Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
They probably, quite reasonably, assume that if this PM and Parliament can't pass a deal then they'll be dealing with a different cast of characters very shortly thereafter.
And if they think that cast will be more malleable, then yet again they are reading UK politics horribly wrong.
Why would Corbyn worry about the DUP or, indeed, about NI having a different regime? He is not a Unionist. Quite the opposite.
Brussels might well feel that they can more easily get their NI backstop with Corbyn in charge and that if he is stupid enough to stay out of the SM that will be to the very great advantage of the rest of the EU.
Tories who want to stay out of the SM are being utterly stupid. It is the one bit of the EU that really benefits us and it provides some protection against the inanities of Corbyneconomics. Since they are not doing anything about immigration and, bluntly, it is immigration from non-EU countries which most of their fervid followers are most bothered about, they may as well stay in the SM. Their position makes absolutely no sense.
It would be hilarious (in a really really bad way) if the DUP bring down May, get Corbyn, who then sells them up the river...
If the DUP helps to deliver a No Deal Brexit that leads to job losses and cuts in public services mainland indifference to Northern Irish unionism may develop into something a little more hostile.
lol
you think it can get any more hostile ? Try reading some of the comments on here.
Yes, I believe it can. Very easily.
Nothing I havent seen before frankly, and after a while you get inured to it.
I do not disagree about the importance of procedures and rules. But without the right leadership they are insufficient. My concern is that they will change the rules, make some nice sounding statements and the reality will be little real change.
I have had whistleblowers speak to me about their concerns. I can tell you that for every single one what really matters is that they can trust those who investigate their concerns and that they can trust those who receive their reports to take effective action. You can write the most perfect procedure down and plaster it all over an organisation’s walls. But without that trust - which depends on the integrity, courage and leadership of those who have to make those procedures a reality - you have a mere will o’ the wisp.
Indeed. But the opposite also plays out: if you have an organisation of (say) 1,000 or more people, especially on different sites, then you essentially have levels of leadership, geographically separate. Fostering a set leadership and set of morals onto such an organisation is next to impossible without rules and procedures, especially where there are cultural differences.
The issue is getting everybody playing from the same book.
Agreed. It is most unlikely to happen if those at the top do not recognise their own failings.
My guess is that there are too many vested interests and egos in Parliament for any real change to happen. There will be some token changes but MPs and others consider themselves too important to think that they have anything to learn or any reason to change and abide by the same rules as the rest of us.
Vested interests certainly. If the Speaker can be forced out because some MPs bullied or assaulted their staff, then how long before attention is turned on those MPs? If Bercow hints that he will step down next year anyway, why take the risk?
The rest of the numbers suggest the UK job market is treading water.
A fall of 47k in unemployment is pretty good but I acknowledge that the number in work did not increase for the first time for quite a while. What we really need is an increase in productivity. Talking of which...
Is this because Poles etc are going home and the jobs they were doing are being taken by previously unemployed Brits?
Yeah, I know I’m a Remainer. And I still am.
These are both large numbers and they vary for a variety of reasons, some seasonal, some not. In the most recent period if more than an average number of people took up full time education at the start of the academic year the number of people available for and looking for work would fall. I am not saying that is the cause but you really can't read too much into such a short period.
The last statistics I saw indicated we still had significant net migration from the EU, albeit there had been a reduction in the absolute number.
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
They probably, quite reasonably, assume that if this PM and Parliament can't pass a deal then they'll be dealing with a different cast of characters very shortly thereafter.
And if they think that cast will be more malleable, then yet again they are reading UK politics horribly wrong.
Why would Corbyn worry about the DUP or, indeed, about NI having a different regime? He is not a Unionist. Quite the opposite.
Brussels might well feel that they can more easily get their NI backstop with Corbyn in charge and that if he is stupid enough to stay out of the SM that will be to the very great advantage of the rest of the EU.
Tories who want to stay out of the SM are being utterly stupid. It is the one bit of the EU that really benefits us and it provides some protection against the inanities of Corbyneconomics. Since they are not doing anything about immigration and, bluntly, it is immigration from non-EU countries which most of their fervid followers are most bothered about, they may as well stay in the SM. Their position makes absolutely no sense.
It would be hilarious (in a really really bad way) if the DUP bring down May, get Corbyn, who then sells them up the river...
If the DUP helps to deliver a No Deal Brexit that leads to job losses and cuts in public services mainland indifference to Northern Irish unionism may develop into something a little more hostile.
lol
you think it can get any more hostile ? Try reading some of the comments on here.
Yes, I believe it can. Very easily.
Nothing I havent seen before frankly, and after a while you get inured to it.
Perhaps - we’ll see how it plays out politically. The viability of the Unionist cause in Northern Ireland largely depends on the indifference of voters on the British mainland.
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
They probably, quite reasonably, assume that if this PM and Parliament can't pass a deal then they'll be dealing with a different cast of characters very shortly thereafter.
And if they think that cast will be more malleable, then yet again they are reading UK politics horribly wrong.
Why would Corbyn worry about the DUP or, indeed, about NI having a different regime? He is not a Unionist. Quite the opposite.
Brussels might well feel that they can more easily get their NI backstop with Corbyn in charge and that if he is stupid enough to stay out of the SM that will be to the very great advantage of the rest of the EU.
Tories who want to stay out of the SM are being utterly stupid. It is the one bit of the EU that really benefits us and it provides some protection against the inanities of Corbyneconomics. Since they are not doing anything about immigration and, bluntly, it is immigration from non-EU countries which most of their fervid followers are most bothered about, they may as well stay in the SM. Their position makes absolutely no sense.
Why do you think the SM is good for us when it is the source of our entire trade deficit? £60bn of expenditure is leaking out of the UK each year, that is equivalent to something like 600k jobs.
Membership of the SM means we accept EU law and apply it in this country even although we did not vote for those that made it. How is that acceptable?
How do you think membership of the SM would protect us from the insanities of Corbyn? Did it protect Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal...
How can you think that concern over the implications of FoM was not the single biggest driving force in the Leave vote?
We want free trade with the EU with no tariffs, minimal friction at borders and mutually recognised standards to the extent we can agree them. Membership of the SM is not a sensible objective.
The issue is identifying the appropriate systems, isn’t it? I guess there is a fudge there, though: five years after the systems are agreed gives a time limited backstop to an indefinite period!
The pick-up in wage growth to 3.1% per annum with unemployment holding at 4% are extremely good news, say Costas Milas and Mike Ellington of the University of Liverpool.
They believe it shows Britain’s economy is growing faster than official data suggest:
Notice that the pickup in wage growth has not put upward pressure on the unemployment rate. This is consistent with our view that the UK economy can afford paying higher wages because it is growing better than currently thought. Indeed, our latest LSE blog suggests that since the EU Referendum vote the UK economy has over-performed by 0.5% per annum based on monthly GDP evidence compared to what the traditional quarterly GDP data suggests.
Consequently, we are taking the view that the ONS will revise upwards its quarterly GDP growth sooner than later. This could happen as early as the 9th of November when the ONS will report its first GDP estimate for 2018 Q3.
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
They probably, quite reasonably, assume that if this PM and Parliament can't pass a deal then they'll be dealing with a different cast of characters very shortly thereafter.
And if they think that cast will be more malleable, then yet again they are reading UK politics horribly wrong.
Why would Corbyn worry about the DUP or, indeed, about NI having a different regime? He is not a Unionist. Quite the opposite.
Brussels might well feel that they can more easily sense.
It would be hilarious (in a really really bad way) if the DUP bring down May, get Corbyn, who then sells them up the river...
If the DUP helps to deliver a No Deal Brexit that leads to job losses and cuts in public services mainland indifference to Northern Irish unionism may develop into something a little more hostile.
lol
you think it can get any more hostile ? Try reading some of the comments on here.
Yes, I believe it can. Very easily.
Nothing I havent seen before frankly, and after a while you get inured to it.
Perhaps - we’ll see how it plays out politically. The viability of the Unionist cause in Northern Ireland largely depends on the indifference of voters on the British mainland.
to a point
this would largely be a non issue but for the tight Parliamentary numbers. The recent bile has simply to do with having 10 MPs and not rolling over to do what the liberal left want. You can contrast that with SF where nobody is giving them gip but where their MPs would have a major impact on Westminster numbers and where they are patently ignoring their own electors express interests,
Its just part of being a pariah community like white south africans or UK pakistanis, when its what you grow up with its normal. .
