Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
I doubt it, they will continue complaining. Apart from from the LDs, Ken Clarke, Ted Heath, Michael Heseltine, Roy Jenkins and Peter Mandelson few Britons have ever supported the UK joining the Euro
If we are going to be in the EU we should be fully in. Euro, Schengen, the full works.
If we do Remain then we should join up to all of the benefits of membership.
I would hesitate before referring to the euro as a benefit. As would Varafoukis...
Greece shouldn't have been allowed to join in the first place. A Brussels fudge that cost them dear.
We would have made Greece or Ireland look like a picnic had we joined. Yet we would undoubtedly have been allowed to had we wished to.
Very true.
We'd have had too low interest rates, resulting in an even more extreme house price boom, and an even nastier bust.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
I doubt it, they will continue complaining. Apart from from the LDs, Ken Clarke, Ted Heath, Michael Heseltine, Roy Jenkins and Peter Mandelson few Britons have ever supported the UK joining the Euro
If we are going to be in the EU we should be fully in. Euro, Schengen, the full works.
If we do Remain then we should join up to all of the benefits of membership.
+1
I wonder if we will even be given the choice. Here's the scenario:
1. The "deal" gets demolished in the Commons. The DUP no confidence the PM which in the midst of the bitter acrimony of the Tory civil war which has finally broken out does indeed bring down the government. 2. A new minority government is formed. In effect it is a coalition between Labour, the SNP, Plaid and the remainer wing of the Tory party. It promises fresh elections once the National Emergency has passed. 3. Prime Minister (Corbyn? Clarke?) requests the rescinding of Article 50. "Its is clear that the deal agreed with the previous government does not have the support of Parliament. As you have made clear that this was the only deal on offer, the position of the interim government is to withdraw Article 50 4. The EU, mindful of the "pull A50 then put it in again later" risk mandate that the UK is welcome to stay if it becomes a full participant in the EU project - Schengen and the Euro.
Which would really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Leave and face economic calamity, or finish up even more in than you were when you were loudly objecting about it.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
I doubt it, they will continue complaining. Apart from from the LDs, Ken Clarke, Ted Heath, Michael Heseltine, Roy Jenkins and Peter Mandelson few Britons have ever supported the UK joining the Euro
If we are going to be in the EU we should be fully in. Euro, Schengen, the full works.
If we do Remain then we should join up to all of the benefits of membership.
+1
I wonder if we will even be given the choice. Here's the scenario:
1. The "deal" gets demolished in the Commons. The DUP no confidence the PM which in the midst of the bitter acrimony of the Tory civil war which has finally broken out does indeed bring down the government. 2. A new minority government is formed. In effect it is a coalition between Labour, the SNP, Plaid and the remainer wing of the Tory party. It promises fresh elections once the National Emergency has passed. 3. Prime Minister (Corbyn? Clarke?) requests the rescinding of Article 50. "Its is clear that the deal agreed with the previous government does not have the support of Parliament. As you have made clear that this was the only deal on offer, the position of the interim government is to withdraw Article 50 4. The EU, mindful of the "pull A50 then put it in again later" risk mandate that the UK is welcome to stay if it becomes a full participant in the EU project - Schengen and the Euro.
Which would really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Leave and face economic calamity, or finish up even more in than you were when you were loudly objecting about it.
Under those circumstances we would Leave for sure. Indeed the EU would be really, really dumb to put things in those terms and I genuinely don't believe they are that stupid.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
I doubt it, they will continue complaining. Apart from from the LDs, Ken Clarke, Ted Heath, Michael Heseltine, Roy Jenkins and Peter Mandelson few Britons have ever supported the UK joining the Euro
If we are going to be in the EU we should be fully in. Euro, Schengen, the full works.
If we do Remain then we should join up to all of the benefits of membership.
+1
I wonder if we will even be given the choice. Here's the scenario:
1. The "deal" gets demolished in the Commons. The DUP no confidence the PM which in the midst of the bitter acrimony of the Tory civil war which has finally broken out does indeed bring down the government. 2. A new minority government is formed. In effect it is a coalition between Labour, the SNP, Plaid and the remainer wing of the Tory party. It promises fresh elections once the National Emergency has passed. 3. Prime Minister (Corbyn? Clarke?) requests the rescinding of Article 50. "Its is clear that the deal agreed with the previous government does not have the support of Parliament. As you have made clear that this was the only deal on offer, the position of the interim government is to withdraw Article 50 4. The EU, mindful of the "pull A50 then put it in again later" risk mandate that the UK is welcome to stay if it becomes a full participant in the EU project - Schengen and the Euro.
Which would really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Leave and face economic calamity, or finish up even more in than you were when you were loudly objecting about it.
Brexiteer: Brexit will be great! Remainer: It's a bad idea.
Brexiteer: Brexit will be fine! Remainer: It's a bad idea.
Brexiteer: Brexit will be not as bad as war. Remainer: It's a bad idea.
Brexiteer: Brexit will be not as bad as famine. Remainer: It's a bad idea.
Brexiteer: Hey, Brexit is really bad! Remainer: It's a bad idea.
Brexiteer: It's those fucking Remainers' fault...
I dunno about it being Remain's fault, but you do have to admit that the remainers in government have never really put their back into it, so it's no surprise we have ended up where we are. Cockup or conspiracy, who knows. but the end result will be the same. I reckon we'll stay in now but the country is fucked. At least we have the comfort of knowing the Tories are royally fucked for a few years as well. Every cloud.
If the Government says "here is a deal for Brexit" and Remainers turn around and vote it down, that isn't Brexit failing. That is Remainers deliberately sabotaging both Brexit and the economy to get their beloved EU. They should rightly get blamed for it.
Last time I checked there wasn't a 'Remainer' party - well the Lib Dems and the SNP, but the former are too small to save May's deal from any Brexiteer rebellion and the latter have their own priorities. Labour, in case you hadn't noticed, is led by someone who is more than sympathetic to Brexit, but is also determined to play politics with it to get into power (it may work, I don't think it will, see below) and so will whip his MPs against. Given the thuggish cost of disloyalty to the Dear Leader (even when he's incoherent) in today's Labour Party, you can hardly expect MPs to put a target on their backs for something they don't believe in.
