I'm not convinced by the argument that we live in the worst of times, despite the state of the Labour and Conservative parties.
Actually things are pretty darn good, full employment, balanced budget and low sustained inflation. We have a lot of issues bubbling away for the future. The struggle local authorities have with funding elderly care which is just going to get worse and worse etc
Good despite and good because are very different things
What a load of poo. The UK customs backstop that Boris agreed to was strictly time limited and could be ended unilaterally by the UK. It was only going to apply for a few months we were told. It was also a whole-UK backstop. May put this in writing to her MPs as I recall.
This is nothing like the backstop that May is now trying to agree with Brussels. This will be permanent and can be enforced by the EU at any point in the future (Mr Gove please note).
But hey, we are talking about Boris so people that should know better are prepared to lie to make him look bad....
I'm not convinced by the argument that we live in the worst of times, despite the state of the Labour and Conservative parties.
I think our politics is rather consumed by Brexit (and in Labour's case, anti-semitism) but as someone who remembers the seventies, I'd say we're definitely better off - and not just in material terms....
In global terms we're still in the top 20 and second only to Germany among the big EU countries:
Although politics rather passed over my head a child (and growing up in a middle class household in Mill Hill in the 1970's was undoubtedly enjoyable) my impression from such books as The Writing on the Wall, by Phil Whitehead, was that things were pretty chaotic. Class conflict and political violence were much worse then than now.
Absolutely, the 1970s were appalling. The country was effectively run by a union thugs, using violence and intimidation to extort ever increasing but self-defeating inflationary pay rises for their members, with industry paralysed and ordinary law-abiding citizens unable to go about their lawful business.
I'd also reckon that 2018 is better than the last years of the Brown government, and arguably better than the Major years in many ways.
I'm not convinced by the argument that we live in the worst of times, despite the state of the Labour and Conservative parties.
Actually things are pretty darn good, full employment, balanced budget and low sustained inflation. We have a lot of issues bubbling away for the future. The struggle local authorities have with funding elderly care which is just going to get worse and worse etc
That post is the pb equivalent of Wile E Coyote holding up a sign after he's run off the end of the cliff. Though in fairness to Mr Coyote, he's usually aware of his problem.
Assuming no no deal, worst case scenario is that Brexit makes us a little less rich over the next couple of decades and best case scenario it will make us a bit more rich than we would have.
Your and other remain supporters will have a bit of egg on your face when you wake up on april 1st and very little has changed. Flights still happening, tourists still going to to spain, diabetics not dying on the streets.
I'm not convinced by the argument that we live in the worst of times, despite the state of the Labour and Conservative parties.
Actually things are pretty darn good, full employment, balanced budget and low sustained inflation. We have a lot of issues bubbling away for the future. The struggle local authorities have with funding elderly care which is just going to get worse and worse etc
That post is the pb equivalent of Wile E Coyote holding up a sign after he's run off the end of the cliff. Though in fairness to Mr Coyote, he's usually aware of his problem.
Assuming no no deal, worst case scenario is that Brexit makes us a little less rich over the next couple of decades and best case scenario it will make us a bit more rich than we would have.
Your and other remain supporters will have a bit of egg on your face when you wake up on april 1st and very little has changed. Flights still happening, tourists still going to to spain, diabetics not dying on the streets.
There is no cliff edge.
That's rather complacent. It's really hard to get things right, but it's really easy - sometimes effortlessly easy - to muck things up. 'No deal' covers a whole host of scenarios, and much depends on how it is done - for instance how friendly we can remain with our trading partners and friends on the continent.
Yes, a no-deal Brexit could have minimal effect. But it could also have very significant ones. How it is done matters as much as what is done.
There is some very weird stuff going on. We are seeing reports that a UK-EU deal is done; we are hearing that there is movement on the NI border. But on reading these articles it is all spin - there is no evidence anything has changed or any hint of what the solutions might be. Where there are any facts stated they admit that the same issues are still unresolved.
Someone must be briefing this stuff - but who and why? Can’t see why it makes sense to talk it up this early. I assume that No 10 and the EU have agreed to let this stuff out but it doesn’t seem wise to me. The longer we wait for detail the more underwhelming it will appear. Surely would have been better to have a big bang announcement and then try to ram it through?
There is some very weird stuff going on. We are seeing reports that a UK-EU deal is done; we are hearing that there is movement on the NI border. But on reading these articles it is all spin - there is no evidence anything has changed or any hint of what the solutions might be. Where there are any facts stated they admit that the same issues are still unresolved.
Someone must be briefing this stuff - but who and why? Can’t see why it makes sense to talk it up this early. I assume that No 10 and the EU have agreed to let this stuff out but it doesn’t seem wise to me. The longer we wait for detail the more underwhelming it will appear. Surely would have been better to have a big bang announcement and then try to ram it through?
Usually the news management is that the two sides are at loggerheads and then magically at the key moment a deal is unveiled.
This time round the news management has all been about the two sides making very positive progress. This leads me to believe that at present it all looks as if it's going tits-up.
There is some very weird stuff going on. We are seeing reports that a UK-EU deal is done; we are hearing that there is movement on the NI border. But on reading these articles it is all spin - there is no evidence anything has changed or any hint of what the solutions might be. Where there are any facts stated they admit that the same issues are still unresolved.