The rest of the numbers suggest the UK job market is treading water.
A fall of 47k in unemployment is pretty good but I acknowledge that the number in work did not increase for the first time for quite a while. What we really need is an increase in productivity. Talking of which...
Is this because Poles etc are going home and the jobs they were doing are being taken by previously unemployed Brits?
Yeah, I know I’m a Remainer. And I still am.
These are both large numbers and they vary for a variety of reasons, some seasonal, some not. In the most recent period if more than an average number of people took up full time education at the start of the academic year the number of people available for and looking for work would fall. I am not saying that is the cause but you really can't read too much into such a short period.
The last statistics I saw indicated we still had significant net migration from the EU, albeit there had been a reduction in the absolute number.
Conversely, of course, those leaving academia last June/July are likely to find employment in the months immediately afterwards, as well.
Given there's no majority for anything, it seems, and a majority against practically everything, I wonder if a second referendum might be 'softly' gerrymandered by proposing a specific course of action, which will then be opposed.
The pick-up in wage growth to 3.1% per annum with unemployment holding at 4% are extremely good news, say Costas Milas and Mike Ellington of the University of Liverpool.
They believe it shows Britain’s economy is growing faster than official data suggest:
Notice that the pickup in wage growth has not put upward pressure on the unemployment rate. This is consistent with our view that the UK economy can afford paying higher wages because it is growing better than currently thought. Indeed, our latest LSE blog suggests that since the EU Referendum vote the UK economy has over-performed by 0.5% per annum based on monthly GDP evidence compared to what the traditional quarterly GDP data suggests.
Consequently, we are taking the view that the ONS will revise upwards its quarterly GDP growth sooner than later. This could happen as early as the 9th of November when the ONS will report its first GDP estimate for 2018 Q3.
I was astonished when the ONS revised Q1 back down to 0.1%. It simply did not fit the data for employment, tax generated, sales, construction, investment...
The article that prompted that letter did stand out for demonstrating the writer's lack of awareness of the wider world.
Many moons ago when I started my career in marketing, the head of Consumer Research told all us fresh young graduates to 'go to the weekend market and see what the people who pay your wages are doing - there are very many more of them than there are of you' - sound advice.
Why do you think the SM is good for us when it is the source of our entire trade deficit? £60bn of expenditure is leaking out of the UK each year, that is equivalent to something like 600k jobs.
That is Trumpian economics. The source of our trade deficit (well, our current account deficit, of which the trade deficit is the most important component) is a deficiency of savings relative to investment. While that is unremedied, whatever trade organisations we join will have no, or very little, impact.
Perhaps the Guardian would consider who is going to pay for the public services and publicly funded and third sector jobs in its jobs vacancies page without tax revenue and big charitable donations from the City of London?
It’s actually adapted from this book, reviewed here by The Times, not a Guardian original
The pick-up in wage growth to 3.1% per annum with unemployment holding at 4% are extremely good news, say Costas Milas and Mike Ellington of the University of Liverpool.
They believe it shows Britain’s economy is growing faster than official data suggest:
Notice that the pickup in wage growth has not put upward pressure on the unemployment rate. This is consistent with our view that the UK economy can afford paying higher wages because it is growing better than currently thought. Indeed, our latest LSE blog suggests that since the EU Referendum vote the UK economy has over-performed by 0.5% per annum based on monthly GDP evidence compared to what the traditional quarterly GDP data suggests.
Consequently, we are taking the view that the ONS will revise upwards its quarterly GDP growth sooner than later. This could happen as early as the 9th of November when the ONS will report its first GDP estimate for 2018 Q3.
I was astonished when the ONS revised Q1 back down to 0.1%. It simply did not fit the data for employment, tax generated, sales, construction, investment...
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
They probably, quite reasonably, assume that if this PM and Parliament can't pass a deal then they'll be dealing with a different cast of characters very shortly thereafter.
And if they think that cast will be more malleable, then yet again they are reading UK politics horribly wrong.
Why would . Quite the opposite.
Brussels mighty sense.
It would be hilarious (in a really really bad way) if the DUP bring down May, get Corbyn, who then sells them up the river...
If the DUP helps to deliver a No Deal Brexit that leads to job losses and cuts in public services mainland indifference to Northern Irish unionism may develop into something a little more hostile.
lol
you think it can get any more hostile ? Try reading some of the comments on here.
Yes, I believe it can. Very easily.
Nothing I havent seen before frankly, and after a while you get inured to it.
Perhaps - we’ll see how f voters on the British mainland.
to a point
this would largely be a non issue but for the tight Parliamentary numbers. The recent bile has simply to do with having 10 MPs and not rolling over to do what the liberal left want. You can contrast that with SF where nobody is giving them gip but where their MPs would have a major impact on Westminster numbers and where they are patently ignoring their own electors express interests,
Its just part of being a pariah community like white south africans or UK pakistanis, when its what you grow up with its normal. .
Sinn Fein’s electorate would never forgive it if it took its seats in the Commons. I am not sure it’s just the liberal left that sees the hypocrisy in the DUP’s mix and match approach to absolute alignment with the mainland.
Given there's no majority for anything, it seems, and a majority against practically everything, I wonder if a second referendum might be 'softly' gerrymandered by proposing a specific course of action, which will then be opposed.
If parliament cannot agree on a deal how exactly are they (a) going to agree to hold a second referendum (b) decide what the question is or what the options are on the ballot paper (c) get that through the Commons and Lords as well (d) agree what the voting system will be if there are more than 2 options (e) get the electoral commission to sign this off and (f) do this all in time to allow the EU 27 to ratify what we want by 29 March 2018?
Cos we come back to the issue - what is the question going to be asked? And what option would the two main parties back in any vote. If we have 3 options do we have 3 campaigns - with no doubt further wrangling over who breaches expenses rules ad nauseum. What if remain wins by 1% with a turnout well down on 2016 because a lot of people boycott the vote on principle i.e. we already voted to leave why are you asking us again.
Does a second vote solve the issues - or throw up a whole host more problems and potential division and resentment.
Still I hope the luvvies enjoy their walk in London on Saturday - if they held the event in Sunderland or Boston or Stoke and got out of the bubble they might do some use.
Given there's no majority for anything, it seems, and a majority against practically everything, I wonder if a second referendum might be 'softly' gerrymandered by proposing a specific course of action, which will then be opposed.
There's no real gerrymandering involved. Once there is a negotiated withdrawal agreement, our basic choice is to take it or leave it.
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get thsee this.
They probably, quite reasonably, assume that if this PM and Parliament can't pass a deal then they'll be dealing with a different cast of characters very shortly thereafter.
And if the wrong.
Why would . Quite the opposite.
Brussels mighty sense.
It would be hilarious (in a really really bad way) if the DUP bring down May, get Corbyn, who then sells them up the river...
If the DUP helps to deliver a No Deal Brexit that leads to job losses and cuts in public services mainland indifference to Northern Irish unionism may develop into something a little more hostile.
lol
you think it can get any more hostile ? Try reading some of the comments on here.
Yes, I believe it can. Very easily.
Nothing I havent seen before frankly, and after a while you get inured to it.
Perhaps - we’ll see how f voters on the British mainland.
to a point
this would largely be a non issue but for the tight Parliamenta their own electors express interests,
Its just part of being a pariah community like white south africans or UK pakistanis, when its what you grow up with its normal. .
Sinn Fein’s electorate would never forgive it if it took its seats in the Commons. I am not sure it’s just the liberal left that sees the hypocrisy in the DUP’s mix and match approach to absolute alignment with the mainland.
So SFs voters can't be upset but the DUP must upset theirs. Dual values as I said. SFs policy was not to sit in the Dail -its now the 3rd biggest party SF policy was not to sit in Stormont - its now the second biggest party
sitting in Westminster is no big deal SF have profited from what I can see every time theyve slaughtered the sacred cows of the early C20.
As for mix and match you will find SF have changed colour more times than a chameleon. This is an all Ireland party which offically supported abortion in RoI but still had a policy of no abortion in NI. Tell how that circle is squared ?
For Bercow to step down would be an admission of guilt, so he won't.
He will say that it is in the national inteest that he stays to provide stability at a crucial time. All too easy.