Nope. This is on Brexiteers for being like communists and supporting a fantasy then when it turns to crap claiming no one has ever tried it properly.
Under those circumstances we would Leave for sure. Indeed the EU would be really, really dumb to put things in those terms and I genuinely don't believe they are that stupid.
Go on then. Its apparent that Crash Brexit would give our economy a heart attack. With all the consequences that brings economically politically and socially. Why would MPs allow us to leave and bring about their own demise?
BTW I agree that they absolutely should not up the ante in that way. But you can see how it could happen.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
I doubt it, they will continue complaining. Apart from from the LDs, Ken Clarke, Ted Heath, Michael Heseltine, Roy Jenkins and Peter Mandelson few Britons have ever supported the UK joining the Euro
If we are going to be in the EU we should be fully in. Euro, Schengen, the full works.
If we do Remain then we should join up to all of the benefits of membership.
+1
I wonder if we will even be given the choice. Here's the scenario:
1. The "deal" gets demolished in the Commons. The DUP no confidence the PM which in the midst of the bitter acrimony of the Tory civil war which has finally broken out does indeed bring down the government. 2. A new minority government is formed. In effect it is a coalition between Labour, the SNP, Plaid and the remainer wing of the Tory party. It promises fresh elections once the National Emergency has passed. 3. Prime Minister (Corbyn? Clarke?) requests the rescinding of Article 50. "Its is clear that the deal agreed with the previous government does not have the support of Parliament. As you have made clear that this was the only deal on offer, the position of the interim government is to withdraw Article 50 4. The EU, mindful of the "pull A50 then put it in again later" risk mandate that the UK is welcome to stay if it becomes a full participant in the EU project - Schengen and the Euro.
Which would really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Leave and face economic calamity, or finish up even more in than you were when you were loudly objecting about it.
Under those circumstances we would Leave for sure. Indeed the EU would be really, really dumb to put things in those terms and I genuinely don't believe they are that stupid.
Indeed even a staunch EUphile French MEP on Sky News today said although the UK would be required to give up its rebate and pay negotiation costs for the Brexit talks the EU would not require the UK to join the Euro and Schengen as there is no prospect of the British people ever agreeing to EU membership on those terms.
Indeed if the Euro and Schengen were a requirement of EU membership with loss of control of our economy and our borders as a result even I would reluctantly prefer No Deal
It works both ways. If a No-Deal becomes a success, then Labour will be falling over themselves to claim the credit. Only fair they take their share of blame if it goes wrong.
I'm unclear about what Labour want. Is it to force the Government back to the negotiating table to find no one else there? Seems an odd policy, and guarantees a No-Deal Brexit.
I understand it's about political advantage, but surely this is as gormless as you can get?
Labour wants a Labour government. The form of Brexit, or indeed whether we Remain or Leave, is much less important.
Or, apparently, the wellbeing of the British working class.
In what way is advocating unfettered access to the Single Market and a permanent Customs Union detrimental to the working class?
Just have it in place of the FTA after the transition period of the Withdrawal Agreement ?
You think there will be an 'after'? We're heading for a Hotel California transition period.
Errm Yes - If Corbyn proposes "unfettered access to the Single Market and a permanent Customs Union" then why wouldn't the EU gladly say "Hurrah, Hurrah ! We're out of transition; the backstop is avoided, lets pop open the champers." ?
Obviously I'm oversimplifying here but fundamentally whats wrong with the argument I'm proposing here ?
Because Spain will veto because of Gibraltar, or France will veto because of fish, or Cyprus will veto because of military bases, or, or, or...
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
I doubt it, they will continue complaining. Apart from from the LDs, Ken Clarke, Ted Heath, Michael Heseltine, Roy Jenkins and Peter Mandelson few Britons have ever supported the UK joining the Euro
If we are going to be in the EU we should be fully in. Euro, Schengen, the full works.
If we do Remain then we should join up to all of the benefits of membership.
+1
I wonder if we will even be given the choice. Here's the scenario:
1. The "deal" gets demolished in the Commons. The DUP no confidence the PM which in the midst of the bitter acrimony of the Tory civil war which has finally broken out does indeed bring down the government. 2. A new minority government is formed. In effect it is a coalition between Labour, the SNP, Plaid and the remainer wing of the Tory party. It promises fresh elections once the National Emergency has passed. 3. Prime Minister (Corbyn? Clarke?) requests the rescinding of Article 50. "Its is clear that the deal agreed with the previous government does not have the support of Parliament. As you have made clear that this was the only deal on offer, the position of the interim government is to withdraw Article 50 4. The EU, mindful of the "pull A50 then put it in again later" risk mandate that the UK is welcome to stay if it becomes a full participant in the EU project - Schengen and the Euro.
Which would really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Leave and face economic calamity, or finish up even more in than you were when you were loudly objecting about it.
You do bang on in unfavourable terms an awful lot about something you voted for.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
I doubt it, they will continue complaining. Apart from from the LDs, Ken Clarke, Ted Heath, Michael Heseltine, Roy Jenkins and Peter Mandelson few Britons have ever supported the UK joining the Euro
If we are going to be in the EU we should be fully in. Euro, Schengen, the full works.
If we do Remain then we should join up to all of the benefits of membership.
+1
I wonder if we will even be given the choice. Here's the scenario:
1. The "deal" gets demolished in the Commons. The DUP no confidence the PM which in the midst of the bitter acrimony of the Tory civil war which has finally broken out does indeed bring down the government. 2. A new minority government is formed. In effect it is a coalition between Labour, the SNP, Plaid and the remainer wing of the Tory party. It promises fresh elections once the National Emergency has passed. 3. Prime Minister (Corbyn? Clarke?) requests the rescinding of Article 50. "Its is clear that the deal agreed with the previous government does not have the support of Parliament. As you have made clear that this was the only deal on offer, the position of the interim government is to withdraw Article 50 4. The EU, mindful of the "pull A50 then put it in again later" risk mandate that the UK is welcome to stay if it becomes a full participant in the EU project - Schengen and the Euro.
