The UK has fallen from being the second largest economy in the world in the early 1960s to being fifth on the eve of the Brexit vote. It is now 7th after France and India over took us and we are barely holding our own in the top ten. Part of that problem is the structure of the economy. here is a left wing critique in today's Graun...
The "absentee landlordism" of investment funds has, in my view quite a bit to do with why large UK business is either poorly run or foreign owned.
AAA? Remember in 2010 how it was going to be so critical to keep our AAA credit rating on a par with Germany. It is now AA with a negative outlook and only a notch above Estonia.
This is a problem irrespective of Brexit. Germany is still AAA.
First whether we are 5th or 7th depends entirely on which figures you look at.
Second, of course in the 1960s we still had much of the Empire, much of Africa was still under British rule as was Hong Kong and parts of the Middle East and given India has well over 10 times pur population it was always going to overtake us. Indeed India and China were the largest economies until the 17th century. What matters more is GDP per capita
The UK has fallen from being the second largest economy in the world in the early 1960s to being fifth on the eve of the Brexit vote. It is now 7th after France and India over took us and we are barely holding our own in the top ten. Part of that problem is the structure of the economy. here is a left wing critique in today's Graun...
The "absentee landlordism" of investment funds has, in my view quite a bit to do with why large UK business is either poorly run or foreign owned.
AAA? Remember in 2010 how it was going to be so critical to keep our AAA credit rating on a par with Germany. It is now AA with a negative outlook and only a notch above Estonia.
This is a problem irrespective of Brexit. Germany is still AAA.
5th or 7th sounds decent me. We seem to go back and forth when it comes to France.
The agreement, inevitably, will have unintended consequences, like any hastily-finished legal document prepared by a group. For example, on page 302 it appears to make illegal any restriction on live exports of animals, which has often been cited as the sort of thing we could do after Brexit (the Government consulted on a ban earlier this year).
I'm convinced that this is not because any negotiator on either side has the slightest interest in whether Britain chooses to send a few thousand pre-weaned calves on 100-hour journeys, and if they thought about it they'd probably be against, but they've routinely put in a sentence ("No quantitative restrictions" on inter-Irish trade) which accidentally makes an effective ban or limit impossible (because it creates an Irish loophole for any ban).
I've no doubt that there are many other unintended issues which will pop up. I don't blame anyone for them, but if it's adopted it would be sensible to agree a review in a year to clarify any issues that have emerged.
P302? ... is the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland in my copy... Says nothing about live animal exports. Are there mutliple versions?
Mrs May’s greatest ally has always been the alternatives to her. The ERG has one again proved that point. Funnily enough, with her queue jumping comments she actually made me remember why I find her world view so toxic, damaging and fundamentally dishonest. But it’s not people like me she needs to convince.
Not sure about that. I still think that this deal is going to need the support of a fair number of moderate Labour MPs to pass, ideally voting for but at the least abstaining. And at the moment I am wondering who these moderates might be. Caroline Flint has been mentioned a few times but May needs 30-40 who are willing to be accused of maintaining a Tory government in office. I think that remains a very big ask.
This is not a done deal yet, nothing like it. We have a situation where multiple groupings can vote no but how do we get to yes?
I possess, Shrodinger-like, two simultaneous and contradictory opinions.
The first, as indeed even NPXMP has noted, I can't see more than half a dozen Lab MPs voting for the deal. Given the then forces lined up against it I can't logically see a way through for it.
At the same time, I can't believe that the HoC will vote it down.
But goodness knows how each side will look come the day.
They will vote it down. Too many labour votes are needed and not enough of them look to be breaking ranks. If it is relatively close I can believe it will be voted on twice.
The UK has fallen from being the second largest economy in the world in the early 1960s to being fifth on the eve of the Brexit vote. It is now 7th after France and India over took us and we are barely holding our own in the top ten. Part of that problem is the structure of the economy. here is a left wing critique in today's Graun...
The "absentee landlordism" of investment funds has, in my view quite a bit to do with why large UK business is either poorly run or foreign owned.
AAA? Remember in 2010 how it was going to be so critical to keep our AAA credit rating on a par with Germany. It is now AA with a negative outlook and only a notch above Estonia.
This is a problem irrespective of Brexit. Germany is still AAA.
5th or 7th sounds decent me. We seem to go back and forth when it comes to France.
Totally o/t, as someone who cycles to work I always watch the weather forecast on Sunday for the week ahead. The foreacst for Southern Hamsphire was cold but no rain for the week. So far this week on Monday it rained for 2 hours, yesterday it rained for 5 hours and this morning the rain is so hard the roads are beginning to flood. Other than economic forecasters weather forecasters are the only profession that can get their jobs completely wrong most of the time and it not affect their standing.
You must have been looking at a different forecast to me, because I could have told you there would be rain about on Sunday.
Part of the problem is that forecasters now rely too much on the raw model output. For example, it's been a feature of the models for ever that they do not persist showers inland as far as observed in this sort of setup. The forecaster should have made this uncertainty clear. Similarly with relatively small positional errors for fronts having larger impacts on people's experience of the weather. I suppose they only have a short period to provide a forecast for the whole country though.
Even with those caveats the skill of the weather forecast in the large scale picture is phenomenal. Of course, it's the small-scale detail that you experience.
I watched the Countryfile forecast, I simply can't agree that their skill is phenomenal. Unless there is high pressure or there is an Atlantic Front coming from the South West they are pretty clueless. The rain this morning was proper torrential. They predicted a cold cloudy dry day for today on Sunday.
The UK has fallen from being the second largest economy in the world in the early 1960s to being fifth on the eve of the Brexit vote. It is now 7th after France and India over took us and we are barely holding our own in the top ten. Part of that problem is the structure of the economy. here is a left wing critique in today's Graun...
The "absentee landlordism" of investment funds has, in my view quite a bit to do with why large UK business is either poorly run or foreign owned.
AAA? Remember in 2010 how it was going to be so critical to keep our AAA credit rating on a par with Germany. It is now AA with a negative outlook and only a notch above Estonia.
This is a problem irrespective of Brexit. Germany is still AAA.
AAA, how quaint. The Tories haven’t quite delivered on their promise. The curious point is they have completely gotten away with it.
Interesting we chose the same word. Credit rating agencies exist to make the ERG look good.
That political debate feels such a long time ago, made more distant by the mismatch of Tory rhetoric and the chaos they actually delivered.
You mean reducing the deficit they inherited by 80% to date? That chaos?
Do the old songs give you comfort, whilst your government stockpiles food and medicine?
The agreement, inevitably, will have unintended consequences, like any hastily-finished legal document prepared by a group. For example, on page 302 it appears to make illegal any restriction on live exports of animals, which has often been cited as the sort of thing we could do after Brexit (the Government consulted on a ban earlier this year).
I'm convinced that this is not because any negotiator on either side has the slightest interest in whether Britain chooses to send a few thousand pre-weaned calves on 100-hour journeys, and if they thought about it they'd probably be against, but they've routinely put in a sentence ("No quantitative restrictions" on inter-Irish trade) which accidentally makes an effective ban or limit impossible (because it creates an Irish loophole for any ban).
I've no doubt that there are many other unintended issues which will pop up. I don't blame anyone for them, but if it's adopted it would be sensible to agree a review in a year to clarify any issues that have emerged.
P302? ... is the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland in my copy... Says nothing about live animal exports. Are there mutliple versions?
Nick is citing that phrase "No quantitative restrictions" on inter-Irish trade. For sure someone with an interest in cross border exports of livestock will use that to scupper any ban on live exports.
Mrs May’s greatest ally has always been the alternatives to her. The ERG has one again proved that point. Funnily enough, with her queue jumping comments she actually made me remember why I find her world view so toxic, damaging and fundamentally dishonest. But it’s not people like me she needs to convince.
Not sure about that. I still think that this deal is going to need the support of a fair number of moderate Labour MPs to pass, ideally voting for but at the least abstaining. And at the moment I am wondering who these moderates might be. Caroline Flint has been mentioned a few times but May needs 30-40 who are willing to be accused of maintaining a Tory government in office. I think that remains a very big ask.
This is not a done deal yet, nothing like it. We have a situation where multiple groupings can vote no but how do we get to yes?
My forecast : at least 50 opposition MPs will vote for the deal, and another 100 will abstain.
It will end up passing fairly easily.
If Labour end up splitting as badly as that, it really would be a disaster for them. That would be a bigger split than we'll see among the Tories.
I say again, Corbyn should whip abstention.
If you take a look at what Momentum have said about Caroline Flint saying she will support the deal it is clear a lot of Labour MPs would come under heavy flak for voting for the deal - especially if the line is trotted out that the vote is an effective VONC in Theresa May
Which is both silly and deeply irresponsible as brexit is more important than party, but you're not wrong.
Mrs May’s greatest ally has always been the alternatives to her. The ERG has one again proved that point. Funnily enough, with her queue jumping comments she actually made me remember why I find her world view so toxic, damaging and fundamentally dishonest. But it’s not people like me she needs to convince.