And the Labour Party will want him to stay, instead of being replaced by someone who would be more accommodating towards the Government...(And John Mann - who?)
Still I hope the luvvies enjoy their walk in London on Saturday - if they held the event in Sunderland or Boston or Stoke and got out of the bubble they might do some use.
Didn't the Canada deal take over 5 years to negotiate? And are government technology projects always successful and on time?
Australia started negotiations on a trade deal with the USA in April 2003 - it finalised the deal in February 2004 and President Bush and PM Howard signed it in a public ceremony in May 2004. Less than one year to agree a deal. Now you can comment on the deal's contents but it shows that it can be done and quickly. And we are already in regulatory alignment anyway with the EU as members - so in theory it should be a doddle by comparison.
One has to ask why the EU takes seven times as long to negotiate trade deals as major individual countries do? Isn't that sort of the problem.
And I haven't noticed any widespread reports of Aussies dying of chlorine poisoning from eating chicken.
Still I hope the luvvies enjoy their walk in London on Saturday - if they held the event in Sunderland or Boston or Stoke and got out of the bubble they might do some use.
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get thsee this.
They probably, quite reasonably, assume that if this PM and Parliament can't pass a deal then they'll be dealing with a different cast of characters very shortly thereafter.
And if the wrong.
Why would . Quite the opposite.
Brussels mighty sense.
It would be hilarious (in a really really bad way) if the DUP bring down May, get Corbyn, who then sells them up the river...
If the DUP helps to deliver a No Deal Brexit that leads to job losses and cuts in public services mainland indifference to Northern Irish unionism may develop into something a little more hostile.
lol
you think it can get any more hostile ? Try reading some of the comments on here.
Yes, I believe it can. Very easily.
Nothing I havent seen before frankly, and after a while you get inured to it.
Perhaps - we’ll see how f voters on the British mainland.
to a point
this interests,
Its jnormal. .
S.
So SFs voters can't be upset but the DUP must upset theirs. Dual values as I said. SFs policy was not to sit in the Dail -its now the 3rd biggest party SF policy was not to sit in Stormont - its now the second biggest party
sitting in Westminster is no big deal SF have profited from what I can see every time theyve slaughtered the sacred cows of the early C20.
As for mix and match you will find SF have changed colour more times than a chameleon. This is an all Ireland party which offically supported abortion in RoI but still had a policy of no abortion in NI. Tell how that circle is squared ?
You mistake me for a Sinn Fein supporter!! I was merely questioning your assertion that their supporters want them to take their seats in the Commons.
The media discussion groups on Brexit are so predictable with each side arrogantly claiming only they are right and, coming from diametrically opposed views, it inevitable turns into a terrible spectacle of just how far we have descended as a Country into open verbal warfare with each other.
Bill Cash v Catherine West on Sky this morning followed the same pattern with the result the mute button was engaged within minutes. I am sure many would agree with me when I say 'a plague on all your houses'
When Boris told Airbus to (FO) he lost me completely and ever since I have been consistent in saying he was a busted flush, but contradicted by some. It is pleasing to see in today's poll he has crashed out of the firmament and no doubt will soon be out of Parliament writing columns for the much diminished Daily Telegraph. It is also interesting to see the corresponding fall in JRM popularity.
This does indicate the ERG are losing their glow and I expect that in time they will be reduced to a smallish bitter group as either TM does a deal or returns to Parliament without a deal and hands it over to Parliament to dictate the next course.
I think I am right that there is a big majority in Parliament for staying in the customs union and single market (even Nicola was recommending that yesterday) and, in my opinion, that is the only feasible alternative to actually ending up remaining.
I think the Brexiteers need to look at themselves and the damage their single view of Brexit has caused and will end up with a huge fail for them.
Why do you think the SM is good for us when it is the source of our entire trade deficit? £60bn of expenditure is leaking out of the UK each year, that is equivalent to something like 600k jobs.
Membership of the SM means we accept EU law and apply it in this country even although we did not vote for those that made it. How is that acceptable?
How do you think membership of the SM would protect us from the insanities of Corbyn? Did it protect Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal...
How can you think that concern over the implications of FoM was not the single biggest driving force in the Leave vote?
We want free trade with the EU with no tariffs, minimal friction at borders and mutually recognised standards to the extent we can agree them. Membership of the SM is not a sensible objective.
The SM is one of the reasons why we get so much investment from outside the EU. Once we are outside it, it is not safe to assume that we will be so attractive a place to invest in. If we are in we can take steps to make sure there really is an SM in services (critical to our economy). Outside that will be much more difficult.
I agree on the EU law point. But that is an argument for remaining not leaving and then finding we have to comply with those rules anyway.
The difficulties those countries got into was in part because of the euro. We are not in the euro. Rules about freedom of movement for capital, goods and services will help stop what appears to be an autarkic economic model being proposed by Corbyn and co.
FoM: why do you think the two posters focused on migrants from outside the EU? That was no accident. I have said it before but it bears repeating: FoM for Poles etc would not have become the issue it did had it not followed on years of what appeared to be unlimited, uncontrolled immigration from all over the planet with the government unable or unwilling to control it, deport anyone, have any sort of sensibly asylum policy etc. No wonder FoM became the focus. But the problems we have had with immigration have, frankly, been with migration from particular areas of the world and the difficulties of integration and associated cultural problems. Had governments dealt with those the issue of Poles, Latvians etc coming here to work and contribute would have been much less of a problem. Do you think the people who were bothered by FoM and immigration will be content if we have fewer Italians coming here and more Afghans?
I think we will miss the SM and FoM when we no longer have them.
Why do you think the SM is good for us when it is the source of our entire trade deficit? £60bn of expenditure is leaking out of the UK each year, that is equivalent to something like 600k jobs.
That is Trumpian economics. The source of our trade deficit (well, our current account deficit, of which the trade deficit is the most important component) is a deficiency of savings relative to investment. While that is unremedied, whatever trade organisations we join will have no, or very little, impact.
It is true that we have an excess of consumption caused by our failure to save and invest adequately and that this is the primary source of our deficit but the fact is that over a very extended period free trade through the SM has not worked to our advantage. There is a point at which you have to look at the structure of the market and ask why that is. The SM was focused on goods (which was the first problem). It greatly facilitated the availability of goods to consume and ensured that they were price competitive. This had 2 malign effects.
Firstly, the availability of that competition made investing in manufacturing in the UK less attractive. Given the level of competition with unlimited access to our market the prospects for profitable investment were much reduced.
Secondly, the opportunity to build new factories in, say, Slovakia, meant that there was no incentive to invest in the UK to meet UK demand. Jaguars made there had equal access to those made in Coventry to our market and the locals are willing to work for less. Even better through the EU we actually spent our taxpayers money to improve their infrastructure and make them even more competitive with us.
This is not all some dastardly plot. I again acknowledge that most of it is our own fault. Governments running deficits in times of reasonable growth and encouraging loose credit to create a feel good factor have aggravated a difficult situation. It is also fair to point out the UK consumer has got a good deal from the SM. But I think failing to recognise that its structure was a source of our problems is naive.
Sinn Fein’s electorate would never forgive it if it took its seats in the Commons. I am not sure it’s just the liberal left that sees the hypocrisy in the DUP’s mix and match approach to absolute alignment with the mainland.
They didn't take their seats in the Dail for 80 odd years. Right up until they day they did...
I don't think it's out of the question if Corbyn offers them a referendum on unification and an undertaking to campaign for yes.
If parliament cannot agree on a deal how exactly are they (a) going to agree to hold a second referendum
If the alternative is No Deal, MPs don't want to be held responsible for a total clusterfuck. If it's TMay Deal, some MPs vote for it as the price of backing the deal
What if remain wins by 1% with a turnout well down on 2016 because a lot of people boycott the vote on principle i.e. we already voted to leave why are you asking us again.
Remain in the European Union. If the non-voting Leave voters don't like it then subsequently they can elect a government that advocates leaving and have a referendum on an actual plan which answers key questions like "where shall we put the border", not Cameron's rather eccentric "Remain vs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
That doesn't mean that it will happen, but none of your questions get to the difficult part. The right questions are:
Sinn Fein’s electorate would never forgive it if it took its seats in the Commons. I am not sure it’s just the liberal left that sees the hypocrisy in the DUP’s mix and match approach to absolute alignment with the mainland.