Someone must be briefing this stuff - but who and why? Can’t see why it makes sense to talk it up this early. I assume that No 10 and the EU have agreed to let this stuff out but it doesn’t seem wise to me. The longer we wait for detail the more underwhelming it will appear. Surely would have been better to have a big bang announcement and then try to ram it through?
You're over-analysing. Every political journalist in the land is running around trying to generate stories, and they can always find someone who will give them one. Mostly the stories are based on very scant information. We just have to wait and see what is actually agreed, and even that will be subject to contradictory interpretations by the various sides.
What a load of poo. The UK customs backstop that Boris agreed to was strictly time limited and could be ended unilaterally by the UK. It was only going to apply for a few months we were told. It was also a whole-UK backstop. May put this in writing to her MPs as I recall.
This is nothing like the backstop that May is now trying to agree with Brussels. This will be permanent and can be enforced by the EU at any point in the future (Mr Gove please note).
But hey, we are talking about Boris so people that should know better are prepared to lie to make him look bad....
Do you have a source for that first paragraph? It's not what I remember, and in fact I don't see why the EU would agree to that
I'm not convinced by the argument that we live in the worst of times, despite the state of the Labour and Conservative parties.
Actually things are pretty darn good, full employment, balanced budget and low sustained inflation. We have a lot of issues bubbling away for the future. The struggle local authorities have with funding elderly care which is just going to get worse and worse etc
That post is the pb equivalent of Wile E Coyote holding up a sign after he's run off the end of the cliff. Though in fairness to Mr Coyote, he's usually aware of his problem.
Assuming no no deal, worst case scenario is that Brexit makes us a little less rich over the next couple of decades and best case scenario it will make us a bit more rich than we would have.
Your and other remain supporters will have a bit of egg on your face when you wake up on april 1st and very little has changed. Flights still happening, tourists still going to to spain, diabetics not dying on the streets.
There is no cliff edge.
That's rather complacent. It's really hard to get things right, but it's really easy - sometimes effortlessly easy - to muck things up. 'No deal' covers a whole host of scenarios, and much depends on how it is done - for instance how friendly we can remain with our trading partners and friends on the continent.
Yes, a no-deal Brexit could have minimal effect. But it could also have very significant ones. How it is done matters as much as what is done.
Yes, there are ways it could go wrong if both sides want it to go wrong it can happen, but even the most basic of trade agreements and a transition will make only the mildest of differences over the long term. The we're doomed scenario really is unlikely.
Stalin and Mao were generally unwilling to risk full-scale wars with other great powers, whereas Hitler was willing, and actually started two (with the Soviet Union and the United States) himself. So on international relations, one can perhaps marginally prefer those two to Hitler.
On domestic repression, there is nothing to choose between them. They were of course all utterly ruthless psychopaths who attached no value whatsoever to human life.
On economic matters, Hitler was less incompetent than Stalin and Mao. His policies may have somewhat revived the German economy in the mid-1930s, albeit largely accidentally, since their purpose was to rearm. He never achieved anything like the Great Leap Forward or the self-imposed madness of collectivisation, and ditched the socialist part of National Socialism fairly quickly. As a result, the German economy only started to collapse in the final two years of the war.
But overall, three blights on humanity and we can at least be glad that no leaders of any great power dares to be quite as bad as them today.
Mao was deemed to have committed three errors for every seven things he did right. Whatever else he did wrong (it was a lot) he nevertheless lifted China out of poverty where previously 20,000 people a day were dying in Shanghai, and lead the overthrow of course of the Japanese oppressors.
After that, to borrow a popular colloquialism, he went a bit mad. The Great Leap was shocking and callous although at heart was an intention to leap forward greatly and it was often the local cadres, admittedly in fear, who overstated the returns and hence ensured the death and chaos. As for the Cultural Revolution, yes absolutely guilty, repressive, horrible.
People were dying of starvation in their hundreds and thousands, millions in fact, under Mao while he was taking the Chinese out of poverty. If you’re dead I suppose you are no longer poor but it seems to me to be nonsense to say that Mao lifted China out of poverty as if it was to his credit. Lots of other countries lifted themselves out of poverty during the same period - but without the death and bloodshed. Mao was a monster.
Deng Xiao Ping thought that the average Chinese was actually poorer in 1976 than in 1950.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were unquestionably the most evil rulers of the twentieth century. Trying to work out which was the most evil is impossible,
Hitler was the most threatening because he was so militarily aggressive internationally.
Pol Pot and Mao were especially evil and ruthless to their own populations, but largely confined themselves within their own borders.
There is some very weird stuff going on. We are seeing reports that a UK-EU deal is done; we are hearing that there is movement on the NI border. But on reading these articles it is all spin - there is no evidence anything has changed or any hint of what the solutions might be. Where there are any facts stated they admit that the same issues are still unresolved.
Someone must be briefing this stuff - but who and why? Can’t see why it makes sense to talk it up this early. I assume that No 10 and the EU have agreed to let this stuff out but it doesn’t seem wise to me. The longer we wait for detail the more underwhelming it will appear. Surely would have been better to have a big bang announcement and then try to ram it through?
I suspect it's to shore up May and to allow her to make the argument for Chequers without having to acknowledge that Chequers may have to include further concessions to the EU or be ditched entirely
1. What on earth is May up to with this 'my deal or no deal' hard-balling? Just invites the ERG to vote against everything, and given those numbers, no way that opposition rebels will have numbers to deal with 50+ Tory votes against.