Not sure about that. I still think that this deal is going to need the support of a fair number of moderate Labour MPs to pass, ideally voting for but at the least abstaining. And at the moment I am wondering who these moderates might be. Caroline Flint has been mentioned a few times but May needs 30-40 who are willing to be accused of maintaining a Tory government in office. I think that remains a very big ask.
This is not a done deal yet, nothing like it. We have a situation where multiple groupings can vote no but how do we get to yes?
My forecast : at least 50 opposition MPs will vote for the deal, and another 100 will abstain.
It will end up passing fairly easily.
100 abstain!? It's only one of the most critical votes for years, no need to take a firm stance.
The agreement, inevitably, will have unintended consequences, like any hastily-finished legal document prepared by a group. For example, on page 302 it appears to make illegal any restriction on live exports of animals, which has often been cited as the sort of thing we could do after Brexit (the Government consulted on a ban earlier this year).
I'm convinced that this is not because any negotiator on either side has the slightest interest in whether Britain chooses to send a few thousand pre-weaned calves on 100-hour journeys, and if they thought about it they'd probably be against, but they've routinely put in a sentence ("No quantitative restrictions" on inter-Irish trade) which accidentally makes an effective ban or limit impossible (because it creates an Irish loophole for any ban).
I've no doubt that there are many other unintended issues which will pop up. I don't blame anyone for them, but if it's adopted it would be sensible to agree a review in a year to clarify any issues that have emerged.
P302? ... is the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland in my copy... Says nothing about live animal exports. Are there mutliple versions?
Nick is citing that phrase "No quantitative restrictions" on inter-Irish trade. For sure someone with an interest in cross border exports of livestock will use that to scupper any ban on live exports.
Surely it's just the same as "no quantities restrictions or measures having equivalent effect" in the Treaties?
The agreement, inevitably, will have unintended consequences, like any hastily-finished legal document prepared by a group. For example, on page 302 it appears to make illegal any restriction on live exports of animals, which has often been cited as the sort of thing we could do after Brexit (the Government consulted on a ban earlier this year).
I'm convinced that this is not because any negotiator on either side has the slightest interest in whether Britain chooses to send a few thousand pre-weaned calves on 100-hour journeys, and if they thought about it they'd probably be against, but they've routinely put in a sentence ("No quantitative restrictions" on inter-Irish trade) which accidentally makes an effective ban or limit impossible (because it creates an Irish loophole for any ban).
I've no doubt that there are many other unintended issues which will pop up. I don't blame anyone for them, but if it's adopted it would be sensible to agree a review in a year to clarify any issues that have emerged.
P302? ... is the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland in my copy... Says nothing about live animal exports. Are there mutliple versions?
Nick is citing that phrase "No quantitative restrictions" on inter-Irish trade. For sure someone with an interest in cross border exports of livestock will use that to scupper any ban on live exports.
Given some farms cross the border and transporting livestock from Down to Monaghan is no different to transporting from Yorkshire to Wiltshire, my takeaway is that some people wish to have a fight in an empty room. Does one really think there’ll be a thriving trade on sheep from Stranraer to Belfast, down to Dublin and then on a live animal transport to Saudi Arabia?
Totally o/t, as someone who cycles to work I always watch the weather forecast on Sunday for the week ahead. The foreacst for Southern Hamsphire was cold but no rain for the week. So far this week on Monday it rained for 2 hours, yesterday it rained for 5 hours and this morning the rain is so hard the roads are beginning to flood. Other than economic forecasters weather forecasters are the only profession that can get their jobs completely wrong most of the time and it not affect their standing.
You must have been looking at a different forecast to me, because I could have told you there would be rain about on Sunday.
Part of the problem is that forecasters now rely too much on the raw model output. For example, it's been a feature of the models for ever that they do not persist showers inland as far as observed in this sort of setup. The forecaster should have made this uncertainty clear. Similarly with relatively small positional errors for fronts having larger impacts on people's experience of the weather. I suppose they only have a short period to provide a forecast for the whole country though.
Even with those caveats the skill of the weather forecast in the large scale picture is phenomenal. Of course, it's the small-scale detail that you experience.
I was in southern Hampshire yesterday, and the forecasts I saw said it would rain on and off all day. As it did.
Mrs May’s greatest ally has always been the alternatives to her. The ERG has one again proved that point. Funnily enough, with her queue jumping comments she actually made me remember why I find her world view so toxic, damaging and fundamentally dishonest. But it’s not people like me she needs to convince.
Not sure about that. I still think that this deal is going to need the support of a fair number of moderate Labour MPs to pass, ideally voting for but at the least abstaining. And at the moment I am wondering who these moderates might be. Caroline Flint has been mentioned a few times but May needs 30-40 who are willing to be accused of maintaining a Tory government in office. I think that remains a very big ask.
This is not a done deal yet, nothing like it. We have a situation where multiple groupings can vote no but how do we get to yes?
My forecast : at least 50 opposition MPs will vote for the deal, and another 100 will abstain.
It will end up passing fairly easily.
100 abstain!? It's only one of the most critical votes for years, no need to take a firm stance.
Makes a mockery of politics. All that effort, sound and fury to get selected and elected, only not to bother on the most important vote in a generation. Pointless.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), has Rudd 'torpedoed', as Smith puts it, May's threat of No Deal, or is the returned Cabinet minister testing the water and speaking May's words?
So will the capitulation momentum continue and the ERG-o-Dims fall in behind the deal? My gut feel is yes enough of them will.
Not from possession of any moral fibre or damascene analysis but just because shorn of their leader, who is now a laughing stock, they will be more biddable.
The political capital that the ERG had has been spent, and public support for the sort of extreme Brexit these people have been advocating is ebbing away. People can see the difficulties and risks that have been involved with getting even as far as the transitional arrangement, and there isn't any appetite for pushing further right now.
Indeed, since the transitional arrangement preserves most of the benefits of membership that matter to ordinary people, yet resolves none of Brexit's difficulties and contradictions, the transitional period is very likely to be extended, leaving open the option of rejoining to a future government - which would probably be easier than pressing ahead with cutting all the institutional ties.
So on reflection it is probably remainers who (if the People's Vote falls) should be having a good hard think about whether they really want to be opposing the deal. You can feel the tide starting to turn in May's favour already.
I thought it was a great deal for remainers as soon as the details started coming out. Take No Deal off the table and the argument becomes about exactly what our relationship with an EU with is.
Isn't it the other way around? Take People's Vote/Remain off the table, and backing the deal is a no brainer. (Edit/ unless you are prepared to gamble with the outcome of no deal, of course)
It is interesting that exactly the same calculation - with different results - is being made on each of the extremes.
The ERG type extremists are calculating the odds of the failure of this deal leading to a Second Referendum.
The People's Vote extremists are calculating the odds of the failure of this deal leading to a No Deal.
Both hope they can manipulate the outcome of this deal failing to their advantage but either side is at all certain. In both cases this deal is perhaps starting to be viewed as being the second best (and safest) option rather than losing everything.
As I said below, it hangs on whether she is brave enough to let People's Vote go to a vote and confident enough that it would be lost.
Mrs May’s greatest ally has always been the alternatives to her. The ERG has one again proved that point. Funnily enough, with her queue jumping comments she actually made me remember why I find her world view so toxic, damaging and fundamentally dishonest. But it’s not people like me she needs to convince.
Not sure about that. I still think that this deal is going to need the support of a fair number of moderate Labour MPs to pass, ideally voting for but at the least abstaining. And at the moment I am wondering who these moderates might be. Caroline Flint has been mentioned a few times but May needs 30-40 who are willing to be accused of maintaining a Tory government in office. I think that remains a very big ask.
This is not a done deal yet, nothing like it. We have a situation where multiple groupings can vote no but how do we get to yes?
My forecast : at least 50 opposition MPs will vote for the deal, and another 100 will abstain.
It will end up passing fairly easily.
100 abstain!? It's only one of the most critical votes for years, no need to take a firm stance.
For Labour it is exquisite. The ERG, or the Pizza Gang, have said they can and want to negotiate better terms with the EU for the WA. And in so doing they have validated Lab's ability to vote against citing a desire for a better deal which only they could negotiate.
Had Cons stood unanimous and firm in support of the deal (however they end up voting) then Lab would have had a much harder decision to make as to whether to vote against/abstain/support.
As it stands, though, and thanks to Mogg et al, Lab can vote against with a free conscience and legitimate rationale.
P302? ... is the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland in my copy... Says nothing about live animal exports. Are there mutliple versions?
Nick is citing that phrase "No quantitative restrictions" on inter-Irish trade. For sure someone with an interest in cross border exports of livestock will use that to scupper any ban on live exports.