They didn't take their seats in the Dail for 80 odd years. Right up until they day they did...
I don't think it's out of the question if Corbyn offers them a referendum on unification and an undertaking to campaign for yes.
That takes us back to my original post in this discussion.
Sinn Fein’s electorate would never forgive it if it took its seats in the Commons. I am not sure it’s just the liberal left that sees the hypocrisy in the DUP’s mix and match approach to absolute alignment with the mainland.
They didn't take their seats in the Dail for 80 odd years. Right up until they day they did...
I don't think it's out of the question if Corbyn offers them a referendum on unification and an undertaking to campaign for yes.
I mean, what a disaster for SF, and both countries, that argument about absentionism was. Would SF want to go back there again?
Still I hope the luvvies enjoy their walk in London on Saturday - if they held the event in Sunderland or Boston or Stoke and got out of the bubble they might do some use.
Why do you think the SM is good for us when it is the source of our entire trade deficit? £60bn of expenditure is leaking out of the UK each year, that is equivalent to something like 600k jobs.
That is Trumpian economics. The source of our trade deficit (well, our current account deficit, of which the trade deficit is the most important component) is a deficiency of savings relative to investment. While that is unremedied, whatever trade organisations we join will have no, or very little, impact.
It is true that we have an excess of consumption caused by our failure to save and invest adequately and that this is the primary source of our deficit but the fact is that over a very extended period free trade through the SM has not worked to our advantage. There is a point at which you have to look at the structure of the market and ask why that is. The SM was focused on goods (which was the first problem). It greatly facilitated the availability of goods to consume and ensured that they were price competitive. This had 2 malign effects.
Firstly, the availability of that competition made investing in manufacturing in the UK less attractive. Given the level of competition with unlimited access to our market the prospects for profitable investment were much reduced.
Secondly, the opportunity to build new factories in, say, Slovakia, meant that there was no incentive to invest in the UK to meet UK demand. Jaguars made there had equal access to those made in Coventry to our market and the locals are willing to work for less. Even better through the EU we actually spent our taxpayers money to improve their infrastructure and make them even more competitive with us.
This is not all some dastardly plot. I again acknowledge that most of it is our own fault. Governments running deficits in times of reasonable growth and encouraging loose credit to create a feel good factor have aggravated a difficult situation. It is also fair to point out the UK consumer has got a good deal from the SM. But I think failing to recognise that its structure was a source of our problems is naive.
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
Why do you think the SM is good for us when it is the source of our entire trade deficit? £60bn of expenditure is leaking out of the UK each year, that is equivalent to something like 600k jobs.
That is Trumpian economics. The source of our trade deficit (well, our current account deficit, of which the trade deficit is the most important component) is a deficiency of savings relative to investment. While that is unremedied, whatever trade organisations we join will have no, or very little, impact.
It is true that we have an excess of consumption caused by our failure to save and invest adequately and that this is the primary source of our deficit but the fact is that over a very extended period free trade through the SM has not worked to our advantage. There is a point at which you have to look at the structure of the market and ask why that is. The SM was focused on goods (which was the first problem). It greatly facilitated the availability of goods to consume and ensured that they were price competitive. This had 2 malign effects.
Firstly, the availability of that competition made investing in manufacturing in the UK less attractive. Given the level of competition with unlimited access to our market the prospects for profitable investment were much reduced.
Secondly, the opportunity to build new factories in, say, Slovakia, meant that there was no incentive to invest in the UK to meet UK demand. Jaguars made there had equal access to those made in Coventry to our market and the locals are willing to work for less. Even better through the EU we actually spent our taxpayers money to improve their infrastructure and make them even more competitive with us.
This is not all some dastardly plot. I again acknowledge that most of it is our own fault. Governments running deficits in times of reasonable growth and encouraging loose credit to create a feel good factor have aggravated a difficult situation. It is also fair to point out the UK consumer has got a good deal from the SM. But I think failing to recognise that its structure was a source of our problems is naive.
If parliament cannot agree on a deal how exactly are they (a) going to agree to hold a second referendum
If the alternative is No Deal, MPs don't want to be held responsible for a total clusterfuck. If it's TMay Deal, some MPs vote for it as the price of backing the deal
What if remain wins by 1% with a turnout well down on 2016 because a lot of people boycott the vote on principle i.e. we already voted to leave why are you asking us again.
Remain, if the non-voting Leave voters don't like it then they can elect a government that advocates leaving and have a referendum on an actual plan which answers key questions like "where shall we put the border", not Cameron's rather eccentric "Remain vs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
That doesn't mean that it will happen, but none of your questions get to the difficult part. The right questions are:
Why would the PM want to do this?
Why would her party let her?
Yes - which is my point 1 - how are parliament going to agree to hold a second vote when they can't agree on anything else.
If the government and the vast majority of Tory MPs don't want a second vote how is it going to happen. The government can very easily block any backbench or even Labour efforts to force a referendum as it controls the parliamentary timetable.
The SM is one of the reasons why we get so much investment from outside the EU. Once we are outside it, it is not safe to assume that we will be so attractive a place to invest in. If we are in we can take steps to make sure there really is an SM in services (critical to our economy). Outside that will be much more difficult.
I agree on the EU law point. But that is an argument for remaining not leaving and then finding we have to comply with those rules anyway.
The difficulties those countries got into was in part because of the euro. We are not in the euro. Rules about freedom of movement for capital, goods and services will help stop what appears to be an autarkic economic model being proposed by Corbyn and co.
FoM: why do you think the two posters focused on migrants from outside the EU? That was no accident. I have said it before but it bears repeating: FoM for Poles etc would not have become the issue it did had it not followed on years of what appeared to be unlimited, uncontrolled immigration from all over the planet with the government unable or unwilling to control it, deport anyone, have any sort of sensibly asylum policy etc. No wonder FoM became the focus. But the problems we have had with immigration have, frankly, been with migration from particular areas of the world and the difficulties of integration and associated cultural problems. Had governments dealt with those the issue of Poles, Latvians etc coming here to work and contribute would have been much less of a problem. Do you think the people who were bothered by FoM and immigration will be content if we have fewer Italians coming here and more Afghans?
I think we will miss the SM and FoM when we no longer have them.
Whether we lose foreign investment (which is of course the counterpoint to our trade deficit) will depend on what form our FTA with the EU takes. If it meets the criteria I set then it will not be a problem.
If you think the Euro is the problem how do you explain Poland and Hungary? The "protection" of EU membership is much, much overrated.
I also think you greatly underestimate the problems that FoM caused. It has increased our population by over 1m. This has created huge pressure on housing, infrastructure, wages, etc. There have been upsides too, at least for some of us.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
F1: some more extras up. McLaren are 2.75 not to score any more points. Not quite value, but also indicative of the problems the team faces.
Hamilton is 4.5 to get 100+ poles (not sure if that means over 100 or just 100). He's currently on 80.
He's also 8.5 to win 92 or more races. He's on 71 right now.
There's also 6 for Hamilton win 8 or more titles (he's all but on 5 now), and there's 3.25 on him winning 7 or more.
I believe the next major rule changes come into force in 2021.
Of those, I think the 8.5 on race wins is the most appealing, just because the odds are significantly longer than those for pole. If he gets 8 titles (that's three more, not including this years), which is 6, it's hard to see him not winning 20 or so races across those three years, and any in between.
Not sure if I'll back it. Odds are ok but it'll take a while to come in.
Incidentally, the specials on Hamilton are scattered across a few different subheadings, so have a furkle if you can't find what you're after.
Why do you think the SM is good for us when it is the source of our entire trade deficit? £60bn of expenditure is leaking out of the UK each year, that is equivalent to something like 600k jobs.
That is Trumpian economics. The source of our trade deficit (well, our current account deficit, of which the trade deficit is the most important component) is a deficiency of savings relative to investment. While that is unremedied, whatever trade organisations we join will have no, or very little, impact.
It is true that we have an excess of consumption caused by our failure to save and invest adequately and that this is the primary source of our deficit but the fact is that over a very extended period free trade through the SM has not worked to our advantage. There is a point at which you have to look at the structure of the market and ask why that is. The SM was focused on goods (which was the first problem). It greatly facilitated the availability of goods to consume and ensured that they were price competitive. This had 2 malign effects.