2. One titbit from the Lib Dem conference, Lib Dems will likely vote 11 against the deal, with one abstention - Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) Won't win him many friends in the party (and I'd expect he'll get less outside help at the next GE) but he made a pledge to leave-voting Eastbourne not to oppose the deal at last year's GE, I confess I hadn't noticed till this week.
3. It looks like it will now need all manner of fudge to get any deal through. I don't believe a word that May is saying about being ready for no - deal; she knows this must be avoided at all costs, and we're being softened for having to live with the most hopeless of deals as our only option. I maintain there will be a serious and credible re-join campaign from day 1 outside, and I can see a re-join referendum in less than a decade.
There is some very weird stuff going on. We are seeing reports that a UK-EU deal is done; we are hearing that there is movement on the NI border. But on reading these articles it is all spin - there is no evidence anything has changed or any hint of what the solutions might be. Where there are any facts stated they admit that the same issues are still unresolved.
Someone must be briefing this stuff - but who and why? Can’t see why it makes sense to talk it up this early. I assume that No 10 and the EU have agreed to let this stuff out but it doesn’t seem wise to me. The longer we wait for detail the more underwhelming it will appear. Surely would have been better to have a big bang announcement and then try to ram it through?
I suspect it's to shore up May and to allow her to make the argument for Chequers without having to acknowledge that Chequers may have to include further concessions to the EU or be ditched entirely
I think further concessions on Chequers (around free movement) make the proposal worse than just staying in the Single Market (but outside the customs union) until we can work out what it is we want.
There is some very weird stuff going on. We are seeing reports that a UK-EU deal is done; we are hearing that there is movement on the NI border. But on reading these articles it is all spin - there is no evidence anything has changed or any hint of what the solutions might be. Where there are any facts stated they admit that the same issues are still unresolved.
Someone must be briefing this stuff - but who and why? Can’t see why it makes sense to talk it up this early. I assume that No 10 and the EU have agreed to let this stuff out but it doesn’t seem wise to me. The longer we wait for detail the more underwhelming it will appear. Surely would have been better to have a big bang announcement and then try to ram it through?
I suspect it's to shore up May and to allow her to make the argument for Chequers without having to acknowledge that Chequers may have to include further concessions to the EU or be ditched entirely
I think further concessions on Chequers (around free movement) make the proposal worse than just staying in the Single Market (but outside the customs union) until we can work out what it is we want.
On what date do you want to leave the customs union?
I maintain there will be a serious and credible re-join campaign from day 1 outside, and I can see a re-join referendum in less than a decade.
It's going to be impossible for Leavers credibly* to complain that Remainers haven't moved on if, as Michael Gove trailed yesterday, Leavers themselves are going to be constantly picking at the Brexit settlement seeking to renegotiate it.
That piece, and the earlier one on the Blues, are definitely worth reading. I suspect a lot of people share his dismay at the state of both main parties, and the lack of traction or leadership coming from anyone else!
There is some very weird stuff going on. We are seeing reports that a UK-EU deal is done; we are hearing that there is movement on the NI border. But on reading these articles it is all spin - there is no evidence anything has changed or any hint of what the solutions might be. Where there are any facts stated they admit that the same issues are still unresolved.
Someone must be briefing this stuff - but who and why? Can’t see why it makes sense to talk it up this early. I assume that No 10 and the EU have agreed to let this stuff out but it doesn’t seem wise to me. The longer we wait for detail the more underwhelming it will appear. Surely would have been better to have a big bang announcement and then try to ram it through?
I suspect it's to shore up May and to allow her to make the argument for Chequers without having to acknowledge that Chequers may have to include further concessions to the EU or be ditched entirely
I think further concessions on Chequers (around free movement) make the proposal worse than just staying in the Single Market (but outside the customs union) until we can work out what it is we want.
On what date do you want to leave the customs union?
A mutually agreeable date when we've managed to negotiate trade agreements that no longer require our membership. There is a possibility that that is a never never. Not something i would be overly bothered with. But others might be concerned.
1. What on earth is May up to with this 'my deal or no deal' hard-balling? Just invites the ERG to vote against everything, and given those numbers, no way that opposition rebels will have numbers to deal with 50+ Tory votes against.
The ultras will probably vote against it anyway, so to them the whips will no doubt be using the argument that (a) rejecting the deal will potentially lead to a Corbyn government, and (b) either through that route, or through some other route, to no Brexit.
On the other hand, she has to get the support of pragmatic MPs, by pointing out the massive risk of voting against, which may inexorably lead to the worst possible outcome of crashing out with no deal. She's basically saying the obvious, albeit a slightly simplified version of the obvious.
Incidentally, I was much amused this morning by Nick Clegg's interview on Today. Having lambasted the Tories for taking the country down a route with no certain outcome, he then proceeded to advocate crashing the deal, on the off-chance that might lead us to staying in the EU, but with exactly the same risk and with no clear mechanism for getting to his preferred outcome.
This had me thinking WTAF - am I wrong ? https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/16/trump-kavanaugh-allegations-response-826069 One outside Trump adviser was quick to suggest an effort to have Ford testify publicly amid the ongoing #MeToo wave would backfire on Democrats. “They’re playing a high-stakes game right now,” this adviser said. “You know there are a lot of people in this country who are parents of high school boys. This is not Anita Hill....
Keefe, Bruyette & Woods bank "calculates there’s now nearly a third (31pc) chance of Labour sweeping to power this year, deeming it “highly improbable” the Conservatives would maintain a majority in another election."