Which would really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Leave and face economic calamity, or finish up even more in than you were when you were loudly objecting about it.
Would be amusing if it led to 5 - Corbyn or whoever uses the Royal Prerogative to ram through the deal as the only viable option, which he would be perfectly entitled to do.
It would lead to his credibility collapsing but since Corbyn has all the credibility of Neville Chamberlain after Norway anyway that's hardly a problem.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
It is beginning to look as though there is a power struggle going on in the Kremlin. First the head of the Security Service is murdered, now they are heading for full war with Ukraine.
These are not the actions of a state under full control.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
I doubt it, they will continue complaining. Apart from from the LDs, Ken Clarke, Ted Heath, Michael Heseltine, Roy Jenkins and Peter Mandelson few Britons have ever supported the UK joining the Euro
If we are going to be in the EU we should be fully in. Euro, Schengen, the full works.
If we do Remain then we should join up to all of the benefits of membership.
+1
I wonder if we will even be given the choice. Here's the scenario:
1. The "deal" gets demolished in the Commons. The DUP no confidence the PM which in the midst of the bitter acrimony of the Tory civil war which has finally broken out does indeed bring down the government. 2. A new minority government is formed. In effect it is a coalition between Labour, the SNP, Plaid and the remainer wing of the Tory party. It promises fresh elections once the National Emergency has passed. 3. Prime Minister (Corbyn? Clarke?) requests the rescinding of Article 50. "Its is clear that the deal agreed with the previous government does not have the support of Parliament. As you have made clear that this was the only deal on offer, the position of the interim government is to withdraw Article 50 4. The EU, mindful of the "pull A50 then put it in again later" risk mandate that the UK is welcome to stay if it becomes a full participant in the EU project - Schengen and the Euro.
Which would really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Leave and face economic calamity, or finish up even more in than you were when you were loudly objecting about it.
Would be amusing if it led to 5 - Corbyn or whoever uses the Royal Prerogative to ram through the deal as the only viable option, which he would be perfectly entitled to do.
It would lead to his credibility collapsing but since Corbyn has all the credibility of Neville Chamberlain after Norway anyway that's hardly a problem.
Number 2 - the government of national unity - seems very unlikely.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
I doubt it, they will continue complaining. Apart from from the LDs, Ken Clarke, Ted Heath, Michael Heseltine, Roy Jenkins and Peter Mandelson few Britons have ever supported the UK joining the Euro
If we are going to be in the EU we should be fully in. Euro, Schengen, the full works.
If we do Remain then we should join up to all of the benefits of membership.
+1
I wonder if we will even be given the choice. Here's the scenario:
1. The "deal" gets demolished in the Commons. The DUP no confidence the PM which in the midst of the bitter acrimony of the Tory civil war which has finally broken out does indeed bring down the government. 2. A new minority government is formed. In effect it is a coalition between Labour, the SNP, Plaid and the remainer wing of the Tory party. It promises fresh elections once the National Emergency has passed. 3. Prime Minister (Corbyn? Clarke?) requests the rescinding of Article 50. "Its is clear that the deal agreed with the previous government does not have the support of Parliament. As you have made clear that this was the only deal on offer, the position of the interim government is to withdraw Article 50 4. The EU, mindful of the "pull A50 then put it in again later" risk mandate that the UK is welcome to stay if it becomes a full participant in the EU project - Schengen and the Euro.
Which would really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Leave and face economic calamity, or finish up even more in than you were when you were loudly objecting about it.
Would be amusing if it led to 5 - Corbyn or whoever uses the Royal Prerogative to ram through the deal as the only viable option, which he would be perfectly entitled to do.
It would lead to his credibility collapsing but since Corbyn has all the credibility of Neville Chamberlain after Norway anyway that's hardly a problem.
Number 2 - the government of national unity - seems very unlikely.
Indeed. Corbyn and Mogg have a vast amount in common - not just in their backgrounds but also politically - but neither would be willing to admit it by working together.
It works both ways. If a No-Deal becomes a success, then Labour will be falling over themselves to claim the credit. Only fair they take their share of blame if it goes wrong.
I'm unclear about what Labour want. Is it to force the Government back to the negotiating table to find no one else there? Seems an odd policy, and guarantees a No-Deal Brexit.
I understand it's about political advantage, but surely this is as gormless as you can get?
Labour wants a Labour government. The form of Brexit, or indeed whether we Remain or Leave, is much less important.
Or, apparently, the wellbeing of the British working class.
In what way is advocating unfettered access to the Single Market and a permanent Customs Union detrimental to the working class?
Just have it in place of the FTA after the transition period of the Withdrawal Agreement ?
You think there will be an 'after'? We're heading for a Hotel California transition period.
Errm Yes - If Corbyn proposes "unfettered access to the Single Market and a permanent Customs Union" then why wouldn't the EU gladly say "Hurrah, Hurrah ! We're out of transition; the backstop is avoided, lets pop open the champers." ?
Obviously I'm oversimplifying here but fundamentally whats wrong with the argument I'm proposing here ?
Because Spain will veto because of Gibraltar, or France will veto because of fish, or Cyprus will veto because of military bases, or, or, or...
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
That's not true at all. A lot of countries have worked hard to hold their currencies at an above market level.
You do bang on in unfavourable terms an awful lot about something you voted for.
I envisaged that we would exit to EFTA/EEA. Which was naive on my part. Until the last month or so when the door closed on this option I had still advocated EFTA/EEA. Without that the only leave options are really bad (the "Deal") or catastrophic (crash out).