Firstly, the availability of that competition made investing in manufacturing in the UK less attractive. Given the level of competition with unlimited access to our market the prospects for profitable investment were much reduced.
Secondly, the opportunity to build new factories in, say, Slovakia, meant that there was no incentive to invest in the UK to meet UK demand. Jaguars made there had equal access to those made in Coventry to our market and the locals are willing to work for less. Even better through the EU we actually spent our taxpayers money to improve their infrastructure and make them even more competitive with us.
This is not all some dastardly plot. I again acknowledge that most of it is our own fault. Governments running deficits in times of reasonable growth and encouraging loose credit to create a feel good factor have aggravated a difficult situation. It is also fair to point out the UK consumer has got a good deal from the SM. But I think failing to recognise that its structure was a source of our problems is naive.
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
as a rule of thumb a country can support its own car industry with a population hitting 50 m were well past that
car plants tend to be profitable at 250k units per annum
on current performance the UK could justify another 3-4 car plants quite easily, especially if HMG went fishing for them - automotive is one of the biggest holes in our BoP
Yes - which is my point 1 - how are parliament going to agree to hold a second vote when they can't agree on anything else.
If the government and the vast majority of Tory MPs don't want a second vote how is it going to happen. The government can very easily block any backbench or even Labour efforts to force a referendum as it controls the parliamentary timetable.
If what you're saying is that parliament can't make this happen without the cooperation of the PM, then yes, that's correct. But if the PM is willing to go along with it, getting it through parliament is the easy part.
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
And there are 45m people elsewhere in England, who, as it turned out, held the future of the country in their hands.
There is no doubt that the London-centric view of the Remain campaign and its proponents made the difference.
Anyone who lived in the provinces knew how close this race was going to be
Sinn Fein’s electorate would never forgive it if it took its seats in the Commons. I am not sure it’s just the liberal left that sees the hypocrisy in the DUP’s mix and match approach to absolute alignment with the mainland.
They didn't take their seats in the Dail for 80 odd years. Right up until they day they did...
I don't think it's out of the question if Corbyn offers them a referendum on unification and an undertaking to campaign for yes.
Sinn Fein only won four seats in the Dail between 1927 and 1997 - and they were all in one election in 1957 when they polled a stonking 5%. They didn't really abstain in reality cos they had no TDs - indeed they couldn't get enough votes to even win seats under STV as they were so toxic and got few transfers. Indeed their vote disappeared entirely to Fianna Fail.
Sinn Fein just weren't an electoral factor in the Republic until post the GFA. And it was only really the banking crisis and the collapse of the FF vote post 2009 that saw them win any significant number of seats.
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
There is another option. If parliament accepts that the deal is non-negotiable with the EU but cannot accept it itself, then it can put that deal to the people against another option. Then, having obtained a specific mandate from the people, parliament can enact the chosen option, whether it's ratifying the deal or revoking article 50.
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
Hague is clutching at straws with the Norway plan that archer debunked yesterday.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
I do indeed now own a house outside Colchester. Bernard Jenkin should be very afraid.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
The south has far better rail connections to London via C2c - and cheaper too than Greater anglia with nicer trains. You just have to pick your spot - Leigh and West Horndon being nicer than say Southend or Basildon.
Why do you think the SM is good for us when it is the source of our entire trade deficit? £60bn of expenditure is leaking out of the UK each year, that is equivalent to something like 600k jobs.
That is Trumpian economics. The source of our trade deficit (well, our current account deficit, of which the trade deficit is the most important component) is a deficiency of savings relative to investment. While that is unremedied, whatever trade organisations we join will have no, or very little, impact.
It is true that we have an excess of consumption caused by our failure to save and invest adequately and that this is the primary source of our deficit but the fact is that over a very extended period free trade through the SM has not worked to our advantage. There is a point at which you have to look at the structure of the market and ask why that is. The SM was focused on goods (which was the first problem). It greatly facilitated the availability of goods to consume and ensured that they were price competitive. This had 2 malign effects.
Firstly, the availability of that competition made investing in manufacturing in the UK less attractive. Given the level of competition with unlimited access to our market the prospects for profitable investment were much reduced.
Secondly improve their infrastructure and make them even more competitive with us.
This is not all some dastardlynaive.
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
as a rule of thumb a country can support its own car industry with a population hitting 50 m were well past that
car plants tend to be profitable at 250k units per annum
on current performance the UK could justify another 3-4 car plants quite easily, especially if HMG went fishing for them - automotive is one of the biggest holes in our BoP
The cars are already being sold here, though. Why build a factory when you already have the capacity to service what is a mature market from elsewhere?
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
I do indeed now own a house outside Colchester. Bernard Jenkin should be very afraid.
The bucolic tranquility seems to have mellowed your temperament
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
Hague is clutching at straws with the Norway plan that archer debunked yesterday.
I find it hard to believe that it would be impossible to do a deal that the EU would welcome and the Commons has voted for.
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
There is another option. If parliament accepts that the deal is non-negotiable with the EU but cannot accept it itself, then it can put that deal to the people against another option. Then, having obtained a specific mandate from the people, parliament can enact the chosen option, whether it's ratifying the deal or revoking article 50.
What else could possibly be done if parliament can't agree?
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
I do indeed now own a house outside Colchester. Bernard Jenkin should be very afraid.
How far outside Colchester - Wivenhoe alongside the remain voting students at Essex uni and long term home of Joan Hickson who played Miss Marple or somewhere further afield?
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
There is another option. If parliament accepts that the deal is non-negotiable with the EU but cannot accept it itself, then it can put that deal to the people against another option. Then, having obtained a specific mandate from the people, parliament can enact the chosen option, whether it's ratifying the deal or revoking article 50.
You mean ask the people to accept the NI backstop in a referendum? Possible but surely incredibly reckless for a Unionist party. I don't see the public approving it.
Personally, I think Parliament either fulfil the referendum result by leaving with no deal, or they should vote to withdraw A50. I don't think they have the guts to overturn Brexit.
I don't think there will be a referendum because nobody would be able to agree to hold it or what the question should be. But if it was "Remain because the only way to leave is cut off NI"; or Leave anyway, Leave would win by a mile.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
a while back OKC
and yes nothing wrong with Essex
Some great birdwatching there....although I suspect that isn't what drew him there!
Why do you think the SM is good for us when it is the source of our entire trade deficit? £60bn of expenditure is leaking out of the UK each year, that is equivalent to something like 600k jobs.
That is Trumpian economics. The source of our trade deficit (well, our current account deficit, of which the trade deficit is the most important component) is a deficiency of savings relative to investment. While that is unremedied, whatever trade organisations we join will have no, or very little, impact.
It is true that we have an excess of consumption caused by our failure to save and invest adequately and that this is the primary source of our deficit but the fact is that over a very extended period free trade through the SM has not worked to our advantage. There is a point at which you have to look at the structure of the market and ask why that is. The SM was focused on goods (which was the first problem). It greatly facilitated the availability of goods to consume and ensured that they were price competitive. This had 2 malign effects.
Firstly, the availability of that competition made investing in manufacturing in the UK less attractive. Given the level of competition with unlimited access to our market the prospects for profitable investment were much reduced.
Secondly improve their infrastructure and make them even more competitive with us.
This is not all some dastardlynaive.
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
as a rule of thumb a country can support its own car industry with a population hitting 50 m were well past that
car plants tend to be profitable at 250k units per annum
on current performance the UK could justify another 3-4 car plants quite easily, especially if HMG went fishing for them - automotive is one of the biggest holes in our BoP
The cars are already being sold here, though. Why build a factory when you already have the capacity to service what is a mature market from elsewhere?
you can say that about any product or service, but when youre a country with a massive BoP deficit and increasingly fewer means of covering it you may have to recognise you need to do more of your own stuff. And in this instance automotive is one of the biggest deficits weve got.
Sinn Fein’s electorate would never forgive it if it took its seats in the Commons. I am not sure it’s just the liberal left that sees the hypocrisy in the DUP’s mix and match approach to absolute alignment with the mainland.
They didn't take their seats in the Dail for 80 odd years. Right up until they day they did...
I don't think it's out of the question if Corbyn offers them a referendum on unification and an undertaking to campaign for yes.
Sinn Fein only won four seats in the Dail between 1927 and 1997 - and they were all in one election in 1957 when they polled a stonking 5%. They didn't really abstain in reality cos they had no TDs - indeed they couldn't get enough votes to even win seats under STV as they were so toxic and got few transfers. Indeed their vote disappeared entirely to Fianna Fail.