This year? Perhaps they need to read PB on the timing of a new GE. Plenty of posters here think it is all but impossible now, timing-wise unless we have a mid-winter GE.
I maintain there will be a serious and credible re-join campaign from day 1 outside, and I can see a re-join referendum in less than a decade.
It's going to be impossible for Leavers credibly* to complain that Remainers haven't moved on if, as Michael Gove trailed yesterday, Leavers themselves are going to be constantly picking at the Brexit settlement seeking to renegotiate it.
*I expect them to do so regardless.
What Gove said is surely right? The deal we have with the EU will constantly change, particularly as different parties win General Elections. PM's that wish we had stayed will negotiate closer deals, those who are glad we left will do the opposite. Same as the difference in our relationship with the US if Corbyn won as opposed to Boris
There is some very weird stuff going on. We are seeing reports that a UK-EU deal is done; we are hearing that there is movement on the NI border. But on reading these articles it is all spin - there is no evidence anything has changed or any hint of what the solutions might be. Where there are any facts stated they admit that the same issues are still unresolved.
Someone must be briefing this stuff - but who and why? Can’t see why it makes sense to talk it up this early. I assume that No 10 and the EU have agreed to let this stuff out but it doesn’t seem wise to me. The longer we wait for detail the more underwhelming it will appear. Surely would have been better to have a big bang announcement and then try to ram it through?
I suspect it's to shore up May and to allow her to make the argument for Chequers without having to acknowledge that Chequers may have to include further concessions to the EU or be ditched entirely
I think further concessions on Chequers (around free movement) make the proposal worse than just staying in the Single Market (but outside the customs union) until we can work out what it is we want.
Free movement is not the issue, it is greater regulatory alignment on services Barnier has said is needed, he has not mentioned May's work permit and study place on arrival requirement as being a particular issue
I maintain there will be a serious and credible re-join campaign from day 1 outside, and I can see a re-join referendum in less than a decade.
It's going to be impossible for Leavers credibly* to complain that Remainers haven't moved on if, as Michael Gove trailed yesterday, Leavers themselves are going to be constantly picking at the Brexit settlement seeking to renegotiate it.
*I expect them to do so regardless.
What Gove said is surely right? The deal we have with the EU will constantly change, particularly as different parties win General Elections. PM's that wish we had stayed will negotiate closer deals, those who are glad we left will do the opposite. Same as the difference in our relationship with the US if Corbyn won as opposed to Boris
It will become a chapter of the manifesto like any other.
No leavers will be losing sleep about which Brexit they get. (They won't wake up angry in the middle of the night either.)
I maintain there will be a serious and credible re-join campaign from day 1 outside, and I can see a re-join referendum in less than a decade.
It's going to be impossible for Leavers credibly* to complain that Remainers haven't moved on if, as Michael Gove trailed yesterday, Leavers themselves are going to be constantly picking at the Brexit settlement seeking to renegotiate it.
*I expect them to do so regardless.
What Gove said is surely right? The deal we have with the EU will constantly change, particularly as different parties win General Elections. PM's that wish we had stayed will negotiate closer deals, those who are glad we left will do the opposite. Same as the difference in our relationship with the US if Corbyn won as opposed to Boris
It will become a chapter of the manifesto like any other.
No leavers will be losing sleep about which Brexit they get. (They won't wake up angry in the middle of the night either.)
They might not be as filled with glum as the Remainers when we actually leave. But don't expect them to be grateful when it is pointed out that under May's deal formulation, we can't actually do A B C D or E* without getting the prior written of Brussels - which consent won't be forthcoming.
*examples which even the new-style Daily Mail will find itself frothing about.
Keefe, Bruyette & Woods bank "calculates there’s now nearly a third (31pc) chance of Labour sweeping to power this year, deeming it “highly improbable” the Conservatives would maintain a majority in another election."
This year? Perhaps they need to read PB on the timing of a new GE. Plenty of posters here think it is all but impossible now, timing-wise unless we have a mid-winter GE.
I think Labour would lose an election held tomorrow.
I maintain there will be a serious and credible re-join campaign from day 1 outside, and I can see a re-join referendum in less than a decade.
It's going to be impossible for Leavers credibly* to complain that Remainers haven't moved on if, as Michael Gove trailed yesterday, Leavers themselves are going to be constantly picking at the Brexit settlement seeking to renegotiate it.
*I expect them to do so regardless.
What Gove said is surely right? The deal we have with the EU will constantly change, particularly as different parties win General Elections. PM's that wish we had stayed will negotiate closer deals, those who are glad we left will do the opposite. Same as the difference in our relationship with the US if Corbyn won as opposed to Boris
It will become a chapter of the manifesto like any other.
No leavers will be losing sleep about which Brexit they get. (They won't wake up angry in the middle of the night either.)
Leavers who complain about the type of Brexit we get in 2019 must be completely crackers. Farage et al would have bitten your arm off if they'd been offered the current state of play in 2014
I maintain there will be a serious and credible re-join campaign from day 1 outside, and I can see a re-join referendum in less than a decade.
It's going to be impossible for Leavers credibly* to complain that Remainers haven't moved on if, as Michael Gove trailed yesterday, Leavers themselves are going to be constantly picking at the Brexit settlement seeking to renegotiate it.
*I expect them to do so regardless.