With my envisaged scenario dead and the remaining leave options far worse than the status quo I have changed my mind. And according to the polls a lot of people have changed their minds. And should we edge too close to the cliff edge and the firery furnace of crashing out starts to burn off people's jobs and brings disruption, the noise you will hear will be stampede of people changing their minds.
People voted for more prosperity. Not less. More is not on offer. So we stay.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
It works both ways. If a No-Deal becomes a success, then Labour will be falling over themselves to claim the credit. Only fair they take their share of blame if it goes wrong.
I'm unclear about what Labour want. Is it to force the Government back to the negotiating table to find no one else there? Seems an odd policy, and guarantees a No-Deal Brexit.
I understand it's about political advantage, but surely this is as gormless as you can get?
Labour wants a Labour government. The form of Brexit, or indeed whether we Remain or Leave, is much less important.
Or, apparently, the wellbeing of the British working class.
In what way is advocating unfettered access to the Single Market and a permanent Customs Union detrimental to the working class?
Just have it in place of the FTA after the transition period of the Withdrawal Agreement ?
You think there will be an 'after'? We're heading for a Hotel California transition period.
Errm Yes - If Corbyn proposes "unfettered access to the Single Market and a permanent Customs Union" then why wouldn't the EU gladly say "Hurrah, Hurrah ! We're out of transition; the backstop is avoided, lets pop open the champers." ?
Obviously I'm oversimplifying here but fundamentally whats wrong with the argument I'm proposing here ?
Because Spain will veto because of Gibraltar, or France will veto because of fish, or Cyprus will veto because of military bases, or, or, or...
I just don't see a deal being agreed by all 27.
You forgot Greece and the Elgin Marbles....
These are more issues with err ANY FTA though.
All these issues mean that the Backstop will become permanent. Therefore we need to change the WA to get rid of the Backstop in its current form.
It is beginning to look as though there is a power struggle going on in the Kremlin. First the head of the Security Service is murdered, now they are heading for full war with Ukraine.
These are not the actions of a state under full control.
Nah. He's currently not as popular as he thinks he should be, so he's having another foreign adventure to try to bolster his popularity.
It wouldn't be the first time a much smaller and weaker foreign country attacked Russia at a time he's unpopular, allowing him to beat them and hence regain the support of his people. Very helpful, these smaller, weaker countries ....
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
That's not true at all. A lot of countries have worked hard to hold their currencies at an above market level.
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
I doubt it, they will continue complaining. Apart from from the LDs, Ken Clarke, Ted Heath, Michael Heseltine, Roy Jenkins and Peter Mandelson few Britons have ever supported the UK joining the Euro
If we are going to be in the EU we should be fully in. Euro, Schengen, the full works.
If we do Remain then we should join up to all of the benefits of membership.
+1
I wonder if we will even be given the choice. Here's the scenario:
1. The "deal" gets demolished in the Commons. The DUP no confidence the PM which in the midst of the bitter acrimony of the Tory civil war which has finally broken out does indeed bring down the government. 2. A new minority government is formed. In effect it is a coalition between Labour, the SNP, Plaid and the remainer wing of the Tory party. It promises fresh elections once the National Emergency has passed. 3. Prime Minister (Corbyn? Clarke?) requests the rescinding of Article 50. "Its is clear that the deal agreed with the previous government does not have the support of Parliament. As you have made clear that this was the only deal on offer, the position of the interim government is to withdraw Article 50 4. The EU, mindful of the "pull A50 then put it in again later" risk mandate that the UK is welcome to stay if it becomes a full participant in the EU project - Schengen and the Euro.
Which would really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Leave and face economic calamity, or finish up even more in than you were when you were loudly objecting about it.
Would be amusing if it led to 5 - Corbyn or whoever uses the Royal Prerogative to ram through the deal as the only viable option, which he would be perfectly entitled to do.
It would lead to his credibility collapsing but since Corbyn has all the credibility of Neville Chamberlain after Norway anyway that's hardly a problem.
Number 2 - the government of national unity - seems very unlikely.
Indeed. Corbyn and Mogg have a vast amount in common - not just in their backgrounds but also politically - but neither would be willing to admit it by working together.
I think you're misreading matters quite substantially if you think Corbyn and JRM have any common ground.
It is beginning to look as though there is a power struggle going on in the Kremlin. First the head of the Security Service is murdered, now they are heading for full war with Ukraine.
These are not the actions of a state under full control.
Nah. He's currently not as popular as he thinks he should be, so he's having another foreign adventure to try to bolster his popularity.
It wouldn't be the first time a much smaller and weaker foreign country attacked Russia at a time he's unpopular, allowing him to beat them and hence regain the support of his people. Very helpful, these smaller, weaker countries ....
Given the state of the Russian military it is by no means certain he would win a war against Ukraine (for all their military is hardly better) and he might easily lose Crimea in the meanwhile.
Number 2 - the government of national unity - seems very unlikely.
Indeed. Corbyn and Mogg have a vast amount in common - not just in their backgrounds but also politically - but neither would be willing to admit it by working together.
My point was not that a formal government of national unity would be formed. But that a minority government by definition relies on the co-operation of other parties. May's government falling would likely set off that Tory civil war that has been brewing, with both opposing armies at each other.
Which means that a Corbyn government would be reliant on the other parties AND the Tories. Labour, SNP, PC, LibDems all agree that No Deal must be avoided at all costs. As do a substantial number of Tory MPs. Knowing that a VONC against the Corbyn minority government triggers a general election whilst they are riven, surely Tory MPs would abstain. And as the sole purpose of a Corbyn government would initially be to avoid crash brexit I can envisage some Tories voting In The National Interest to back such a move.
It works both ways. If a No-Deal becomes a success, then Labour will be falling over themselves to claim the credit. Only fair they take their share of blame if it goes wrong.
I'm unclear about what Labour want. Is it to force the Government back to the negotiating table to find no one else there? Seems an odd policy, and guarantees a No-Deal Brexit.
I understand it's about political advantage, but surely this is as gormless as you can get?
Labour wants a Labour government. The form of Brexit, or indeed whether we Remain or Leave, is much less important.