Sinn Fein just weren't an electoral factor in the Republic until post the GFA. And it was only really the banking crisis and the collapse of the FF vote post 2009 that saw them win any significant number of seats.
They didn’t fight elections in the Republic for many years, because a) they were too busy fighting among themselves and b) as pointed out above their previous voters regarded Fianna Fail as their natural successors.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
I do indeed now own a house outside Colchester. Bernard Jenkin should be very afraid.
The bucolic tranquility seems to have mellowed your temperament
It is a nice corner of the world plus the train service to London is pretty good - and you will get a seat even at peak times
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
I did. He talks about joining EFTA. As I have mentioned:
1. We have to apply to join EFTA and EEA and this needs the EU's consent. 2. It is not possible to do this as part of A50 - not legal. 3. Barnier has been clear that EEA does not solve the NI border; it needs CU as well. That rules out ETFA. 4. So a totally new deal would be needed. That will need a backstop.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
The south has far better rail connections to London via C2c - and cheaper too than Greater anglia with nicer trains. You just have to pick your spot - Leigh and West Horndon being nicer than say Southend or Basildon.
Southend or Basildon would not feature highly on my places to live in Essex tbh
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
There is another option. If parliament accepts that the deal is non-negotiable with the EU but cannot accept it itself, then it can put that deal to the people against another option. Then, having obtained a specific mandate from the people, parliament can enact the chosen option, whether it's ratifying the deal or revoking article 50.
You mean ask the people to accept the NI backstop in a referendum? Possible but surely incredibly reckless for a Unionist party. I don't see the public approving it.
Personally, I think Parliament either fulfil the referendum result by leaving with no deal, or they should vote to withdraw A50. I don't think they have the guts to overturn Brexit.
I don't think there will be a referendum because nobody would be able to agree to hold it or what the question should be. But if it was "Remain because the only way to leave is cut off NI"; or Leave anyway, Leave would win by a mile.
You could just ask the people of Northern Ireland whether they were prepared to accept the backstop.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Isn't the problem that London and the London centric media seems to think that anything that happens outside London - and most particularly zone 1 and 2 - doesn't count? Why not hold the big march in Birmingham or Manchester or Sheffield - or wouldn't the majority of attendees bother if it were outside the coverage of their over 60s freedom pass and the oystercard pay as you go area? The last march was probably the least diverse crowd I have seen in London for a long time - very white very middle class and very entitled. RIchmond upon Thames, Surbiton and Hampstead will probably be deserted.
There are actually many leave voters in London too - and the majority in zones 5 and 6 - indeed 200,000 more people voted for Brexit in London than voted for Sadiq Khan as Mayor after second preferences.
Why do you think the SM is good for us when it is the source of our entire trade deficit? £60bn of expenditure is leaking out of the UK each year, that is equivalent to something like 600k jobs.
That is Trumpian economics. The source of our trade deficit (well, our current account deficit, of which the trade deficit is the most important component) is a deficiency of savings relative to investment. While that is unremedied, whatever trade organisations we join will have no, or very little, impact.
It is true that we have an excess of consumption caused by our failure to save and invest adequately and that this is the primary source of our deficit but the fact is that over a very extended period free trade through the SM has not worked to our advantage. There is a point at which you have to look at the structure of the market and ask why that is. The SM was focused on goods (which was the first problem). It greatly facilitated the availability of goods to consume and ensured that they were price competitive. This had 2 malign effects.
Firstly, the availability of that competition made investing in manufacturing in the UK less attractive. Given the level of competition with unlimited access to our market the prospects for profitable investment were much reduced.
Secondly improve their infrastructure and make them even more competitive with us.
This is not all some dastardlynaive.
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
as a rule of thumb a country can support its own car industry with a population hitting 50 m were well past that
car plants tend to be profitable at 250k units per annum
on current performance the UK could justify another 3-4 car plants quite easily, especially if HMG went fishing for them - automotive is one of the biggest holes in our BoP
The cars are already being sold here, though. Why build a factory when you already have the capacity to service what is a mature market from elsewhere?
you can say that about any product or service, but when youre a country with a massive BoP deficit and increasingly fewer means of covering it you may have to recognise you need to do more of your own stuff. And in this instance automotive is one of the biggest deficits weve got.
Yep, I guess we could give huge, ongoing subsidies to various manufacturing industries to set up shop in the UK.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
I do indeed now own a house outside Colchester. Bernard Jenkin should be very afraid.
Hope you are happy there - we moved to the area a few years back and love it.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
The south has far better rail connections to London via C2c - and cheaper too than Greater anglia with nicer trains. You just have to pick your spot - Leigh and West Horndon being nicer than say Southend or Basildon.
Southend or Basildon would not feature highly on my places to live in Essex tbh
Having lived very close to one and worked in the other, I agree. There’s an excellent eatery in West Horndon, but I’m not as keen on Leigh these days.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
I do indeed now own a house outside Colchester. Bernard Jenkin should be very afraid.
Hope you are happy there - we moved to the area a few years back and love it.
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
I did. He talks about joining EFTA. As I have mentioned:
1. We have to apply to join EFTA and EEA and this needs the EU's consent. 2. It is not possible to do this as part of A50 - not legal. 3. Barnier has been clear that EEA does not solve the NI border; it needs CU as well. That rules out ETFA. 4. So a totally new deal would be needed. That will need a backstop.
Not my fault Hague is an idiot. Over to you...
So Parliament will likely vote to stay in the single market and customs union once May hands it over to take to take over Brexit as she confirmed yesterday if she cannot get an agreement with the EU next month
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
I did. He talks about joining EFTA. As I have mentioned:
1. We have to apply to join EFTA and EEA and this needs the EU's consent. 2. It is not possible to do this as part of A50 - not legal. 3. Barnier has been clear that EEA does not solve the NI border; it needs CU as well. That rules out ETFA. 4. So a totally new deal would be needed. That will need a backstop.
Not my fault Hague is an idiot. Over to you...
The law does not exist in a vacuum. That is especially the case with international law. What Hague is suggesting is a pause. If both sides want that a way will be found around any obstacles. And for both sides a pause is undoubtedly preferable to a no deal.
Looks like labour have turned the speaker political... oh dear...
Quel surprise - it seems there is more than one party which puts itself above the national interest. Who knew? watch all the left-wingers suddenly go very quiet about bullying/sexism , etc in the H/C workplace.
Why do you think the SM is good for us when it is the source of our entire trade deficit? £60bn of expenditure is leaking out of the UK each year, that is equivalent to something like 600k jobs.
That is Trumpian economics. The source of our trade deficit (well, our current account deficit, of which the trade deficit is the most important component) is a deficiency of savings relative to investment. While that is unremedied, whatever trade organisations we join will have no, or very little, impact.
It is true that we have an excess of consumption caus in the UK less attractive. Given the level of competition with unlimited access to our market the prospects for profitable investment were much reduced.
Secondly improve their infrastructure and make them even more competitive with us.
This is not all some dastardlynaive.
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
as a rule of thumb a country can support its own car industry with a population hitting 50 m were well past that
car plants tend to be profitable at 250k units per annum
on current performance the UK could justify another 3-4 car plants quite easily, especially if HMG went fishing for them - automotive is one of the biggest holes in our BoP
The cars are already being sold here, though. Why build a factory when you already have the capacity to service what is a mature market from elsewhere?
you can say that about any product or service, but when youre a country with a massive BoP deficit and increasingly fewer means of covering it you may have to recognise you need to do more of your own stuff. And in this instance automotive is one of the biggest deficits weve got.
Yep, I guess we could give huge, ongoing subsidies to various manufacturing industries to set up shop in the UK.
we give them to banks
who then shut down employment.
other eEuropean countries chuck subsidies like theres no tomoorrw. JLRs factory in Slovakia is probably there becuase the local government dished up 130m euros in subsidies.
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
There is another option. If parliament accepts that the deal is non-negotiable with the EU but cannot accept it itself, then it can put that deal to the people against another option. Then, having obtained a specific mandate from the people, parliament can enact the chosen option, whether it's ratifying the deal or revoking article 50.
You mean ask the people to accept the NI backstop in a referendum? Possible but surely incredibly reckless for a Unionist party. I don't see the public approving it.