What Gove said is surely right? The deal we have with the EU will constantly change, particularly as different parties win General Elections. PM's that wish we had stayed will negotiate closer deals, those who are glad we left will do the opposite. Same as the difference in our relationship with the US if Corbyn won as opposed to Boris
It will become a chapter of the manifesto like any other.
No leavers will be losing sleep about which Brexit they get. (They won't wake up angry in the middle of the night either.)
They might not be as filled with glum as the Remainers when we actually leave. But don't expect them to be grateful when it is pointed out that under May's deal formulation, we can't actually do A B C D or E* without getting the prior written of Brussels - which consent won't be forthcoming.
*examples which even the new-style Daily Mail will find itself frothing about.
I agree that it will not be over, but Brexit will become "just one more thing on the list" very quickly.
There is some very weird stuff going on. We are seeing reports that a UK-EU deal is done; we are hearing that there is movement on the NI border. But on reading these articles it is all spin - there is no evidence anything has changed or any hint of what the solutions might be. Where there are any facts stated they admit that the same issues are still unresolved.
Someone must be briefing this stuff - but who and why? Can’t see why it makes sense to talk it up this early. I assume that No 10 and the EU have agreed to let this stuff out but it doesn’t seem wise to me. The longer we wait for detail the more underwhelming it will appear. Surely would have been better to have a big bang announcement and then try to ram it through?
I suspect it's to shore up May and to allow her to make the argument for Chequers without having to acknowledge that Chequers may have to include further concessions to the EU or be ditched entirely
I think further concessions on Chequers (around free movement) make the proposal worse than just staying in the Single Market (but outside the customs union) until we can work out what it is we want.
Free movement is not the issue, it is greater regulatory alignment on services Barnier has said is needed, he has not mentioned May's work permit and study place on arrival requirement as being a particular issue
I'm meaning from the British side. Chequers does seem strange, we offer an unlimited free access agreement for goods, which we have a gigantic deficit but opt out of the free market in services which we have a surplus on. Barnier cant believe his luck. My point is, if we are going to swallow changes on free movement, then, swallow pride and stay in single market.
By +22%, the public don't expect to be better off as a result of leaving the EU in five years' time, +35% expect travel in the EU on holiday to be harder, +9% disagree that Brexit will have a positive impact overall, +65% think the government has handled the negotiations badly and +36% think the EU has handled negotiations badly.
Keefe, Bruyette & Woods bank "calculates there’s now nearly a third (31pc) chance of Labour sweeping to power this year, deeming it “highly improbable” the Conservatives would maintain a majority in another election."
This year? Perhaps they need to read PB on the timing of a new GE. Plenty of posters here think it is all but impossible now, timing-wise unless we have a mid-winter GE.
I think Labour would lose an election held tomorrow.
Define lose in this context.
1) Winning seats sufficient to enter no10 and having sort out this unholy mess and destroy itself in the process. 2) Winning seats sufficient to make the government unstable 3) Losing seats, forcing a change of leadership
There is some very weird stuff going on. We are seeing reports that a UK-EU deal is done; we are hearing that there is movement on the NI border. But on reading these articles it is all spin - there is no evidence anything has changed or any hint of what the solutions might be. Where there are any facts stated they admit that the same issues are still unresolved.
Someone must be briefing this stuff - but who and why? Can’t see why it makes sense to talk it up this early. I assume that No 10 and the EU have agreed to let this stuff out but it doesn’t seem wise to me. The longer we wait for detail the more underwhelming it will appear. Surely would have been better to have a big bang announcement and then try to ram it through?
I suspect it's to shore up May and to allow her to make the argument for Chequers without having to acknowledge that Chequers may have to include further concessions to the EU or be ditched entirely
I think further concessions on Chequers (around free movement) make the proposal worse than just staying in the Single Market (but outside the customs union) until we can work out what it is we want.
Free movement is not the issue, it is greater regulatory alignment on services Barnier has said is needed, he has not mentioned May's work permit and study place on arrival requirement as being a particular issue
I'm meaning from the British side. Chequers does seem strange, we offer an unlimited free access agreement for goods, which we have a gigantic deficit but opt out of the free market in services which we have a surplus on. Barnier cant believe his luck. My point is, if we are going to swallow changes on free movement, then, swallow pride and stay in single market.
We will likely stay in the single market and customs union in all but name in the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period but with the Chequers fudge on free movement
Wales and the Midlands still strongly pro Brexit there
Not sure that you can include the W Mids, just the East Midlands and Eastern. Even there, there is little optomism.
It would perhaps be more accurate to say that only 2 regions in England, and Wales were even mildly hopeful for a positive result.
Politicians know that they have been warned, and if they don't deliver will suffer. Thats why BoJo and DD have done a runner.
The West Midlands also had a net positive for Brexit even if less so than the East, the East Midlands and Wales (with the North East tied) Those regions are of course where most of the marginal seats now are. The South will not vote for Corbyn Labour Brexit or no Brexit even if a few seats there go LD
I maintain there will be a serious and credible re-join campaign from day 1 outside, and I can see a re-join referendum in less than a decade.
It's going to be impossible for Leavers credibly* to complain that Remainers haven't moved on if, as Michael Gove trailed yesterday, Leavers themselves are going to be constantly picking at the Brexit settlement seeking to renegotiate it.
*I expect them to do so regardless.
What Gove said is surely right? The deal we have with the EU will constantly change, particularly as different parties win General Elections. PM's that wish we had stayed will negotiate closer deals, those who are glad we left will do the opposite. Same as the difference in our relationship with the US if Corbyn won as opposed to Boris
It will become a chapter of the manifesto like any other.