Or, apparently, the wellbeing of the British working class.
In what way is advocating unfettered access to the Single Market and a permanent Customs Union detrimental to the working class?
Just have it in place of the FTA after the transition period of the Withdrawal Agreement ?
You think there will be an 'after'? We're heading for a Hotel California transition period.
Errm Yes - If Corbyn proposes "unfettered access to the Single Market and a permanent Customs Union" then why wouldn't the EU gladly say "Hurrah, Hurrah ! We're out of transition; the backstop is avoided, lets pop open the champers." ?
Obviously I'm oversimplifying here but fundamentally whats wrong with the argument I'm proposing here ?
Because Spain will veto because of Gibraltar, or France will veto because of fish, or Cyprus will veto because of military bases, or, or, or...
I just don't see a deal being agreed by all 27.
You forgot Greece and the Elgin Marbles....
These are more issues with err ANY FTA though.
But we haven't agreed to effectively cede a bit of the UK to South Korea until we've signed a FTA with them.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
Actually I agree with you on that. The floating-vs-fixed currency debate has been comprehensively won by the floaters, and numerous examples can be adduced to this.
I think you're misreading matters quite substantially if you think Corbyn and JRM have any common ground.
They don't like to admit it (and nor do their supporters) but ultimately they are both believers in the strength of the state above common people and the importance of an elite taking decisions because ordinary people are thick and ill-informed. Philosophically the key difference is that one believes in money and the other doesn't.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
You are confusing two things: 1. The strength of a currency reflects the strength of a country's economy. 2. Countries which try and maintain their currencies at artificially high levels ultimately weaken their economies.
It is a bit like driving a car. Ultimately to go fastest you need to be in 5th or 6th gear. But if you are struggling going up a hill, then if you change up to 5th or 6th you'll only stall the car.
You do bang on in unfavourable terms an awful lot about something you voted for.
I envisaged that we would exit to EFTA/EEA. Which was naive on my part. Until the last month or so when the door closed on this option I had still advocated EFTA/EEA. Without that the only leave options are really bad (the "Deal") or catastrophic (crash out).
With my envisaged scenario dead and the remaining leave options far worse than the status quo I have changed my mind. And according to the polls a lot of people have changed their minds. And should we edge too close to the cliff edge and the firery furnace of crashing out starts to burn off people's jobs and brings disruption, the noise you will hear will be stampede of people changing their minds.
People voted for more prosperity. Not less. More is not on offer. So we stay.
EEA/EFTA was never a possibility. Pre-vote. You didn’t do your research. Then again neither did the other 17.399999m people.
I think you're misreading matters quite substantially if you think Corbyn and JRM have any common ground.
They don't like to admit it (and nor do their supporters) but ultimately they are both believers in the strength of the state above common people and the importance of an elite taking decisions because ordinary people are thick and ill-informed. Philosophically the key difference is that one believes in money and the other doesn't.
Plus both of them take their whip from foreign powers.
JRM from the Harlot Catholic Church and Corbyn from the CCCP.
(Ok the latter is a joke before his lawyers contact Mike, I mean the CCCP doesn't exist any more)
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
You are confusing two things: 1. The strength of a currency reflects the strength of a country's economy. 2. Countries which try and maintain their currencies at artificially high levels ultimately weaken their economies.
It is a bit like driving a car. Ultimately to go fastest you need to be in 5th or 6th gear. But if you are struggling going up a hill, then if you change up to 5th or 6th you'll only stall the car.
It is beginning to look as though there is a power struggle going on in the Kremlin. First the head of the Security Service is murdered, now they are heading for full war with Ukraine.
These are not the actions of a state under full control.
Nah. He's currently not as popular as he thinks he should be, so he's having another foreign adventure to try to bolster his popularity.
It wouldn't be the first time a much smaller and weaker foreign country attacked Russia at a time he's unpopular, allowing him to beat them and hence regain the support of his people. Very helpful, these smaller, weaker countries ....
Given the state of the Russian military it is by no means certain he would win a war against Ukraine (for all their military is hardly better) and he might easily lose Crimea in the meanwhile.
Indeed: just look at the state of their one aircraft carrier (currently with added crane).
However Russia has one great advantage: Putin is willing to not play by civilised norms (as much as war can have civilised norms). As has been shown, he's willing to do anything to get what he wants.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
You are confusing two things: 1. The strength of a currency reflects the strength of a country's economy. 2. Countries which try and maintain their currencies at artificially high levels ultimately weaken their economies.
It is a bit like driving a car. Ultimately to go fastest you need to be in 5th or 6th gear. But if you are struggling going up a hill, then if you change up to 5th or 6th you'll only stall the car.
How does that work on an automatic?
Automatics are the pineapple on pizza of the car world.
You do bang on in unfavourable terms an awful lot about something you voted for.
I envisaged that we would exit to EFTA/EEA. Which was naive on my part. Until the last month or so when the door closed on this option I had still advocated EFTA/EEA. Without that the only leave options are really bad (the "Deal") or catastrophic (crash out).
With my envisaged scenario dead and the remaining leave options far worse than the status quo I have changed my mind. And according to the polls a lot of people have changed their minds. And should we edge too close to the cliff edge and the firery furnace of crashing out starts to burn off people's jobs and brings disruption, the noise you will hear will be stampede of people changing their minds.
People voted for more prosperity. Not less. More is not on offer. So we stay.
I understand with your logic. I voted leave because I see the EU medium to long term as being managed decline and not greater prosperity. We have to pay down our debt and have to grow our economy to do so, and cannot within the EU constraints. However the TM deal is so bad - and with Macron's comments today showing how it can be misused to constrain us into the backstop - that we have to think again. My concern is that remain isn't an option to remain and reform - our opportunity will be lost. What a mess. I don't think either side has negotiated fairly.
I think you're misreading matters quite substantially if you think Corbyn and JRM have any common ground.