That's right. We could in theory still ban live exports from GB, but we can't ban trade between GB and NI (it's still one country so that's not an export), so anyone wanting to do it will simply ship the animals to Northern Ireland and then onwards without restriction. And of course a reduction to zero is a "quantitative restriction".
I repeat that I'm not blaming anyone. I trust Mr Gove to want to ban live exports. I trust the negotiators not to have thought about it - God knows they had enough to deal with. It's almost certainly an unintended consequence, and in a purely non-partisan way I'm just saying that if the thing passes, a review in a year to tidy up any unintrended consequences would be a good idea all round.
Mrs May’s greatest ally has always been the alternatives to her. The ERG has one again proved that point. Funnily enough, with her queue jumping comments she actually made me remember why I find her world view so toxic, damaging and fundamentally dishonest. But it’s not people like me she needs to convince.
Not sure about that. I still think that this deal is going to need the support of a fair number of moderate Labour MPs to pass, ideally voting for but at the least abstaining. And at the moment I am wondering who these moderates might be. Caroline Flint has been mentioned a few times but May needs 30-40 who are willing to be accused of maintaining a Tory government in office. I think that remains a very big ask.
This is not a done deal yet, nothing like it. We have a situation where multiple groupings can vote no but how do we get to yes?
My forecast : at least 50 opposition MPs will vote for the deal, and another 100 will abstain.
It will end up passing fairly easily.
100 abstain!? It's only one of the most critical votes for years, no need to take a firm stance.
Makes a mockery of politics. All that effort, sound and fury to get selected and elected, only not to bother on the most important vote in a generation. Pointless.
Indeed. It cannot be justified.
You'll also get crap for permitting whatever occurs to happen anyway so take a stand for heaven's sake.
Not exactly torpedoing. Lots of mps believe that on all sides. But they are very ERG like as they just assume it will happen and additionally believe it will be prevented for different contradictory reasons.
P302? ... is the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland in my copy... Says nothing about live animal exports. Are there mutliple versions?
Nick is citing that phrase "No quantitative restrictions" on inter-Irish trade. For sure someone with an interest in cross border exports of livestock will use that to scupper any ban on live exports.
That's right. We could in theory still ban live exports from GB, but we can't ban trade between GB and NI (it's still one country so that's not an export), so anyone wanting to do it will simply ship the animals to Northern Ireland and then onwards without restriction. And of course a reduction to zero is a "quantitative restriction".
I repeat that I'm not blaming anyone. I trust Mr Gove to want to ban live exports. I trust the negotiators not to have thought about it - God knows they had enough to deal with. It's almost certainly an unintended consequence, and in a purely non-partisan way I'm just saying that if the thing passes, a review in a year to tidy up any unintrended consequences would be a good idea all round.
I doubt it’s an unintended consequence. To block free movement of goods within the UK would further divide GB and NI.
Mrs May’s greatest ally has always been the alternatives to her. The ERG has one again proved that point. Funnily enough, with her queue jumping comments she actually made me remember why I find her world view so toxic, damaging and fundamentally dishonest. But it’s not people like me she needs to convince.
Not sure about that. I still think that this deal is going to need the support of a fair number of moderate Labour MPs to pass, ideally voting for but at the least abstaining. And at the moment I am wondering who these moderates might be. Caroline Flint has been mentioned a few times but May needs 30-40 who are willing to be accused of maintaining a Tory government in office. I think that remains a very big ask.
This is not a done deal yet, nothing like it. We have a situation where multiple groupings can vote no but how do we get to yes?
My forecast : at least 50 opposition MPs will vote for the deal, and another 100 will abstain.
It will end up passing fairly easily.
100 abstain!? It's only one of the most critical votes for years, no need to take a firm stance.
For Labour it is exquisite. The ERG, or the Pizza Gang, have said they can and want to negotiate better terms with the EU for the WA. And in so doing they have validated Lab's ability to vote against citing a desire for a better deal which only they could negotiate.
Had Cons stood unanimous and firm in support of the deal (however they end up voting) then Lab would have had a much harder decision to make as to whether to vote against/abstain/support.
As it stands, though, and thanks to Mogg et al, Lab can vote against with a free conscience and legitimate rationale.
The rationale may be legitimate, if not as easy as they are pretending, but yes, the gutless five in particular have given complete justification to Labour's stance.
The agreement, inevitably, will have unintended consequences, like any hastily-finished legal document prepared by a group. For example, on page 302 it appears to make illegal any restriction on live exports of animals, which has often been cited as the sort of thing we could do after Brexit (the Government consulted on a ban earlier this year).
I'm convinced that this is not because any negotiator on either side has the slightest interest in whether Britain chooses to send a few thousand pre-weaned calves on 100-hour journeys, and if they thought about it they'd probably be against, but they've routinely put in a sentence ("No quantitative restrictions" on inter-Irish trade) which accidentally makes an effective ban or limit impossible (because it creates an Irish loophole for any ban).
I've no doubt that there are many other unintended issues which will pop up. I don't blame anyone for them, but if it's adopted it would be sensible to agree a review in a year to clarify any issues that have emerged.
P302? ... is the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland in my copy... Says nothing about live animal exports. Are there mutliple versions?
Nick is citing that phrase "No quantitative restrictions" on inter-Irish trade. For sure someone with an interest in cross border exports of livestock will use that to scupper any ban on live exports.
Given some farms cross the border and transporting livestock from Down to Monaghan is no different to transporting from Yorkshire to Wiltshire, my takeaway is that some people wish to have a fight in an empty room. Does one really think there’ll be a thriving trade on sheep from Stranraer to Belfast, down to Dublin and then on a live animal transport to Saudi Arabia?
The problem is exactly as Nick outlines it - and given his day job he is probably in a better position to know this than anyone. If you impose a ban on live exports from the UK then the exporters will simply take advantage of the Northern Ireland loophole and export that way. It effectively makes it impossible to ban live exports. Something which is clearly for people like Nick and myself a desirable thing to do.
I doubt it’s an unintended consequence. To block free movement of goods within the UK would further divide GB and NI.
Yes, I wouldn't propose that. But they can exempt restrictions on exports of live animals if they want to without disturbing anything else - it's WTO-compatible to allow local cross-border traffic on practical grounds (I won't go into the lengthy legal issues here, but it's my specialist subject). More radically, they could agree that live animals are not considered as "goods" for purposes of the agreement - that would also solve the pet passports issue.
This sort of detail is what arises when you have to rush to a gigantic deal between large entities. It's not unreasonable to agree that another look is needed when the dust has settled.
The UK has fallen from being the second largest economy in the world in the early 1960s to being fifth on the eve of the Brexit vote. It is now 7th after France and India over took us and we are barely holding our own in the top ten. Part of that problem is the structure of the economy. here is a left wing critique in today's Graun...
The "absentee landlordism" of investment funds has, in my view quite a bit to do with why large UK business is either poorly run or foreign owned.
AAA? Remember in 2010 how it was going to be so critical to keep our AAA credit rating on a par with Germany. It is now AA with a negative outlook and only a notch above Estonia.
This is a problem irrespective of Brexit. Germany is still AAA.
5th or 7th sounds decent me. We seem to go back and forth when it comes to France.
Isn't the dropping behind France and India solely because of FX i.e. the £ has weakened, and not because of "underlying" issues.
Remember in the early 1960s, the UK's share was inflated because most of Europe was still recovering from war and countries like China and other economies like South Korea were still in developmental stage. Share is less important than trend.
Mrs May’s greatest ally has always been the alternatives to her. The ERG has one again proved that point. Funnily enough, with her queue jumping comments she actually made me remember why I find her world view so toxic, damaging and fundamentally dishonest. But it’s not people like me she needs to convince.
Not sure about that. I still think that this deal is going to need the support of a fair number of moderate Labour MPs to pass, ideally voting for but at the least abstaining. And at the moment I am wondering who these moderates might be. Caroline Flint has been mentioned a few times but May needs 30-40 who are willing to be accused of maintaining a Tory government in office. I think that remains a very big ask.
This is not a done deal yet, nothing like it. We have a situation where multiple groupings can vote no but how do we get to yes?
My forecast : at least 50 opposition MPs will vote for the deal, and another 100 will abstain.
The UK has fallen from being the second largest economy in the world in the early 1960s to being fifth on the eve of the Brexit vote. It is now 7th after France and India over took us and we are barely holding our own in the top ten. Part of that problem is the structure of the economy. here is a left wing critique in today's Graun...
The "absentee landlordism" of investment funds has, in my view quite a bit to do with why large UK business is either poorly run or foreign owned.
AAA? Remember in 2010 how it was going to be so critical to keep our AAA credit rating on a par with Germany. It is now AA with a negative outlook and only a notch above Estonia.
This is a problem irrespective of Brexit. Germany is still AAA.
5th or 7th sounds decent me. We seem to go back and forth when it comes to France.
Isn't the dropping behind France and India solely because of FX i.e. the £ has weakened, and not because of "underlying" issues.