No leavers will be losing sleep about which Brexit they get. (They won't wake up angry in the middle of the night either.)
They might not be as filled with glum as the Remainers when we actually leave. But don't expect them to be grateful when it is pointed out that under May's deal formulation, we can't actually do A B C D or E* without getting the prior written of Brussels - which consent won't be forthcoming.
*examples which even the new-style Daily Mail will find itself frothing about.
I agree that it will not be over, but Brexit will become "just one more thing on the list" very quickly.
Only in the sense that Brexit will be subsumed into a pervasive anti-establishment sentiment.
What a load of poo. The UK customs backstop that Boris agreed to was strictly time limited and could be ended unilaterally by the UK. It was only going to apply for a few months we were told. It was also a whole-UK backstop. May put this in writing to her MPs as I recall.
This is nothing like the backstop that May is now trying to agree with Brussels. This will be permanent and can be enforced by the EU at any point in the future (Mr Gove please note).
But hey, we are talking about Boris so people that should know better are prepared to lie to make him look bad....
Do you have a source for that first paragraph? It's not what I remember, and in fact I don't see why the EU would agree to that
The EU agreement text was included in the December paper, and was so vague as to be open to multilple interpretations. In March the EU pubishd their legal text which was rejected by May.
That was followed by the Brexit sub-committee agreeing a new backstop text. This is what Boris agreed and it was clearly temporary because DD threatened to resign if it wasn’t.
No, the EU have never agreed to this, but the point is that Boris was being criticised by No10 for slamming the backstop which he previously agreed, when it is quite clear that he only supported a time limited UK wide backstop, not the permanent NI backstop that May seems keen to concede now.
Christine Lagarde warning of recession and disruption in the event of no deal Brexit with Hammond mirroring her comments.
These remainers just do not get it, this just angers Brexiteers and increases the divisions
It is continuity project fear and does nothing to help. They may be right and they could well be very wrong
A deal is gaining traction so it would serve a useful purpose if the experts could just have some common sense and hold fire but that is, no doubt, a forlorn hope from both sides
There is some very weird stuff going on. We are seeing reports that a UK-EU deal is done; we are hearing that there is movement on the NI border. But on reading these articles it is all spin - there is no evidence anything has changed or any hint of what the solutions might be. Where there are any facts stated they admit that the same issues are still unresolved.
Someone must be briefing this stuff - but who and why? Can’t see why it makes sense to talk it up this early. I assume that No 10 and the EU have agreed to let this stuff out but it doesn’t seem wise to me. The longer we wait for detail the more underwhelming it will appear. Surely would have been better to have a big bang announcement and then try to ram it through?
I suspect it's to shore up May and to allow her to make the argument for Chequers without having to acknowledge that Chequers may have to include further concessions to the EU or be ditched entirely
I think further concessions on Chequers (around free movement) make the proposal worse than just staying in the Single Market (but outside the customs union) until we can work out what it is we want.
Free movement is not the issue, it is greater regulatory alignment on services Barnier has said is needed, he has not mentioned May's work permit and study place on arrival requirement as being a particular issue
I'm meaning from the British side. Chequers does seem strange, we offer an unlimited free access agreement for goods, which we have a gigantic deficit but opt out of the free market in services which we have a surplus on. Barnier cant believe his luck. My point is, if we are going to swallow changes on free movement, then, swallow pride and stay in single market.
We will likely stay in the single market and customs union in all but name in the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period but with the Chequers fudge on free movement
All that fuss for a fudge which will mean nothing and be abandoned as soon as Labour get into government.
By +22%, the public don't expect to be better off as a result of leaving the EU in five years' time, +35% expect travel in the EU on holiday to be harder, +9% disagree that Brexit will have a positive impact overall, +65% think the government has handled the negotiations badly and +36% think the EU has handled negotiations badly.
What a fiasco.
Brexit is like Millwall - 'no one likes us but we do not care'
There is some very weird stuff going on. We are seeing reports that a UK-EU deal is done; we are hearing that there is movement on the NI border. But on reading these articles it is all spin - there is no evidence anything has changed or any hint of what the solutions might be. Where there are any facts stated they admit that the same issues are still unresolved.
Someone must be briefing this stuff - but who and why? Can’t see why it makes sense to talk it up this early. I assume that No 10 and the EU have agreed to let this stuff out but it doesn’t seem wise to me. The longer we wait for detail the more underwhelming it will appear. Surely would have been better to have a big bang announcement and then try to ram it through?
I suspect it's to shore up May and to allow her to make the argument for Chequers without having to acknowledge that Chequers may have to include further concessions to the EU or be ditched entirely
I think further concessions on Chequers (around free movement) make the proposal worse than just staying in the Single Market (but outside the customs union) until we can work out what it is we want.
Free movement is not the issue, it is greater regulatory alignment on services Barnier has said is needed, he has not mentioned May's work permit and study place on arrival requirement as being a particular issue
I'm meaning from the British side. Chequers does seem strange, we offer an unlimited free access agreement for goods, which we have a gigantic deficit but opt out of the free market in services which we have a surplus on. Barnier cant believe his luck. My point is, if we are going to swallow changes on free movement, then, swallow pride and stay in single market.
We will likely stay in the single market and customs union in all but name in the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period but with the Chequers fudge on free movement
All that fuss for a fudge which will mean nothing and be abandoned as soon as Labour get into government.