They don't like to admit it (and nor do their supporters) but ultimately they are both believers in the strength of the state above common people and the importance of an elite taking decisions because ordinary people are thick and ill-informed. Philosophically the key difference is that one believes in money and the other doesn't.
I don't think that's true - Corbyn believes that the state knows best but I doubt very much that JRM does. Philosophically one has no doubt worried his bank manager since he opened an account, and the other hasn't.
I think you're misreading matters quite substantially if you think Corbyn and JRM have any common ground.
They don't like to admit it (and nor do their supporters) but ultimately they are both believers in the strength of the state above common people and the importance of an elite taking decisions because ordinary people are thick and ill-informed. Philosophically the key difference is that one believes in money and the other doesn't.
I don't think that's true - Corbyn believes that the state knows best but I doubt very much that JRM does. Philosophically one has no doubt worried his bank manager since he opened an account, and the other hasn't.
I don't think Rees-Mogg has worried his bank manager recently either.
It is beginning to look as though there is a power struggle going on in the Kremlin. First the head of the Security Service is murdered, now they are heading for full war with Ukraine.
These are not the actions of a state under full control.
Nah. He's currently not as popular as he thinks he should be, so he's having another foreign adventure to try to bolster his popularity.
It wouldn't be the first time a much smaller and weaker foreign country attacked Russia at a time he's unpopular, allowing him to beat them and hence regain the support of his people. Very helpful, these smaller, weaker countries ....
Given the state of the Russian military it is by no means certain he would win a war against Ukraine (for all their military is hardly better) and he might easily lose Crimea in the meanwhile.
Indeed: just look at the state of their one aircraft carrier (currently with added crane).
However Russia has one great advantage: Putin is willing to not play by civilised norms (as much as war can have civilised norms). As has been shown, he's willing to do anything to get what he wants.
Are you saying he is a man without Skripals?
OK, even by my standards that's awesomely tasteless.
I think you're misreading matters quite substantially if you think Corbyn and JRM have any common ground.
They don't like to admit it (and nor do their supporters) but ultimately they are both believers in the strength of the state above common people and the importance of an elite taking decisions because ordinary people are thick and ill-informed. Philosophically the key difference is that one believes in money and the other doesn't.
I don't think that's true - Corbyn believes that the state knows best but I doubt very much that JRM does. Philosophically one has no doubt worried his bank manager since he opened an account, and the other hasn't.
If you had to give £1m of your own money to Corbyn or Mogg to manage on your behalf, who would you choose? I guess that most would choose JRM. However if you asked the same question about managing your country, I guess it would be closer. Why? Most people would agree that countries are more than just money. However the foundation of good government is sound money management. So JRM probably wins over Corbyn if it's head over heart. My tuppence anyway. And I don't have and never will have £1m btw.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
You are confusing two things: 1. The strength of a currency reflects the strength of a country's economy. 2. Countries which try and maintain their currencies at artificially high levels ultimately weaken their economies.
It is a bit like driving a car. Ultimately to go fastest you need to be in 5th or 6th gear. But if you are struggling going up a hill, then if you change up to 5th or 6th you'll only stall the car.
How does that work on an automatic?
Automatics are the pineapple on pizza of the car world.
I suspect you haven't tried a car with a DSG or similar.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
You are confusing two things: 1. The strength of a currency reflects the strength of a country's economy. 2. Countries which try and maintain their currencies at artificially high levels ultimately weaken their economies.
It is a bit like driving a car. Ultimately to go fastest you need to be in 5th or 6th gear. But if you are struggling going up a hill, then if you change up to 5th or 6th you'll only stall the car.
How does that work on an automatic?
Automatics are the pineapple on pizza of the car world.
I suspect you haven't tried a car with a DSG or similar.
Automatics are the pineapple on pizza of the car world.
Some of us are sadly forced to drive automatics.
I have a manual licence, and my first two cars were manual, but my dodgy left ankle means that it's easier to drive an automatic, as if my ankle huts (thankfully rare nowadays) it means it hurts to press the clutch, and at worst I can't drive. There's no such problem with autos.
The main downside to having automatics is not having a great second-hand choice.
Automatics are the pineapple on pizza of the car world.
I've pretty much driven automatics since 2004.
And you eat pineapple pizza on a regular basis (admittedly because you keep making unwise bets about England losing at cricket).
That's me taking one for the team.
With front & rear cameras & sensors I'm not sure I could pass my driving test in a working man's car.
I remember when I picked up my Mercedes ML in 2006, that people carrier* didn't have a handbrake or gearstick**.
My scariest driving experience is driving in a foreign country where they drive on the wrong side of the road.
**It was the Mercedes foot operated handbrake, which is where the clutch is normally for manual cars, and where in automatics you rest your left foot. The paddle shift gearstick was fun, is where I expected the indicators to be.
*I called it a people carrier, everyone else called it a 4x4 or a one man global warming machine.
It is beginning to look as though there is a power struggle going on in the Kremlin. First the head of the Security Service is murdered, now they are heading for full war with Ukraine.
These are not the actions of a state under full control.
Nah. He's currently not as popular as he thinks he should be, so he's having another foreign adventure to try to bolster his popularity.
It wouldn't be the first time a much smaller and weaker foreign country attacked Russia at a time he's unpopular, allowing him to beat them and hence regain the support of his people. Very helpful, these smaller, weaker countries ....
Given the state of the Russian military it is by no means certain he would win a war against Ukraine (for all their military is hardly better) and he might easily lose Crimea in the meanwhile.
Indeed: just look at the state of their one aircraft carrier (currently with added crane).
However Russia has one great advantage: Putin is willing to not play by civilised norms (as much as war can have civilised norms). As has been shown, he's willing to do anything to get what he wants.
Are you saying he is a man without Skripals?
OK, even by my standards that's awesomely tasteless.
That was awesomely tasteless.
Mrs J told me one earlier:
Why does every ship in the Norwegian Navy have barcodes painted on them?
I think you're misreading matters quite substantially if you think Corbyn and JRM have any common ground.
They don't like to admit it (and nor do their supporters) but ultimately they are both believers in the strength of the state above common people and the importance of an elite taking decisions because ordinary people are thick and ill-informed. Philosophically the key difference is that one believes in money and the other doesn't.
I don't think that's true - Corbyn believes that the state knows best but I doubt very much that JRM does. Philosophically one has no doubt worried his bank manager since he opened an account, and the other hasn't.
If you had to give £1m of your own money to Corbyn or Mogg to manage on your behalf, who would you choose? I guess that most would choose JRM. However if you asked the same question about managing your country, I guess it would be closer. Why? Most people would agree that countries are more than just money. However the foundation of good government is sound money management. So JRM probably wins over Corbyn if it's head over heart. My tuppence anyway. And I don't have and never will have £1m btw.
I'd choose MacDonell over any prominent Tory. Good point on Corbyn though.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
You are confusing two things: 1. The strength of a currency reflects the strength of a country's economy. 2. Countries which try and maintain their currencies at artificially high levels ultimately weaken their economies.
It is a bit like driving a car. Ultimately to go fastest you need to be in 5th or 6th gear. But if you are struggling going up a hill, then if you change up to 5th or 6th you'll only stall the car.
How does that work on an automatic?
Automatics are the pineapple on pizza of the car world.
I suspect you haven't tried a car with a DSG or similar.
It is beginning to look as though there is a power struggle going on in the Kremlin. First the head of the Security Service is murdered, now they are heading for full war with Ukraine.
These are not the actions of a state under full control.
Nah. He's currently not as popular as he thinks he should be, so he's having another foreign adventure to try to bolster his popularity.
It wouldn't be the first time a much smaller and weaker foreign country attacked Russia at a time he's unpopular, allowing him to beat them and hence regain the support of his people. Very helpful, these smaller, weaker countries ....
Given the state of the Russian military it is by no means certain he would win a war against Ukraine (for all their military is hardly better) and he might easily lose Crimea in the meanwhile.
Indeed: just look at the state of their one aircraft carrier (currently with added crane).
However Russia has one great advantage: Putin is willing to not play by civilised norms (as much as war can have civilised norms). As has been shown, he's willing to do anything to get what he wants.
Are you saying he is a man without Skripals?
OK, even by my standards that's awesomely tasteless.
That was awesomely tasteless.
Mrs J told me one earlier:
Why does every ship in the Norwegian Navy have barcodes painted on them?
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
You are confusing two things: 1. The strength of a currency reflects the strength of a country's economy. 2. Countries which try and maintain their currencies at artificially high levels ultimately weaken their economies.
It is a bit like driving a car. Ultimately to go fastest you need to be in 5th or 6th gear. But if you are struggling going up a hill, then if you change up to 5th or 6th you'll only stall the car.
How does that work on an automatic?
Automatics are the pineapple on pizza of the car world.
I suspect you haven't tried a car with a DSG or similar.
The DSG on our Skoda Superb is excellent. We love our Skoda - I know many would look down on it, but the price/performance point is almost impossible to beat. We also got 25% off list through a car broker. Epic.
Automatics are the pineapple on pizza of the car world.
Some of us are sadly forced to drive automatics.
I have a manual licence, and my first two cars were manual, but my dodgy left ankle means that it's easier to drive an automatic, as if my ankle huts (thankfully rare nowadays) it means it hurts to press the clutch, and at worst I can't drive. There's no such problem with autos.
The main downside to having automatics is not having a great second-hand choice.
As a parapelgic, I learnt to drive on an automatic with hand controls many years ago. Consequently, I only have an automatic licence (how long will that distinction last I wonder?).
In my early days (the 80s) automatics were awful - slow, slushy and uneconomical.
Today's modern automatics are both quicker and more economical than manual cars... and you can always drive them manually if you prefer (no one ever does though!).
I think you're misreading matters quite substantially if you think Corbyn and JRM have any common ground.
They don't like to admit it (and nor do their supporters) but ultimately they are both believers in the strength of the state above common people and the importance of an elite taking decisions because ordinary people are thick and ill-informed. Philosophically the key difference is that one believes in money and the other doesn't.
Plus both of them take their whip from foreign powers.
JRM from the Harlot Catholic Church and Corbyn from the CCCP.
(Ok the latter is a joke before his lawyers contact Mike, I mean the CCCP doesn't exist any more)
It is beginning to look as though there is a power struggle going on in the Kremlin. First the head of the Security Service is murdered, now they are heading for full war with Ukraine.
These are not the actions of a state under full control.
Nah. He's currently not as popular as he thinks he should be, so he's having another foreign adventure to try to bolster his popularity.
It wouldn't be the first time a much smaller and weaker foreign country attacked Russia at a time he's unpopular, allowing him to beat them and hence regain the support of his people. Very helpful, these smaller, weaker countries ....
Given the state of the Russian military it is by no means certain he would win a war against Ukraine (for all their military is hardly better) and he might easily lose Crimea in the meanwhile.
Indeed: just look at the state of their one aircraft carrier (currently with added crane).
However Russia has one great advantage: Putin is willing to not play by civilised norms (as much as war can have civilised norms). As has been shown, he's willing to do anything to get what he wants.
Are you saying he is a man without Skripals?
OK, even by my standards that's awesomely tasteless.
That was awesomely tasteless.
Mrs J told me one earlier:
Why does every ship in the Norwegian Navy have barcodes painted on them?
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
You are confusing two things: 1. The strength of a currency reflects the strength of a country's economy. 2. Countries which try and maintain their currencies at artificially high levels ultimately weaken their economies.
It is a bit like driving a car. Ultimately to go fastest you need to be in 5th or 6th gear. But if you are struggling going up a hill, then if you change up to 5th or 6th you'll only stall the car.
How does that work on an automatic?
Automatics are the pineapple on pizza of the car world.
I suspect you haven't tried a car with a DSG or similar.
The DSG on our Skoda Superb is excellent. We love our Skoda - I know many would look down on it, but the price/performance point is almost impossible to beat. We also got 25% off list through a car broker. Epic.
We had a Superb until last year... and it was.
(Mind you, the Passat we've replaced it with is lovely too!)
Automatics are the pineapple on pizza of the car world.
Some of us are sadly forced to drive automatics.
I have a manual licence, and my first two cars were manual, but my dodgy left ankle means that it's easier to drive an automatic, as if my ankle huts (thankfully rare nowadays) it means it hurts to press the clutch, and at worst I can't drive. There's no such problem with autos.
The main downside to having automatics is not having a great second-hand choice.
As a parapelgic, I learnt to drive on an automatic with hand controls many years ago. Consequently, I only have an automatic licence (how long will that distinction last I wonder?).
In my early days (the 80s) automatics were awful - slow, slushy and uneconomical.
Today's modern automatics are both quicker and more economical than manual cars... and you can always drive them manually if you prefer (no one ever does though!).
It's certainly not more economical than the manual cars I drive. Although my sister, who also has mobility problems, finds them useful, I really don't like them. Apart from anything else I get agonising cramp in my legs from them.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
We don't know what would have happened. If Britain had signed up it would have been a different Euro.
It is beginning to look as though there is a power struggle going on in the Kremlin. First the head of the Security Service is murdered, now they are heading for full war with Ukraine.
These are not the actions of a state under full control.
Nah. He's currently not as popular as he thinks he should be, so he's having another foreign adventure to try to bolster his popularity.
It wouldn't be the first time a much smaller and weaker foreign country attacked Russia at a time he's unpopular, allowing him to beat them and hence regain the support of his people. Very helpful, these smaller, weaker countries ....
Given the state of the Russian military it is by no means certain he would win a war against Ukraine (for all their military is hardly better) and he might easily lose Crimea in the meanwhile.
Indeed: just look at the state of their one aircraft carrier (currently with added crane).
However Russia has one great advantage: Putin is willing to not play by civilised norms (as much as war can have civilised norms). As has been shown, he's willing to do anything to get what he wants.
Are you saying he is a man without Skripals?
OK, even by my standards that's awesomely tasteless.
If you want tasteless then... George Michael should have got the 2017 Christmas No. 1 with Last Christmas I Gave You My Heart. And my liver, kidneys, corneas...
I think you're misreading matters quite substantially if you think Corbyn and JRM have any common ground.
They don't like to admit it (and nor do their supporters) but ultimately they are both believers in the strength of the state above common people and the importance of an elite taking decisions because ordinary people are thick and ill-informed. Philosophically the key difference is that one believes in money and the other doesn't.
I don't think that's true - Corbyn believes that the state knows best but I doubt very much that JRM does. Philosophically one has no doubt worried his bank manager since he opened an account, and the other hasn't.
If you had to give £1m of your own money to Corbyn or Mogg to manage on your behalf, who would you choose? I guess that most would choose JRM. However if you asked the same question about managing your country, I guess it would be closer. Why? Most people would agree that countries are more than just money. However the foundation of good government is sound money management. So JRM probably wins over Corbyn if it's head over heart. My tuppence anyway. And I don't have and never will have £1m btw.
I'd choose MacDonell over any prominent Tory. Good point on Corbyn though.
Well then you clearly (as you said) don't have £1m. McDonnell will steal your million and give you a smile from Diane Abbot in return. Corbyn is an aspirational failure - he thinks somehow things went wrong, McDonnell is a knowing failure - he wants to control for the sake of it.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
We don't know what would have happened. If Britain had signed up it would have been a different Euro.
For a start, it would have been a very short lived Euro, ending abruptly in 2008.
You do bang on in unfavourable terms an awful lot about something you voted for.
I envisaged that we would exit to EFTA/EEA. Which was naive on my part. Until the last month or so when the door closed on this option I had still advocated EFTA/EEA. Without that the only leave options are really bad (the "Deal") or catastrophic (crash out).
With my envisaged scenario dead and the remaining leave options far worse than the status quo I have changed my mind. And according to the polls a lot of people have changed their minds. And should we edge too close to the cliff edge and the firery furnace of crashing out starts to burn off people's jobs and brings disruption, the noise you will hear will be stampede of people changing their minds.
People voted for more prosperity. Not less. More is not on offer. So we stay.
I understand with your logic. I voted leave because I see the EU medium to long term as being managed decline and not greater prosperity. We have to pay down our debt and have to grow our economy to do so, and cannot within the EU constraints. However the TM deal is so bad - and with Macron's comments today showing how it can be misused to constrain us into the backstop - that we have to think again. My concern is that remain isn't an option to remain and reform - our opportunity will be lost. What a mess. I don't think either side has negotiated fairly.
The biggest mistake that Leavers have made was to focus on the customs union and not breaking free from the EU political system. They upset business needlessly with no clear perceived gain. I too envisaged a EFTA/EEA solution as the best route forward and looking back it probably was.
I cant see TM getting enough support to pass her plan and like most people here I just don't see the country being able to bring enough enthusiasm from key workers to execute a hard Brexit. Thus we are left with no Brexit.
e,g, One big loser from a hard Brexit would be lorry drivers who would waste hours in new queues even in the best scenario. As our last fuel strike showed they can close down the country in less than a week. The yellow jackets in France are a sign of key workers flexing their muscles against weakened governments. We should not think this is just the French being French.
You do bang on in unfavourable terms an awful lot about something you voted for.
I envisaged that we would exit to EFTA/EEA. Which was naive on my part. Until the last month or so when the door closed on this option I had still advocated EFTA/EEA. Without that the only leave options are really bad (the "Deal") or catastrophic (crash out).
With my envisaged scenario dead and the remaining leave options far worse than the status quo I have changed my mind. And according to the polls a lot of people have changed their minds. And should we edge too close to the cliff edge and the firery furnace of crashing out starts to burn off people's jobs and brings disruption, the noise you will hear will be stampede of people changing their minds.
People voted for more prosperity. