businesses making the same scaremongering suggestions about shutting down that they did about joining the Euro two decades ago.
Germany chose to invade Russia.
Japan chose to attack America.
All three of those resulted in total disaster for the aggressor ultimately. Millions dead on all sides
But Brexit is worse?
I don't think you can read into the stability of the polls that people's minds haven't changed. It's really striking how excerpts of the 2016 debates already seem like they come from another era.
Sadly, I think @TheJezziah is still over there telling himself that Labour doesn't have an anti-semitic problem.
I don't think the knowledge of voters has increased very much either.
The fundamental problem I see is that Leave voters were warned of bad consequences and they chose to ignore those warnings, or they think the upsides will be worth it.
Until the decision is tested, and we have actual experience of how it will go, why would you change your mind on the basis of another batch of warnings?
Thanks Gordon.
Unfortunately we'll need to get a lot closer to the cliff edge for that to happen.
Remonanism - for those who have wanked themselves beyond rationality
Can anyone think of one for ultra leavers ?
they could have had Belgium, Lux and france for very little hassle and we would have avoided Nazism, Communism and round 2.
the voters will simply say the politicians are totally crap, couldn't organise a piss up in a urinal and will vote even more against a discredited establishment
The grown ups in government realise this as they have seen the analysis. The US and or China will not give us a favourable trade deal that will in any way compensate for that that we will lose, and we will end up losing a lot more sovereignty and independence in order to achieve desperately try not to lose our place in the world, but to some people on the far right all this (including advancing Russian foreign policy) is a price worth paying.
If you mean Boris, Gove, Hannan, JRM - I don't think they are going to change their minds.
If you think about the metaphor of a cliff edge, it's only actually apparent you have a problem when you're on the other side of the edge.
but Im struggling to think of a suitable name for the condition
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1019958392473911298?s=19
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1020252641627201537
Brexiteers?
Elderly Tory voters?
ERG-ers?
Personally I think there would be a significant proportion of Remain who would object to re-opening the debate, would see that as unfair, and so would switch to Leave.
I can't imagine many Leavers saying, thank goodness for Tony Blair giving me the opportunity to admit I was wrong last time.
Both sides are equally bonkers. The only advantage Labour has is that their ability to wreck things is potential whilst the current shower are in the process of actually doing it.
Guaranteed nutters as against potential nutters. It is not exactly a sparkling choice...
You are not telling me that the workers in Sainsbury's in Grantham will have followed, understood, cared, or been bothered about any of the detail to have emerged since the last time. As far as they know they voted for something and want the govt to get an effing move on.
Those workers in Sainsbury's who voted Remain have followed events with an equal attention to detail and would be irritated that they are being asked to vote again and some might therefore switch their vote.
The fact that some bien pensant dilettante previous Leave journalist or campaigner has seen the light is neither here nor there.
Brexit derangement syndrome is a serious condition that can affect anyone at any time. Somebody you love could be suffering from BRS today.
Some of the symptoms of Brexit Derangement Syndrome include:
Excessive frothing
Having a face made of gammon
Thinking Jacob Rees-Mogg is a "good chap"
General confusion that the world is complex
Anger at foreign people for existing
Talk to your relatives about Brexit Derangement Syndrome today. If you don't, who will?
Much more so than this "now they have seen the consequences" stuff.
For a plc, average interest payments are about 20% of EBITDA (I'm guessing).
For the average houseowner, interest payments including mortgage are about 25% of income (again I'm guessing).
My point is that it is very common to borrow and for interest payments to take a substantial part of income. Our national debt looks on the low side to me.
I totally agree with your point about PFI contracts. I thought they were a disaster from the beginning. An Enron off balance sheet trick to distort the national accounts.
But the fact remains the people will simply go to extremes because the self proclaimed sensible people visibly have no sense. They don't do what they say. They prefer to squabble rather than run the country. They will get replaced by those who will. What the outcome of that may be God knows but it wont be the mood music we have today as a whole lot of other gripes and discontent will get caught up with it.