Not if Corbyn got in, his Brexit would be virtually identical, his opposition is just to get a general election. It would likely take an Umunna premiership to fully return the UK to the single market and customs union
A majority rejects the U.S. as a hegemon, however. Forty-six percent, say the U.S. should play a major role in world affairs, but not the leading role. And a combined 19 percent say the U.S. should play a minor role in world affairs, or no role at all.
In a sign of how the GOP has changed under Trump, the partisan divides on this question are modest....
I'm uncertain that this means anything for the November elections, but it's striking.
The rest of the poll is not encouraging at all for Republicans.
1. What on earth is May up to with this 'my deal or no deal' hard-balling? Just invites the ERG to vote against everything, and given those numbers, no way that opposition rebels will have numbers to deal with 50+ Tory votes against.
Incidentally, I was much amused this morning by Nick Clegg's interview on Today. Having lambasted the Tories for taking the country down a route with no certain outcome, he then proceeded to advocate crashing the deal, on the off-chance that might lead us to staying in the EU, but with exactly the same risk and with no clear mechanism for getting to his preferred outcome.
That's the risk for anyone voting against though; it would require hard Brexiteers and hard Remainers to combine to vote it down, with total disagreement about the final outcome, what happens next, or how we get there. i.e. pretty much like June 2016;
What a load of poo. The UK customs backstop that Boris agreed to was strictly time limited and could be ended unilaterally by the UK. It was only going to apply for a few months we were told. It was also a whole-UK backstop. May put this in writing to her MPs as I recall.
This is nothing like the backstop that May is now trying to agree with Brussels. This will be permanent and can be enforced by the EU at any point in the future (Mr Gove please note).
But hey, we are talking about Boris so people that should know better are prepared to lie to make him look bad....
Do you have a source for that first paragraph? It's not what I remember, and in fact I don't see why the EU would agree to that
The EU agreement text was included in the December paper, and was so vague as to be open to multilple interpretations. In March the EU pubishd their legal text which was rejected by May.
That was followed by the Brexit sub-committee agreeing a new backstop text. This is what Boris agreed and it was clearly temporary because DD threatened to resign if it wasn’t.
No, the EU have never agreed to this, but the point is that Boris was being criticised by No10 for slamming the backstop which he previously agreed, when it is quite clear that he only supported a time limited UK wide backstop, not the permanent NI backstop that May seems keen to concede now.
May conceding the backstop is reason enough for her to be removed from office. Crass in the extreme. Unless you ascribe rather more base motives to her, or those advising her.
There is some very weird stuff going on. We are seeing reports that a UK-EU deal is done; we are hearing that there is movement on the NI border. But on reading these articles it is all spin - there is no evidence anything has changed or any hint of what the solutions might be. Where there are any facts stated they admit that the same issues are still unresolved.
Someone must be briefing this stuff - but who and why? Can’t see why it makes sense to talk it up this early. I assume that No 10 and the EU have agreed to let this stuff out but it doesn’t seem wise to me. The longer we wait for detail the more underwhelming it will appear. Surely would have been better to have a big bang announcement and then try to ram it through?
I suspect it's to shore up May and to allow her to make the argument for Chequers without having to acknowledge that Chequers may have to include further concessions to the EU or be ditched entirely
I think further concessions on Chequers (around free movement) make the proposal worse than just staying in the Single Market (but outside the customs union) until we can work out what it is we want.
Free movement is not the issue, it is greater regulatory alignment on services Barnier has said is needed, he has not mentioned May's work permit and study place on arrival requirement as being a particular issue
I'm meaning from the British side. Chequers does seem strange, we offer an unlimited free access agreement for goods, which we have a gigantic deficit but opt out of the free market in services which we have a surplus on. Barnier cant believe his luck. My point is, if we are going to swallow changes on free movement, then, swallow pride and stay in single market.
We will likely stay in the single market and customs union in all but name in the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period but with the Chequers fudge on free movement
All that fuss for a fudge which will mean nothing and be abandoned as soon as Labour get into government.
Not if Corbyn got in, his Brexit would be virtually identical, his opposition is just to get a general election. It would likely take an Umunna premiership to fully return the UK to the single market and customs union
Corbyn is all for the free movement of people, its the goods he doesnt want.
Comments
This is nothing like the backstop that May is now trying to agree with Brussels. This will be permanent and can be enforced by the EU at any point in the future (Mr Gove please note).
But hey, we are talking about Boris so people that should know better are prepared to lie to make him look bad....
I'd also reckon that 2018 is better than the last years of the Brown government, and arguably better than the Major years in many ways.
Assuming no no deal, worst case scenario is that Brexit makes us a little less rich over the next couple of decades and best case scenario it will make us a bit more rich than we would have.
Your and other remain supporters will have a bit of egg on your face when you wake up on april 1st and very little has changed. Flights still happening, tourists still going to to spain, diabetics not dying on the streets.
There is no cliff edge.
Yes, a no-deal Brexit could have minimal effect. But it could also have very significant ones. How it is done matters as much as what is done.
Someone must be briefing this stuff - but who and why? Can’t see why it makes sense to talk it up this early. I assume that No 10 and the EU have agreed to let this stuff out but it doesn’t seem wise to me. The longer we wait for detail the more underwhelming it will appear. Surely would have been better to have a big bang announcement and then try to ram it through?
This time round the news management has all been about the two sides making very positive progress. This leads me to believe that at present it all looks as if it's going tits-up.