Remember in the early 1960s, the UK's share was inflated because most of Europe was still recovering from war and countries like China and other economies like South Korea were still in developmental stage. Share is less important than trend.
Also our economy in the 1960s was still benefiting from Empire, whilst the rest of the world had been effected more by WW2, or was simply undeveloped.
I think the deal is deeply flawed, but accept that it is a step forward on a road. I still think that some Remainers are desperately trying to block the road, but that's what happens when the pampered classes don't get their own way and try to subvert democracy.
Parliament voted to have a referendum and to implement the result. Saying afterwards that one of the two answers is too difficult, can you change your mind, please, is hypocrisy verging on farce.
The UK has fallen from being the second largest economy in the world in the early 1960s to being fifth on the eve of the Brexit vote. It is now 7th after France and India over took us and we are barely holding our own in the top ten. Part of that problem is the structure of the economy. here is a left wing critique in today's Graun...
The "absentee landlordism" of investment funds has, in my view quite a bit to do with why large UK business is either poorly run or foreign owned.
AAA? Remember in 2010 how it was going to be so critical to keep our AAA credit rating on a par with Germany. It is now AA with a negative outlook and only a notch above Estonia.
This is a problem irrespective of Brexit. Germany is still AAA.
AAA, how quaint. The Tories haven’t quite delivered on their promise. The curious point is they have completely gotten away with it.
Interesting we chose the same word. Credit rating agencies exist to make the ERG look good.
The UK has fallen from being the second largest economy in the world in the early 1960s to being fifth on the eve of the Brexit vote. It is now 7th after France and India over took us and we are barely holding our own in the top ten. Part of that problem is the structure of the economy. here is a left wing critique in today's Graun...
The "absentee landlordism" of investment funds has, in my view quite a bit to do with why large UK business is either poorly run or foreign owned.
AAA? Remember in 2010 how it was going to be so critical to keep our AAA credit rating on a par with Germany. It is now AA with a negative outlook and only a notch above Estonia.
This is a problem irrespective of Brexit. Germany is still AAA.
Would you have reduced borrowing faster?
(I assume the pre/post Brexit change is related to FX not to any real economic measure)
I think the deal is deeply flawed, but accept that it is a step forward on a road. I still think that some Remainers are desperately trying to block the road, but that's what happens when the pampered classes don't get their own way and try to subvert democracy.
Parliament voted to have a referendum and to implement the result. Saying afterwards that one of the two answers is too difficult, can you change your mind, please, is hypocrisy verging on farce.
I think the public want a end to it, and for politicans to move on and actually deal with more tangible things.
May's deal is the one which does that. No-deal is chaos, and People referendum would lead to a lengthly continued arguement on both sides, in a neverending conflict.
I think the deal is deeply flawed, but accept that it is a step forward on a road. I still think that some Remainers are desperately trying to block the road, but that's what happens when the pampered classes don't get their own way and try to subvert democracy.
Parliament voted to have a referendum and to implement the result. Saying afterwards that one of the two answers is too difficult, can you change your mind, please, is hypocrisy verging on farce.
I think the public want a end to it, and for politicans to move on and actually deal with more tangible things.
May's deal is the one which does that. No-deal is chaos, and People referendum would lead to a lengthly continued arguement on both sides, in a neverending conflict.
People who believe May's deal will the end of discussion on Brexit also believe in fairies and Santa claus.
As someone not on the Conservative side looking from the outside, I've found the events of the last few days astonishing.
As details of the Deal came out there was an initial and fairly hostile groundswell of opinion but here we are a week later and almost everyone now seems to think the Deal is wonderful and Theresa May seems more ensconced in No.10 than before though whether she is in power as well is still, I think, debatable.
The change in sentiment toward the European Reform Group and toward Jacob Rees Mogg has been bewildering for those of us outside Conservative circles. Once he was, to borrow Gladstone "the hope of the stern unbending Tories" - we all leapt to his defence when his children were verbally targeted but now he has become the victim, ridiculed, excoriated and torn to pieces by the mob.
Why?
To this observer, there are two undercurrents at work - the first is loyalty which basically is all that holds the Conservative Party together it seems. Had the ERG criticised the Deal they might have got away with it but by ostentatiously moving against May and failing for now to get the letters to produce a VoNC they committed the cardinal sin not of being plotters and traitors but of being poor plotters and traitors. Arguably, Portillo never got over being rumbled preparing a leadership bid in 1995 which he then had to deny.
If you want to move against a Conservative leader, you have to be decisive and effective. If you succeed, the loyalty becomes yours.
The second undercurrent is fear - people are genuinely terrified of the economic consequences of the UK crashing out without a Deal next March. It has been the most effective Project Fear I've seen and kudos to Mark Carney - he has reduced otherwise thoughtful people to gibbering idiots who claim we will run out of food and medicines (plus, as important, our house prices will crash) if we crash out. There's absolutely no evidence of any of this but people believe it or perhaps want to believe it.
So we are left with a Deal which many consider sub-optimal and a Prime Minister whose political obituary has been written many times but clings to office. Some issues, it appears, remain unresolved and all we have now is the Deal to get us past 29/3/19 so the can is kicked once again on all the areas that really matters and presumable for all they have been vilified this week, the ERG will be back in some form if the Future Economic and Political documents look too much like a surrender but there's that loyalty thing again.
Refusing to vote with the Gov't because a journalist has been (rightly) mean about him ? Well if that's the basis for plunging us into economic chaos..
I think the deal is deeply flawed, but accept that it is a step forward on a road. I still think that some Remainers are desperately trying to block the road, but that's what happens when the pampered classes don't get their own way and try to subvert democracy.
Parliament voted to have a referendum and to implement the result. Saying afterwards that one of the two answers is too difficult, can you change your mind, please, is hypocrisy verging on farce.
I think the public want a end to it, and for politicans to move on and actually deal with more tangible things.
May's deal is the one which does that. No-deal is chaos, and People referendum would lead to a lengthly continued arguement on both sides, in a neverending conflict.
People who believe May's deal will the end of discussion on Brexit also believe in fairies and Santa claus.
It will settle the matter of the actual question of Brexit and the intensity of it. After that it goes into dull trade discussions which no one will be very much interested in, apart from obessives on both sides.
I think the deal is deeply flawed, but accept that it is a step forward on a road. I still think that some Remainers are desperately trying to block the road, but that's what happens when the pampered classes don't get their own way and try to subvert democracy.
Parliament voted to have a referendum and to implement the result. Saying afterwards that one of the two answers is too difficult, can you change your mind, please, is hypocrisy verging on farce.
I think the public want a end to it, and for politicans to move on and actually deal with more tangible things.
May's deal is the one which does that. No-deal is chaos, and People referendum would lead to a lengthly continued arguement on both sides, in a neverending conflict.
People who believe May's deal will the end of discussion on Brexit also believe in fairies and Santa claus.
It will settle the matter of the actual question of Brexit and the intensity of it. After that it goes into dull trade discussions which no one will be very much interested in, apart from obessives on both sides.
It will settle the matter of Brexit in exactly the same way as the 1973 referendum settled membership of the EU. If the economy is fine, maybe it will sleep for a bit. But every economic hiccup from here on will be blamed on Brexit, May and the Tory party.
I think the deal is deeply flawed, but accept that it is a step forward on a road. I still think that some Remainers are desperately trying to block the road, but that's what happens when the pampered classes don't get their own way and try to subvert democracy.
Parliament voted to have a referendum and to implement the result. Saying afterwards that one of the two answers is too difficult, can you change your mind, please, is hypocrisy verging on farce.
I think the public want a end to it, and for politicans to move on and actually deal with more tangible things.
May's deal is the one which does that. No-deal is chaos, and People referendum would lead to a lengthly continued arguement on both sides, in a neverending conflict.
People who believe May's deal will the end of discussion on Brexit also believe in fairies and Santa claus.
It will settle the matter of the actual question of Brexit and the intensity of it. After that it goes into dull trade discussions which no one will be very much interested in, apart from obessives on both sides.
It will settle the matter of Brexit in exactly the same way as the 1973 referendum settled membership of the EU. If the economy is fine, maybe it will sleep for a bit. But every economic hiccup from here on will be blamed on Brexit, May and the Tory party.
As there is no Brexit won't every economic hiccup be blamed on the fact we're still in the EU?
We'll leave, then because these things take absolubtely aaaaaaaaaaagggggeees we'll be in a not quite ratified trade deal for the next twenty years or so (starting three to ten years from now) And so nothing much will change, except we'll be out. And for most people, that'll be fine.
I think the deal is deeply flawed, but accept that it is a step forward on a road. I still think that some Remainers are desperately trying to block the road, but that's what happens when the pampered classes don't get their own way and try to subvert democracy.
Parliament voted to have a referendum and to implement the result. Saying afterwards that one of the two answers is too difficult, can you change your mind, please, is hypocrisy verging on farce.
I think the public want a end to it, and for politicans to move on and actually deal with more tangible things.