Personally, I think Parliament either fulfil the referendum result by leaving with no deal, or they should vote to withdraw A50. I don't think they have the guts to overturn Brexit.
I don't think there will be a referendum because nobody would be able to agree to hold it or what the question should be. But if it was "Remain because the only way to leave is cut off NI"; or Leave anyway, Leave would win by a mile.
You could just ask the people of Northern Ireland whether they were prepared to accept the backstop.
I suspect they would
but how are you going to get SF back to Stormont to get the ball rolling ?
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
I did. He talks about joining EFTA. As I have mentioned:
1. We have to apply to join EFTA and EEA and this needs the EU's consent. 2. It is not possible to do this as part of A50 - not legal. 3. Barnier has been clear that EEA does not solve the NI border; it needs CU as well. That rules out ETFA. 4. So a totally new deal would be needed. That will need a backstop.
Not my fault Hague is an idiot. Over to you...
So Parliament will likely vote to stay in the single market and customs union once May hands it over to take to take over Brexit as she confirmed yesterday if she cannot get an agreement with the EU next month
As NI would also stay in the single market and customs union that would be the backstop for Ireland to avoid a hard border
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
as a rule of thumb a country can support its own car industry with a population hitting 50 m were well past that
car plants tend to be profitable at 250k units per annum
on current performance the UK could justify another 3-4 car plants quite easily, especially if HMG went fishing for them - automotive is one of the biggest holes in our BoP
The cars are already being sold here, though. Why build a factory when you already have the capacity to service what is a mature market from elsewhere?
you can say that about any product or service, but when youre a country with a massive BoP deficit and increasingly fewer means of covering it you may have to recognise you need to do more of your own stuff. And in this instance automotive is one of the biggest deficits weve got.
This is why Red Robbo was right in the 1980s and Mrs Thatcher was wrong about the car industry but that was all a long time ago. Starting from now, who will build these new plants here rather than in the cheaper parts of Europe? They offer cheap labour and fast, frictionless movement of cars and components within the EU.
And to hark back to yesterday's thread, even if we crash out of the EU, British drivers will still buy German cars. They might cost a bit more, that's all, but we'll still buy them. That is why Baron BMW is not on the phone to Chancellor Merkel.
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
I did. He talks about joining EFTA. As I have mentioned:
1. We have to apply to join EFTA and EEA and this needs the EU's consent. 2. It is not possible to do this as part of A50 - not legal. 3. Barnier has been clear that EEA does not solve the NI border; it needs CU as well. That rules out ETFA. 4. So a totally new deal would be needed. That will need a backstop.
Not my fault Hague is an idiot. Over to you...
The law does not exist in a vacuum. That is especially the case with international law. What Hague is suggesting is a pause. If both sides want that a way will be found around any obstacles. And for both sides a pause is undoubtedly preferable to a no deal.
The current impasse is about an indefinite backstop. Do you think the EU will believe us when we say we want to forget that idea and instead move to a different temporary UK-wide relationship? Strip away the nice-sounding slogans and it's obvious why it's a non-starter.
Janan Ganesh is a prominent columnist for the FT and has Sri Lankan orgins. Although not black he is brown - always worth reading and has a very wide vocabulary.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
Why do you think the SM is good for us when it is the source of our entire trade deficit? £60bn of expenditure is leaking out of the UK each year, that is equivalent to something like 600k jobs.
That is Trumpian economics. trade organisations we join will have no, or very little, impact.
It is true that we have an excess of consumption caus in the UK less attractive. Given the level of competition with unlimited access to our market the prospects for profitable investment were much reduced.
Secondly improve their infrastructure and make them even more competitive with us.
This is not all some dastardlynaive.
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
as a rule of thumb a country can support its own car industry with a population hitting 50 m were well past that
car plants tend to be profitable at 250k units per annum
on current performance the UK could justify another 3-4 car plants quite easily, especially if HMG went fishing for them - automotive is one of the biggest holes in our BoP
The cars are already being sold here, though. Why build a factory when you already have the capacity to service what is a mature market from elsewhere?
you can say that about any product or service, but when youre a country with a massive BoP deficit and increasingly fewer means of covering it you may have to recognise you need to do more of your own stuff. And in this instance automotive is one of the biggest deficits weve got.
Yep, I guess we could give huge, ongoing subsidies to various manufacturing industries to set up shop in the UK.
we give them to banks
who then shut down employment.
other eEuropean countries chuck subsidies like theres no tomoorrw. JLRs factory in Slovakia is probably there becuase the local government dished up 130m euros in subsidies.
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
I did. He talks about joining EFTA. As I have mentioned:
1. We have to apply to join EFTA and EEA and this needs the EU's consent. 2. It is not possible to do this as part of A50 - not legal. 3. Barnier has been clear that EEA does not solve the NI border; it needs CU as well. That rules out ETFA. 4. So a totally new deal would be needed. That will need a backstop.
Not my fault Hague is an idiot. Over to you...
The law does not exist in a vacuum. That is especially the case with international law. What Hague is suggesting is a pause. If both sides want that a way will be found around any obstacles. And for both sides a pause is undoubtedly preferable to a no deal.
The current impasse is about an indefinite backstop. Do you think the EU will believe us when we say we want to forget that idea and instead move to a different temporary UK-wide relationship? Strip away the nice-sounding slogans and it's obvious why it's a non-starter.
I think the EU can see precisely what the issue is. If May finally tells the ERG and the DUP their game is up she will get a huge amount of support from the EU27.
Seems Labour have gone full GOP in their defence of Kavanaugh Bercow.
Amazing how rapidly the party has shed its mantle as "champion of the workers, the oppressed, and the minorities".
Haven't heard a thing from the LDs on the bullying claims. Which sums up their complete failure as an organisation to seize the initiative, any initiative, from the main parties.
Comments
If we were both single and ten years younger it would be an honour to be told to get lost by her following me using one of TSE’s chat up lines.
The last statistics I saw indicated we still had significant net migration from the EU, albeit there had been a reduction in the absolute number.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1052133208047984640
Term.
Economic.
Plan.
Membership of the SM means we accept EU law and apply it in this country even although we did not vote for those that made it. How is that acceptable?
How do you think membership of the SM would protect us from the insanities of Corbyn? Did it protect Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal...
How can you think that concern over the implications of FoM was not the single biggest driving force in the Leave vote?
We want free trade with the EU with no tariffs, minimal friction at borders and mutually recognised standards to the extent we can agree them. Membership of the SM is not a sensible objective.
And are government technology projects always successful and on time?
They believe it shows Britain’s economy is growing faster than official data suggest:
Notice that the pickup in wage growth has not put upward pressure on the unemployment rate. This is consistent with our view that the UK economy can afford paying higher wages because it is growing better than currently thought. Indeed, our latest LSE blog suggests that since the EU Referendum vote the UK economy has over-performed by 0.5% per annum based on monthly GDP evidence compared to what the traditional quarterly GDP data suggests.
Consequently, we are taking the view that the ONS will revise upwards its quarterly GDP growth sooner than later. This could happen as early as the 9th of November when the ONS will report its first GDP estimate for 2018 Q3.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/oct/16/markets-edgy-ftse-dow-uk-jobs-wages-report-business-live?CMP=twt_gu
this would largely be a non issue but for the tight Parliamentary numbers. The recent bile has simply to do with having 10 MPs and not rolling over to do what the liberal left want. You can contrast that with SF where nobody is giving them gip but where their MPs would have a major impact on Westminster numbers and where they are patently ignoring their own electors express interests,
Its just part of being a pariah community like white south africans or UK pakistanis, when its what you grow up with its normal. .
Collins has new book out later this week: 'Start Again'.
Many moons ago when I started my career in marketing, the head of Consumer Research told all us fresh young graduates to 'go to the weekend market and see what the people who pay your wages are doing - there are very many more of them than there are of you' - sound advice.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/review-the-finance-curse-how-global-finance-is-making-us-all-poorer-by-nicholas-shaxson-6np7gz56v
As my wise mother used to say.
(Everyone is useful. No-one is indispensable.)
Cos we come back to the issue - what is the question going to be asked? And what option would the two main parties back in any vote. If we have 3 options do we have 3 campaigns - with no doubt further wrangling over who breaches expenses rules ad nauseum. What if remain wins by 1% with a turnout well down on 2016 because a lot of people boycott the vote on principle i.e. we already voted to leave why are you asking us again.