[As an aside, I'm writing a new blog which will have half a dozen reviews of samples. At least 4/6 will be very good indeed].
ComRes
Verified account @ComRes
17m17 minutes ago
Overall, Brexit will have a positive impact on the UK:
(agree/disagree)
Scot: 31%/60%
NE: 43%/43%
NW: 42%/51%
Yorks & humb: 36%/51%
W. Mid: 44%/43%
E. Mid: 53%/40%
Wales: 52%/42%
East: 54%/36%
LDN: 35%/58%
SE: 34%/59%
SW: 44%/48%
@ComRes for @bbc5live http://bit.ly/2NKbhpd
Pol Pot and Mao were especially evil and ruthless to their own populations, but largely confined themselves within their own borders.
Stalin was a bit of a mixture.
2. One titbit from the Lib Dem conference, Lib Dems will likely vote 11 against the deal, with one abstention - Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) Won't win him many friends in the party (and I'd expect he'll get less outside help at the next GE) but he made a pledge to leave-voting Eastbourne not to oppose the deal at last year's GE, I confess I hadn't noticed till this week.
3. It looks like it will now need all manner of fudge to get any deal through. I don't believe a word that May is saying about being ready for no - deal; she knows this must be avoided at all costs, and we're being softened for having to live with the most hopeless of deals as our only option. I maintain there will be a serious and credible re-join campaign from day 1 outside, and I can see a re-join referendum in less than a decade.
*I expect them to do so regardless.
On the other hand, she has to get the support of pragmatic MPs, by pointing out the massive risk of voting against, which may inexorably lead to the worst possible outcome of crashing out with no deal. She's basically saying the obvious, albeit a slightly simplified version of the obvious.
Incidentally, I was much amused this morning by Nick Clegg's interview on Today. Having lambasted the Tories for taking the country down a route with no certain outcome, he then proceeded to advocate crashing the deal, on the off-chance that might lead us to staying in the EU, but with exactly the same risk and with no clear mechanism for getting to his preferred outcome.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/16/trump-kavanaugh-allegations-response-826069
One outside Trump adviser was quick to suggest an effort to have Ford testify publicly amid the ongoing #MeToo wave would backfire on Democrats. “They’re playing a high-stakes game right now,” this adviser said. “You know there are a lot of people in this country who are parents of high school boys. This is not Anita Hill....
https://twitter.com/ExcelPope/status/1041606625671503872
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/09/16/prepare-labour-government-bank-warns-predicts-31pc-chance-corbyn/
This year? Perhaps they need to read PB on the timing of a new GE. Plenty of posters here think it is all but impossible now, timing-wise unless we have a mid-winter GE.
No leavers will be losing sleep about which Brexit they get. (They won't wake up angry in the middle of the night either.)
*examples which even the new-style Daily Mail will find itself frothing about.
http://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Final-BBC-Radio-5-Live-Brexit-Poll-September-2018.pdf
By +22%, the public don't expect to be better off as a result of leaving the EU in five years' time, +35% expect travel in the EU on holiday to be harder, +9% disagree that Brexit will have a positive impact overall, +65% think the government has handled the negotiations badly and +36% think the EU has handled negotiations badly.
What a fiasco.
1) Winning seats sufficient to enter no10 and having sort out this unholy mess and destroy itself in the process.
2) Winning seats sufficient to make the government unstable
3) Losing seats, forcing a change of leadership
ALL forms of Brexit mean Nigel Farage loses his soap-box at the EU Parliament as an MEP.
Remainers want to keep the status quo: our MEPs - and Farage with his soap-box.
Why do Remainers love Nigel Farage so much?
It would perhaps be more accurate to say that only 2 regions in England, and Wales were even mildly hopeful for a positive result.
Politicians know that they have been warned, and if they don't deliver will suffer. Thats why BoJo and DD have done a runner.
Remainers don't want to burn their house down.
Why do remainers love mildew so much?
It's every fucking week on the BBC that is a problem.
David Cameron was much better at compromising with sanity than at compromising with insanity.
That was followed by the Brexit sub-committee agreeing a new backstop text. This is what Boris agreed and it was clearly temporary because DD threatened to resign if it wasn’t.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-backstop/britain-to-publish-brexit-backstop-plan-on-thursday-government-sources-idUSKCN1J30O9
No, the EU have never agreed to this, but the point is that Boris was being criticised by No10 for slamming the backstop which he previously agreed, when it is quite clear that he only supported a time limited UK wide backstop, not the permanent NI backstop that May seems keen to concede now.
These remainers just do not get it, this just angers Brexiteers and increases the divisions
It is continuity project fear and does nothing to help. They may be right and they could well be very wrong
A deal is gaining traction so it would serve a useful purpose if the experts could just have some common sense and hold fire but that is, no doubt, a forlorn hope from both sides
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/17/ohio-poll-senate-governor-brown-renacci-dewine-cordray-2018-219915
Just a quarter of voters, 25 percent, say the U.S. should take the leading role in world affairs.
A majority rejects the U.S. as a hegemon, however. Forty-six percent, say the U.S. should play a major role in world affairs, but not the leading role. And a combined 19 percent say the U.S. should play a minor role in world affairs, or no role at all.
In a sign of how the GOP has changed under Trump, the partisan divides on this question are modest....
I'm uncertain that this means anything for the November elections, but it's striking.
The rest of the poll is not encouraging at all for Republicans.