May's deal is the one which does that. No-deal is chaos, and People referendum would lead to a lengthly continued arguement on both sides, in a neverending conflict.
People who believe May's deal will the end of discussion on Brexit also believe in fairies and Santa claus.
It will settle the matter of the actual question of Brexit and the intensity of it. After that it goes into dull trade discussions which no one will be very much interested in, apart from obessives on both sides.
It will settle the matter of Brexit in exactly the same way as the 1973 referendum settled membership of the EU. If the economy is fine, maybe it will sleep for a bit. But every economic hiccup from here on will be blamed on Brexit, May and the Tory party.
It'll put it on the backburner more than it is now.
Won't every economic hiccup be blamed on the fact we're still in the EU?
The last economic hiccup that was to do with the EU was Black Wednesday I think ?
Immigration, sovereignty, control of our own laws, ability to deport EU national wrong'uns, CFP, CAP - I can't think of any particular concerns about the EU that are particularly economic ? OK I'll give you the money we pay in - but that's a very very small price for frictionless trade with a massive market. The objections are more social and cultural.
I think the deal is deeply flawed, but accept that it is a step forward on a road. I still think that some Remainers are desperately trying to block the road, but that's what happens when the pampered classes don't get their own way and try to subvert democracy.
Parliament voted to have a referendum and to implement the result. Saying afterwards that one of the two answers is too difficult, can you change your mind, please, is hypocrisy verging on farce.
I think the public want a end to it, and for politicans to move on and actually deal with more tangible things.
May's deal is the one which does that. No-deal is chaos, and People referendum would lead to a lengthly continued arguement on both sides, in a neverending conflict.
People who believe May's deal will the end of discussion on Brexit also believe in fairies and Santa claus.
It will settle the matter of the actual question of Brexit and the intensity of it. After that it goes into dull trade discussions which no one will be very much interested in, apart from obessives on both sides.
It will settle the matter of Brexit in exactly the same way as the 1973 referendum settled membership of the EU. If the economy is fine, maybe it will sleep for a bit. But every economic hiccup from here on will be blamed on Brexit, May and the Tory party.
The 1975 European Communities referendum settled it for the lifetime of the European Communities. It was only decades after the EEC became the EU that we ever had another vote.
Barring something dramatic this will be over after Brexit. There won't be more traumas or dramas we will just gradually drift further and further apart. In the same wa as Canada has some similarities with the USA and a trade deal with them but is very much it's own nation.
As someone not on the Conservative side looking from the outside, I've found the events of the last few days astonishing.
As details of the Deal came out there was an initial and fairly hostile groundswell of opinion but here we are a week later and almost everyone now seems to think the Deal is wonderful and Theresa May seems more ensconced in No.10 than before though whether she is in power as well is still, I think, debatable.
The change in sentiment toward the European Reform Group and toward Jacob Rees Mogg has been bewildering for those of us outside Conservative circles. Once he was, to borrow Gladstone "the hope of the stern unbending Tories" - we all leapt to his defence when his children were verbally targeted but now he has become the victim, ridiculed, excoriated and torn to pieces by the mob.
Why?
To this observer, there are two undercurrents at work - the first is loyalty which basically is all that holds the Conservative Party together it seems. Had the ERG criticised the Deal they might have got away with it but by ostentatiously moving against May and failing for now to get the letters to produce a VoNC they committed the cardinal sin not of being plotters and traitors but of being poor plotters and traitors. Arguably, Portillo never got over being rumbled preparing a leadership bid in 1995 which he then had to deny.
If you want to move against a Conservative leader, you have to be decisive and effective. If you succeed, the loyalty becomes yours.
The second undercurrent is fear - people are genuinely terrified of the economic consequences of the UK crashing out without a Deal next March. It has been the most effective Project Fear I've seen and kudos to Mark Carney - he has reduced otherwise thoughtful people to gibbering idiots who claim we will run out of food and medicines (plus, as important, our house prices will crash) if we crash out. There's absolutely no evidence of any of this but people believe it or perhaps want to believe it.
So we are left with a Deal which many consider sub-optimal and a Prime Minister whose political obituary has been written many times but clings to office. Some issues, it appears, remain unresolved and all we have now is the Deal to get us past 29/3/19 so the can is kicked once again on all the areas that really matters and presumable for all they have been vilified this week, the ERG will be back in some form if the Future Economic and Political documents look too much like a surrender but there's that loyalty thing again.
"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant. As Father of the House he will provide an intelligent and thought through declaration in the debate that will be powerful and is likely to see the backing of the hard remainer conservative mps and must have an effect across the house.
Amber Rudd stating there will be no deal this morning and affirming the cabinet will support the deal turns the screw even further.
I am not convinced that labour mps will vote down the deal and expect a surprising number will vote for or abstain
Also the lib dems are not 100% against
This last weekend saw a backlash against the ERG as constituency chairs attacked their stance and the evidence for this is the collapse of letter writing. ERG have no awareness and their 'Dad's Army' news conference with an all male cast was a car crash for presentation.
I am concerned about Sarah Wollaston who intends voting against the tax cuts in the budget and if she does, and indeed if anyone else in the party does, it needs to made clear they will not represent the party at the next election. Tax cuts is the DNA of the party
May has been played by the EU for the nincompoop she is. She's swapped her Aces for the promise of one trick later, then her Kings for another even later. Thank God for Gina Miller and Arlene Foster; without them, unlikely bed fellows that they are, we wouldn't know that May's now Jack high,
Can I also point out that "no deal" is outside our control. If the EU won't sign up to a deal, then "no deal" it is. What we are being offered is not a deal, it is a surrender with punishment reparations.
Appeasement has, to my knowledge, never worked. The appeaser always ends up by being screwed by the appeased. If we don't want a hard border in Ireland then we don't put one up. If the EU wants a hard border and puts one up, who is to blame for that?
I think the deal is deeply flawed, but accept that it is a step forward on a road. I still think that some Remainers are desperately trying to block the road, but that's what happens when the pampered classes don't get their own way and try to subvert democracy.
Parliament voted to have a referendum and to implement the result. Saying afterwards that one of the two answers is too difficult, can you change your mind, please, is hypocrisy verging on farce.
I think the public want a end to it, and for politicans to move on and actually deal with more tangible things.
May's deal is the one which does that. No-deal is chaos, and People referendum would lead to a lengthly continued arguement on both sides, in a neverending conflict.
People who believe May's deal will the end of discussion on Brexit also believe in fairies and Santa claus.
It will settle the matter of the actual question of Brexit and the intensity of it. After that it goes into dull trade discussions which no one will be very much interested in, apart from obessives on both sides.
It will settle the matter of Brexit in exactly the same way as the 1973 referendum settled membership of the EU. If the economy is fine, maybe it will sleep for a bit. But every economic hiccup from here on will be blamed on Brexit, May and the Tory party.
The 1975 European Communities referendum settled it for the lifetime of the European Communities. It was only decades after the EEC became the EU that we ever had another vote.
Barring something dramatic this will be over after Brexit. There won't be more traumas or dramas we will just gradually drift further and further apart. In the same wa as Canada has some similarities with the USA and a trade deal with them but is very much it's own nation.
Has Canada ever had to live with the imminent thereat that America is going to annex part of it's country?
As someone not on the Conservative side looking from the outside, I've found the events of the last few days astonishing.
As details of the Deal came out there was an initial and fairly hostile groundswell of opinion but here we are a week later and almost everyone now seems to think the Deal is wonderful and Theresa May seems more ensconced in No.10 than before though whether she is in power as well is still, I think, debatable.
The change in sentiment toward the European Reform Group and toward Jacob Rees Mogg has been bewildering for those of us outside Conservative circles. Once he was, to borrow Gladstone "the hope of the stern unbending Tories" - we all leapt to his defence when his children were verbally targeted but now he has become the victim, ridiculed, excoriated and torn to pieces by the mob.
Why?
To this observer, there are two undercurrents at work - the first is loyalty which basically is all that holds the Conservative Party together it seems. Had the ERG criticised the Deal they might have got away with it but by ostentatiously moving against May and failing for now to get the letters to produce a VoNC they committed the cardinal sin not of being plotters and traitors but of being poor plotters and traitors. Arguably, Portillo never got over being rumbled preparing a leadership bid in 1995 which he then had to deny.
If you want to move against a Conservative leader, you have to be decisive and effective. If you succeed, the loyalty becomes yours.
The second undercurrent is fear - people are genuinely terrified of the economic consequences of the UK crashing out without a Deal next March. It has been the most effective Project Fear I've seen and kudos to Mark Carney - he has reduced otherwise thoughtful people to gibbering idiots who claim we will run out of food and medicines (plus, as important, our house prices will crash) if we crash out. There's absolutely no evidence of any of this but people believe it or perhaps want to believe it.