Does a second vote solve the issues - or throw up a whole host more problems and potential division and resentment.
Still I hope the luvvies enjoy their walk in London on Saturday - if they held the event in Sunderland or Boston or Stoke and got out of the bubble they might do some use.
SFs policy was not to sit in the Dail -its now the 3rd biggest party
SF policy was not to sit in Stormont - its now the second biggest party
sitting in Westminster is no big deal SF have profited from what I can see every time theyve slaughtered the sacred cows of the early C20.
As for mix and match you will find SF have changed colour more times than a chameleon. This is an all Ireland party which offically supported abortion in RoI but still had a policy of no abortion in NI. Tell how that circle is squared ?
One has to ask why the EU takes seven times as long to negotiate trade deals as major individual countries do? Isn't that sort of the problem.
And I haven't noticed any widespread reports of Aussies dying of chlorine poisoning from eating chicken.
Bill Cash v Catherine West on Sky this morning followed the same pattern with the result the mute button was engaged within minutes. I am sure many would agree with me when I say 'a plague on all your houses'
When Boris told Airbus to (FO) he lost me completely and ever since I have been consistent in saying he was a busted flush, but contradicted by some. It is pleasing to see in today's poll he has crashed out of the firmament and no doubt will soon be out of Parliament writing columns for the much diminished Daily Telegraph. It is also interesting to see the corresponding fall in JRM popularity.
This does indicate the ERG are losing their glow and I expect that in time they will be reduced to a smallish bitter group as either TM does a deal or returns to Parliament without a deal and hands it over to Parliament to dictate the next course.
I think I am right that there is a big majority in Parliament for staying in the customs union and single market (even Nicola was recommending that yesterday) and, in my opinion, that is the only feasible alternative to actually ending up remaining.
I think the Brexiteers need to look at themselves and the damage their single view of Brexit has caused and will end up with a huge fail for them.
I agree on the EU law point. But that is an argument for remaining not leaving and then finding we have to comply with those rules anyway.
The difficulties those countries got into was in part because of the euro. We are not in the euro. Rules about freedom of movement for capital, goods and services will help stop what appears to be an autarkic economic model being proposed by Corbyn and co.
FoM: why do you think the two posters focused on migrants from outside the EU? That was no accident. I have said it before but it bears repeating: FoM for Poles etc would not have become the issue it did had it not followed on years of what appeared to be unlimited, uncontrolled immigration from all over the planet with the government unable or unwilling to control it, deport anyone, have any sort of sensibly asylum policy etc. No wonder FoM became the focus. But the problems we have had with immigration have, frankly, been with migration from particular areas of the world and the difficulties of integration and associated cultural problems. Had governments dealt with those the issue of Poles, Latvians etc coming here to work and contribute would have been much less of a problem. Do you think the people who were bothered by FoM and immigration will be content if we have fewer Italians coming here and more Afghans?
I think we will miss the SM and FoM when we no longer have them.
Firstly, the availability of that competition made investing in manufacturing in the UK less attractive. Given the level of competition with unlimited access to our market the prospects for profitable investment were much reduced.
Secondly, the opportunity to build new factories in, say, Slovakia, meant that there was no incentive to invest in the UK to meet UK demand. Jaguars made there had equal access to those made in Coventry to our market and the locals are willing to work for less. Even better through the EU we actually spent our taxpayers money to improve their infrastructure and make them even more competitive with us.
This is not all some dastardly plot. I again acknowledge that most of it is our own fault. Governments running deficits in times of reasonable growth and encouraging loose credit to create a feel good factor have aggravated a difficult situation. It is also fair to point out the UK consumer has got a good deal from the SM. But I think failing to recognise that its structure was a source of our problems is naive.
I don't think it's out of the question if Corbyn offers them a referendum on unification and an undertaking to campaign for yes.
Same way as last time Article 50 extension Remain in the European Union. If the non-voting Leave voters don't like it then subsequently they can elect a government that advocates leaving and have a referendum on an actual plan which answers key questions like "where shall we put the border", not Cameron's rather eccentric "Remain vs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
That doesn't mean that it will happen, but none of your questions get to the difficult part. The right questions are:
That doesn't mean that it will happen, but none of your questions get to the difficult part. The right questions are: Yes - which is my point 1 - how are parliament going to agree to hold a second vote when they can't agree on anything else.
If the government and the vast majority of Tory MPs don't want a second vote how is it going to happen. The government can very easily block any backbench or even Labour efforts to force a referendum as it controls the parliamentary timetable.
If you think the Euro is the problem how do you explain Poland and Hungary? The "protection" of EU membership is much, much overrated.
I also think you greatly underestimate the problems that FoM caused. It has increased our population by over 1m. This has created huge pressure on housing, infrastructure, wages, etc. There have been upsides too, at least for some of us.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Hamilton is 4.5 to get 100+ poles (not sure if that means over 100 or just 100). He's currently on 80.
He's also 8.5 to win 92 or more races. He's on 71 right now.
There's also 6 for Hamilton win 8 or more titles (he's all but on 5 now), and there's 3.25 on him winning 7 or more.
I believe the next major rule changes come into force in 2021.
Of those, I think the 8.5 on race wins is the most appealing, just because the odds are significantly longer than those for pole. If he gets 8 titles (that's three more, not including this years), which is 6, it's hard to see him not winning 20 or so races across those three years, and any in between.
Not sure if I'll back it. Odds are ok but it'll take a while to come in.
Incidentally, the specials on Hamilton are scattered across a few different subheadings, so have a furkle if you can't find what you're after.
were well past that
car plants tend to be profitable at 250k units per annum
on current performance the UK could justify another 3-4 car plants quite easily, especially if HMG went fishing for them - automotive is one of the biggest holes in our BoP
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
There is no doubt that the London-centric view of the Remain campaign and its proponents made the difference.
Anyone who lived in the provinces knew how close this race was going to be
Sinn Fein just weren't an electoral factor in the Republic until post the GFA. And it was only really the banking crisis and the collapse of the FF vote post 2009 that saw them win any significant number of seats.
and yes nothing wrong with Essex
Personally, I think Parliament either fulfil the referendum result by leaving with no deal, or they should vote to withdraw A50. I don't think they have the guts to overturn Brexit.
I don't think there will be a referendum because nobody would be able to agree to hold it or what the question should be. But if it was "Remain because the only way to leave is cut off NI"; or Leave anyway, Leave would win by a mile.
1. We have to apply to join EFTA and EEA and this needs the EU's consent.
2. It is not possible to do this as part of A50 - not legal.
3. Barnier has been clear that EEA does not solve the NI border; it needs CU as well. That rules out ETFA.
4. So a totally new deal would be needed. That will need a backstop.
Not my fault Hague is an idiot. Over to you...
There are actually many leave voters in London too - and the majority in zones 5 and 6 - indeed 200,000 more people voted for Brexit in London than voted for Sadiq Khan as Mayor after second preferences.
Some wonderful places to visit and explore too.
who then shut down employment.
other eEuropean countries chuck subsidies like theres no tomoorrw. JLRs factory in Slovakia is probably there becuase the local government dished up 130m euros in subsidies.
https://spectator.sme.sk/c/20837948/jaguar-will-kick-off-its-production-in-early-september.html
the Irish government sprays tax incentives, training grants, land you name it to get tech cos to
set up there
Im afraid youve become a SE Tory in all but name :-)
but how are you going to get SF back to Stormont to get the ball rolling ?
This is why Red Robbo was right in the 1980s and Mrs Thatcher was wrong about the car industry but that was all a long time ago. Starting from now, who will build these new plants here rather than in the cheaper parts of Europe? They offer cheap labour and fast, frictionless movement of cars and components within the EU.
And to hark back to yesterday's thread, even if we crash out of the EU, British drivers will still buy German cars. They might cost a bit more, that's all, but we'll still buy them. That is why Baron BMW is not on the phone to Chancellor Merkel.
Janan Ganesh is a prominent columnist for the FT and has Sri Lankan orgins. Although not black he is brown - always worth reading and has a very wide vocabulary.
Haven't heard a thing from the LDs on the bullying claims. Which sums up their complete failure as an organisation to seize the initiative, any initiative, from the main parties.