So we are left with a Deal which many consider sub-optimal and a Prime Minister whose political obituary has been written many times but clings to office. Some issues, it appears, remain unresolved and all we have now is the Deal to get us past 29/3/19 so the can is kicked once again on all the areas that really matters and presumable for all they have been vilified this week, the ERG will be back in some form if the Future Economic and Political documents look too much like a surrender but there's that loyalty thing again.
Thanks for the "outsider view". As a Tory, I'd be all for the ERG position if we had a majority of 100+ and 4-5 years to ride out the storm. As it is, we've already underwater and their actions risk letting Magic Grandpa into power for years - and we know how hard it is to get him out once he's in. So now the ERG can simply get lost.
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant.
Yeah it's "significant" that the biggest pro-EU fanatic in politics is satisfied Theresa May's deal is Remain in all but name and the referendum result is being overturned...
I think the deal is deeply flawed, but accept that it is a step forward on a road. I still think that some Remainers are desperately trying to block the road, but that's what happens when the pampered classes don't get their own way and try to subvert democracy.
Parliament voted to have a referendum and to implement the result. Saying afterwards that one of the two answers is too difficult, can you change your mind, please, is hypocrisy verging on farce.
I think the public want a end to it, and for politicans to move on and actually deal with more tangible things.
May's deal is the one which does that. No-deal is chaos, and People referendum would lead to a lengthly continued arguement on both sides, in a neverending conflict.
People who believe May's deal will the end of discussion on Brexit also believe in fairies and Santa claus.
It will settle the matter of the actual question of Brexit and the intensity of it. After that it goes into dull trade discussions which no one will be very much interested in, apart from obessives on both sides.
It will settle the matter of Brexit in exactly the same way as the 1973 referendum settled membership of the EU. If the economy is fine, maybe it will sleep for a bit. But every economic hiccup from here on will be blamed on Brexit, May and the Tory party.
The 1975 European Communities referendum settled it for the lifetime of the European Communities. It was only decades after the EEC became the EU that we ever had another vote.
Barring something dramatic this will be over after Brexit. There won't be more traumas or dramas we will just gradually drift further and further apart. In the same wa as Canada has some similarities with the USA and a trade deal with them but is very much it's own nation.
Has Canada ever had to live with the imminent thereat that America is going to annex part of it's country?
In June 2018, US Border Patrol vessels stopped at least 10 Canadian fishing boats from New Brunswick, reportedly asking about illegal immigrants. Global Affairs Canada reportedly stated that it is investigating "these incidents that occurred in Canadian waters". The Grand Manan Fishermen's Association suggested "the actions of the US agents may have been routine".
May has been played by the EU for the nincompoop she is. She's swapped her Aces for the promise of one trick later, then her Kings for another even later. Thank God for Gina Miller and Arlene Foster; without them, unlikely bed fellows that they are, we wouldn't know that May's now Jack high,
Can I also point out that "no deal" is outside our control. If the EU won't sign up to a deal, then "no deal" it is. What we are being offered is not a deal, it is a surrender with punishment reparations.
Appeasement has, to my knowledge, never worked. The appeaser always ends up by being screwed by the appeased. If we don't want a hard border in Ireland then we don't put one up. If the EU wants a hard border and puts one up, who is to blame for that?
You avoid the second referendum alternative that will become a very big part of the dialogue if the deal falls
I think the deal is deeply flawed, but accept that it is a step forward on a road. I still think that some Remainers are desperately trying to block the road, but that's what happens when the pampered classes don't get their own way and try to subvert democracy.
Parliament voted to have a referendum and to implement the result. Saying afterwards that one of the two answers is too difficult, can you change your mind, please, is hypocrisy verging on farce.
I think the public want a end to it, and for politicans to move on and actually deal with more tangible things.
May's deal is the one which does that. No-deal is chaos, and People referendum would lead to a lengthly continued arguement on both sides, in a neverending conflict.
People who believe May's deal will the end of discussion on Brexit also believe in fairies and Santa claus.
It will settle the matter of the actual question of Brexit and the intensity of it. After that it goes into dull trade discussions which no one will be very much interested in, apart from obessives on both sides.
It will settle the matter of Brexit in exactly the same way as the 1973 referendum settled membership of the EU. If the economy is fine, maybe it will sleep for a bit. But every economic hiccup from here on will be blamed on Brexit, May and the Tory party.
The 1975 European Communities referendum settled it for the lifetime of the European Communities. It was only decades after the EEC became the EU that we ever had another vote.
Barring something dramatic this will be over after Brexit. There won't be more traumas or dramas we will just gradually drift further and further apart. In the same wa as Canada has some similarities with the USA and a trade deal with them but is very much it's own nation.
Has Canada ever had to live with the imminent thereat that America is going to annex part of it's country?
In June 2018, US Border Patrol vessels stopped at least 10 Canadian fishing boats from New Brunswick, reportedly asking about illegal immigrants. Global Affairs Canada reportedly stated that it is investigating "these incidents that occurred in Canadian waters". The Grand Manan Fishermen's Association suggested "the actions of the US agents may have been routine".
Not in any way comparable to what Selmayr is threatening to do with Northern Ireland?
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant.
Yeah it's "significant" that the biggest pro-EU fanatic in politics is satisfied Theresa May's deal is Remain in all but name and the referendum result is being overturned...
The referendum result isn't being overturned, but it _should_ be - what the hell is the point of driving the country over a cliff just to satisfy the impossible fantasies of people who got duped by a sodding bus?
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant. As Father of the House he will provide an intelligent and thought through declaration in the debate that will be powerful and is likely to see the backing of the hard remainer conservative mps and must have an effect across the house.
Amber Rudd stating there will be no deal this morning and affirming the cabinet will support the deal turns the screw even further.
I am not convinced that labour mps will vote down the deal and expect a surprising number will vote for or abstain
Also the lib dems are not 100% against
This last weekend saw a backlash against the ERG as constituency chairs attacked their stance and the evidence for this is the collapse of letter writing. ERG have no awareness and their 'Dad's Army' news conference with an all male cast was a car crash for presentation.
I am concerned about Sarah Wollaston who intends voting against the tax cuts in the budget and if she does, and indeed if anyone else in the party does, it needs to made clear they will not represent the party at the next election. Tax cuts is the DNA of the party
As I said earlier, astonishing Mogg is still at 20 for next leader.
I doubt he ever really wanted it but he has blown his chances by launching a failed coup.
The agreement, inevitably, will have unintended consequences, like any hastily-finished legal document prepared by a group. For example, on page 302 it appears to make illegal any restriction on live exports of animals, which has often been cited as the sort of thing we could do after Brexit (the Government consulted on a ban earlier this year).
I'm convinced that this is not because any negotiator on either side has the slightest interest in whether Britain chooses to send a few thousand pre-weaned calves on 100-hour journeys, and if they thought about it they'd probably be against, but they've routinely put in a sentence ("No quantitative restrictions" on inter-Irish trade) which accidentally makes an effective ban or limit impossible (because it creates an Irish loophole for any ban).
I've no doubt that there are many other unintended issues which will pop up. I don't blame anyone for them, but if it's adopted it would be sensible to agree a review in a year to clarify any issues that have emerged.
P302? ... is the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland in my copy... Says nothing about live animal exports. Are there mutliple versions?
Nick is citing that phrase "No quantitative restrictions" on inter-Irish trade. For sure someone with an interest in cross border exports of livestock will use that to scupper any ban on live exports.
Given some farms cross the border and transporting livestock from Down to Monaghan is no different to transporting from Yorkshire to Wiltshire, my takeaway is that some people wish to have a fight in an empty room. Does one really think there’ll be a thriving trade on sheep from Stranraer to Belfast, down to Dublin and then on a live animal transport to Saudi Arabia?
The problem is exactly as Nick outlines it - and given his day job he is probably in a better position to know this than anyone. If you impose a ban on live exports from the UK then the exporters will simply take advantage of the Northern Ireland loophole and export that way. It effectively makes it impossible to ban live exports. Something which is clearly for people like Nick and myself a desirable thing to do.
You can manage that through, say, capacity restrictions at Belfast
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant.
Yeah it's "significant" that the biggest pro-EU fanatic in politics is satisfied Theresa May's deal is Remain in all but name and the referendum result is being overturned...
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant.
Yeah it's "significant" that the biggest pro-EU fanatic in politics is satisfied Theresa May's deal is Remain in all but name and the referendum result is being overturned...
You are on the extreme view of brexit and you do not seem to realise that extremes are a massive minority
May has been played by the EU for the nincompoop she is. She's swapped her Aces for the promise of one trick later, then her Kings for another even later. Thank God for Gina Miller and Arlene Foster; without them, unlikely bed fellows that they are, we wouldn't know that May's now Jack high,
Can I also point out that "no deal" is outside our control. If the EU won't sign up to a deal, then "no deal" it is. What we are being offered is not a deal, it is a surrender with punishment reparations.
Appeasement has, to my knowledge, never worked. The appeaser always ends up by being screwed by the appeased. If we don't want a hard border in Ireland then we don't put one up. If the EU wants a hard border and puts one up, who is to blame for that?
You avoid the second referendum alternative that will become a very big part of the dialogue if the deal falls
He didn't learn about any wars there in his history lessons so they didn't happen or weren't important. Classic example of the arrogance of the ignorant.
Thanks for the "outsider view". As a Tory, I'd be all for the ERG position if we had a majority of 100+ and 4-5 years to ride out the storm. As it is, we've already underwater and their actions risk letting Magic Grandpa into power for years - and we know how hard it is to get him out once he's in. So now the ERG can simply get lost.
Thanks for the response. I don't actually see a route by which Corbyn becomes Prime Minister at this time short of winning a GE and that's not on the cards.
That, a bit like No Deal Project Fear, is being waved around as a stick to beat unity into wavering Conservatives.
As for the prospect of a Labour Government, there have been some interesting comments made by John McDonnell in recent times which make me think there could be quite a battle within Labour as to the contents of the next Manifesto.
I suspect McDonnell the pragmatist will want to craft a policy programme which is about reassuring voters Labour won't be Chavez-lite (so to speak). Big spending commitments would be taken out in favour of a "fairer" approach on the economy which could well resonate.
Corbyn, on the other hand, will want to offer his uncompromising socialism to the electorate on the basis nobody will be able to say afterward they weren't told. The pragmatists might take the view the Conservatives need only offer pages from the Maidenhead phone book to win.
Blair won in 1997 partly because he was able to reassure Conservative -inclined voters his Labour Party was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. McDonnell can't go that far but I suspect he would like the primary message to be one of re-assurance and, as I say, "fairness".
I think the deal is deeply flawed, but accept that it is a step forward on a road. I still think that some Remainers are desperately trying to block the road, but that's what happens when the pampered classes don't get their own way and try to subvert democracy.
Parliament voted to have a referendum and to implement the result. Saying afterwards that one of the two answers is too difficult, can you change your mind, please, is hypocrisy verging on farce.
I think the public want a end to it, and for politicans to move on and actually deal with more tangible things.
May's deal is the one which does that. No-deal is chaos, and People referendum would lead to a lengthly continued arguement on both sides, in a neverending conflict.
People who believe May's deal will the end of discussion on Brexit also believe in fairies and Santa claus.
It will settle the matter of the actual question of Brexit and the intensity of it. After that it goes into dull trade discussions which no one will be very much interested in, apart from obessives on both sides.
It will settle the matter of Brexit in exactly the same way as the 1973 referendum settled membership of the EU. If the economy is fine, maybe it will sleep for a bit. But every economic hiccup from here on will be blamed on Brexit, May and the Tory party.
The 1975 European Communities referendum settled it for the lifetime of the European Communities. It was only decades after the EEC became the EU that we ever had another vote.
Barring something dramatic this will be over after Brexit. There won't be more traumas or dramas we will just gradually drift further and further apart. In the same wa as Canada has some similarities with the USA and a trade deal with them but is very much it's own nation.
Has Canada ever had to live with the imminent thereat that America is going to annex part of it's country?
Only when it was a part of a county (Britain) threatened with annexation.
'However, many historians believe that a desire to annex Canada was a cause of the war. This view was more prevalent before 1940, but remains widely held today. Congressman Richard Mentor Johnson told Congress that the constant Indian atrocities along the Wabash River in Indiana were enabled by supplies from Canada and were proof that "the war has already commenced. ... I shall never die contented until I see England's expulsion from North America and her territories incorporated into the United States."'
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant.
Yeah it's "significant" that the biggest pro-EU fanatic in politics is satisfied Theresa May's deal is Remain in all but name and the referendum result is being overturned...
You are on the extreme view of brexit and you do not seem to realise that extremes are a massive minority
My view is in line with what Theresa May said repeatedly up to the General Election and the basis on which I voted for her in 2017...
Mr. Eagles, tend not to bother with such modern stuff (although I've dipped my toe into bits of current events masquerading as history recently).
Still enjoying the Epic of Gilgamesh. So far I've learnt that men like naked women who want to have sex with them, a man without a friend can act like a dick, men sometimes choose to do stupidly brave things then decide not to at the last minute, and Gilgamesh and Enkidu are very fast hikers.
Being flippant but there are actually some everlasting life lessons there. Young men trying to prove themselves is a consistent theme through human history (for good and bad).
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant.
Yeah it's "significant" that the biggest pro-EU fanatic in politics is satisfied Theresa May's deal is Remain in all but name and the referendum result is being overturned...
You are on the extreme view of brexit and you do not seem to realise that extremes are a massive minority
My view is in line with what Theresa May said repeatedly up to the General Election and the basis on which I voted for her in 2017...
In the Lancaster House speech May said she was open to associate membership of the customs union.
News reaches me that Boris is speaking at a DUP event in NI this coming weekend. I wonder whether he will become the modern day Enoch Powell and end up joining them and representing a unionist seat out there?
A Russian general in charge of international extradition of, say, people accused of using military nerve agents on foreign soil? What's your problem....?
News reaches me that Boris is speaking at a DUP event in NI this coming weekend. I wonder whether he will become the modern day Enoch Powell and end up joining them and representing a unionist seat out there?
Depends which one of the two columns he will write on the Union he decides to publish first.
News reaches me that Boris is speaking at a DUP event in NI this coming weekend. I wonder whether he will become the modern day Enoch Powell and end up joining them and representing a unionist seat out there?
I don’t think his divorces, constant infidelities, and child out of wedlock will appeal to the God botherers.
If TM doesn't get her deal passed by Parliament, then a general election follows, no? But even if it is passed it still might follow:
If the DUP decide that they cannot support this government in the long term, an early election starts to look more likely. The most likely scenario for an early election is that she manages to get a deal through Parliament, but in the process permanently loses the support of the DUP over the Irish backstop. At that point, with no working majority, May could have little choice but to go to the polls.
I can't see that an election solves anything. It will only expose major fissures in both parties. But it seems we are drifting Titanic-like towards the iceberg.
News reaches me that Boris is speaking at a DUP event in NI this coming weekend. I wonder whether he will become the modern day Enoch Powell and end up joining them and representing a unionist seat out there?
News reaches me that Boris is speaking at a DUP event in NI this coming weekend. I wonder whether he will become the modern day Enoch Powell and end up joining them and representing a unionist seat out there?
If he was looking for a place where he could be cast out into the wilderness, in order to craft a narrative of redemption through suffering, then to return to lead a grateful people in triumph, he could certainly do worse than Northern Ireland. I don't think he has the determination, or the inclination, to see something like that through.
If TM doesn't get her deal passed by Parliament, then a general election follows, no? But even if it is passed it still might follow:
If the DUP decide that they cannot support this government in the long term, an early election starts to look more likely. The most likely scenario for an early election is that she manages to get a deal through Parliament, but in the process permanently loses the support of the DUP over the Irish backstop. At that point, with no working majority, May could have little choice but to go to the polls.
I can't see that an election solves anything. It will only expose major fissures in both parties. But it seems we are drifting Titanic-like towards the iceberg.
The DUP might well pull the plug if the deal DOES make it through parliament ! Even Labour supporters/half supporters (abstainers) of the deal will VoNC the Gov't. If the DUP wants an election then it gets one. My sense is they won't initiate a confidence motion though.
If the DUP withdraw support and TM cannot govern she must go to the Country and seek a mandate. In those circumstances I do not see it as a walk in the park for Corbyn
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant.
Yeah it's "significant" that the biggest pro-EU fanatic in politics is satisfied Theresa May's deal is Remain in all but name and the referendum result is being overturned...
You are on the extreme view of brexit and you do not seem to realise that extremes are a massive minority
It shows how insular and ridiculous the views on here are that proper Brexit that 17 million people voted for is now being branded "extreme".
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant.
Yeah it's "significant" that the biggest pro-EU fanatic in politics is satisfied Theresa May's deal is Remain in all but name and the referendum result is being overturned...
The referendum result isn't being overturned, but it _should_ be - what the hell is the point of driving the country over a cliff just to satisfy the impossible fantasies of people who got duped by a sodding bus?
Christ.
This place is an absolutely ridiculous echo chamber.
Ken Clarke's declaration he will vote for the deal is significant.
Yeah it's "significant" that the biggest pro-EU fanatic in politics is satisfied Theresa May's deal is Remain in all but name and the referendum result is being overturned...
You are on the extreme view of brexit and you do not seem to realise that extremes are a massive minority
It shows how insular and ridiculous the views on here are that proper Brexit that 17 million people voted for is now being branded "extreme".
You have no evidence that the 17 million voted to trash our manufacturing and the union.
However, if you are confident of your cause support a second referendum
Comments
Had Cons stood unanimous and firm in support of the deal (however they end up voting) then Lab would have had a much harder decision to make as to whether to vote against/abstain/support.
As it stands, though, and thanks to Mogg et al, Lab can vote against with a free conscience and legitimate rationale.
I repeat that I'm not blaming anyone. I trust Mr Gove to want to ban live exports. I trust the negotiators not to have thought about it - God knows they had enough to deal with. It's almost certainly an unintended consequence, and in a purely non-partisan way I'm just saying that if the thing passes, a review in a year to tidy up any unintrended consequences would be a good idea all round.
You'll also get crap for permitting whatever occurs to happen anyway so take a stand for heaven's sake.
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1065164807320625152
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1065164808583041024
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1065164809971408898
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1065164811179356162
I'm surprised Mogg is as low as 20 for next leader after the last few days. He is now a laughing stock in many newspapers.
The Italian saying is clearer, if less politically correct, in offering a choice between a full bottle and a drunken wife.
I always found that clearer.
This sort of detail is what arises when you have to rush to a gigantic deal between large entities. It's not unreasonable to agree that another look is needed when the dust has settled.
Remember in the early 1960s, the UK's share was inflated because most of Europe was still recovering from war and countries like China and other economies like South Korea were still in developmental stage. Share is less important than trend.
Which makes perfect sense.
I think the deal is deeply flawed, but accept that it is a step forward on a road. I still think that some Remainers are desperately trying to block the road, but that's what happens when the pampered classes don't get their own way and try to subvert democracy.
Parliament voted to have a referendum and to implement the result. Saying afterwards that one of the two answers is too difficult, can you change your mind, please, is hypocrisy verging on farce.
(I assume the pre/post Brexit change is related to FX not to any real economic measure)
May's deal is the one which does that. No-deal is chaos, and People referendum would lead to a lengthly continued arguement on both sides, in a neverending conflict.
As someone not on the Conservative side looking from the outside, I've found the events of the last few days astonishing.
As details of the Deal came out there was an initial and fairly hostile groundswell of opinion but here we are a week later and almost everyone now seems to think the Deal is wonderful and Theresa May seems more ensconced in No.10 than before though whether she is in power as well is still, I think, debatable.
The change in sentiment toward the European Reform Group and toward Jacob Rees Mogg has been bewildering for those of us outside Conservative circles. Once he was, to borrow Gladstone "the hope of the stern unbending Tories" - we all leapt to his defence when his children were verbally targeted but now he has become the victim, ridiculed, excoriated and torn to pieces by the mob.
Why?
To this observer, there are two undercurrents at work - the first is loyalty which basically is all that holds the Conservative Party together it seems. Had the ERG criticised the Deal they might have got away with it but by ostentatiously moving against May and failing for now to get the letters to produce a VoNC they committed the cardinal sin not of being plotters and traitors but of being poor plotters and traitors. Arguably, Portillo never got over being rumbled preparing a leadership bid in 1995 which he then had to deny.
If you want to move against a Conservative leader, you have to be decisive and effective. If you succeed, the loyalty becomes yours.
The second undercurrent is fear - people are genuinely terrified of the economic consequences of the UK crashing out without a Deal next March. It has been the most effective Project Fear I've seen and kudos to Mark Carney - he has reduced otherwise thoughtful people to gibbering idiots who claim we will run out of food and medicines (plus, as important, our house prices will crash) if we crash out. There's absolutely no evidence of any of this but people believe it or perhaps want to believe it.
So we are left with a Deal which many consider sub-optimal and a Prime Minister whose political obituary has been written many times but clings to office. Some issues, it appears, remain unresolved and all we have now is the Deal to get us past 29/3/19 so the can is kicked once again on all the areas that really matters and presumable for all they have been vilified this week, the ERG will be back in some form if the Future Economic and Political documents look too much like a surrender but there's that loyalty thing again.
Why not?
Andrew Bridgen lacks the intelligence God granted a pistachio.
https://twitter.com/mrkennethclarke/status/1064646428931313664?s=21
And so nothing much will change, except we'll be out. And for most people, that'll be fine.
Presumably YouGov will be making all the tables from this poll available soon so the Times won't be able to keep this quiet for much longer...
Immigration, sovereignty, control of our own laws, ability to deport EU national wrong'uns, CFP, CAP - I can't think of any particular concerns about the EU that are particularly economic ?
OK I'll give you the money we pay in - but that's a very very small price for frictionless trade with a massive market. The objections are more social and cultural.
Barring something dramatic this will be over after Brexit. There won't be more traumas or dramas we will just gradually drift further and further apart. In the same wa as Canada has some similarities with the USA and a trade deal with them but is very much it's own nation.
Amber Rudd stating there will be no deal this morning and affirming the cabinet will support the deal turns the screw even further.
I am not convinced that labour mps will vote down the deal and expect a surprising number will vote for or abstain
Also the lib dems are not 100% against
This last weekend saw a backlash against the ERG as constituency chairs attacked their stance and the evidence for this is the collapse of letter writing. ERG have no awareness and their 'Dad's Army' news conference with an all male cast was a car crash for presentation.
I am concerned about Sarah Wollaston who intends voting against the tax cuts in the budget and if she does, and indeed if anyone else in the party does, it needs to made clear they will not represent the party at the next election. Tax cuts is the DNA of the party
Can I also point out that "no deal" is outside our control. If the EU won't sign up to a deal, then "no deal" it is. What we are being offered is not a deal, it is a surrender with punishment reparations.
Appeasement has, to my knowledge, never worked. The appeaser always ends up by being screwed by the appeased. If we don't want a hard border in Ireland then we don't put one up. If the EU wants a hard border and puts one up, who is to blame for that?
Has Canada ever had to live with the imminent thereat that America is going to annex part of it's country?
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1065175619686801408
You are either on PB, or you are behind PB!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machias_Seal_Island
In June 2018, US Border Patrol vessels stopped at least 10 Canadian fishing boats from New Brunswick, reportedly asking about illegal immigrants. Global Affairs Canada reportedly stated that it is investigating "these incidents that occurred in Canadian waters". The Grand Manan Fishermen's Association suggested "the actions of the US agents may have been routine".
I doubt he ever really wanted it but he has blown his chances by launching a failed coup.
Next stop: a trip to the ITV Jungle next winter?
https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1065140399583436800?s=21
That, a bit like No Deal Project Fear, is being waved around as a stick to beat unity into wavering Conservatives.
As for the prospect of a Labour Government, there have been some interesting comments made by John McDonnell in recent times which make me think there could be quite a battle within Labour as to the contents of the next Manifesto.
I suspect McDonnell the pragmatist will want to craft a policy programme which is about reassuring voters Labour won't be Chavez-lite (so to speak). Big spending commitments would be taken out in favour of a "fairer" approach on the economy which could well resonate.
Corbyn, on the other hand, will want to offer his uncompromising socialism to the electorate on the basis nobody will be able to say afterward they weren't told. The pragmatists might take the view the Conservatives need only offer pages from the Maidenhead phone book to win.
Blair won in 1997 partly because he was able to reassure Conservative -inclined voters his Labour Party was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. McDonnell can't go that far but I suspect he would like the primary message to be one of re-assurance and, as I say, "fairness".
'However, many historians believe that a desire to annex Canada was a cause of the war. This view was more prevalent before 1940, but remains widely held today. Congressman Richard Mentor Johnson told Congress that the constant Indian atrocities along the Wabash River in Indiana were enabled by supplies from Canada and were proof that "the war has already commenced. ... I shall never die contented until I see England's expulsion from North America and her territories incorporated into the United States."'
https://tinyurl.com/ybyg3tzd
Still enjoying the Epic of Gilgamesh. So far I've learnt that men like naked women who want to have sex with them, a man without a friend can act like a dick, men sometimes choose to do stupidly brave things then decide not to at the last minute, and Gilgamesh and Enkidu are very fast hikers.
Being flippant but there are actually some everlasting life lessons there. Young men trying to prove themselves is a consistent theme through human history (for good and bad).
https://twitter.com/djack_journo/status/1065181648306794496?s=21
Mind you the evangelicals love Trump.
https://twitter.com/autosport/status/1065177661419474945
A real shame he had that rally crash. He was up there with Hamilton and Alonso.
But even if it is passed it still might follow:
If the DUP decide that they cannot support this government in the long term, an early election starts to look more likely. The most likely scenario for an early election is that she manages to get a deal through Parliament, but in the process permanently loses the support of the DUP over the Irish backstop. At that point, with no working majority, May could have little choice but to go to the polls.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/tories-try-out-life-as-a-minority-government/
I can't see that an election solves anything. It will only expose major fissures in both parties. But it seems we are drifting Titanic-like towards the iceberg.
Even Labour supporters/half supporters (abstainers) of the deal will VoNC the Gov't. If the DUP wants an election then it gets one. My sense is they won't initiate a confidence motion though.
It's also a shame that he'll take the position off another up-and-coming young driver or current driver (e.g. Ocon).
This place is an absolutely ridiculous echo chamber.
However, if you are confident of your cause support a second referendum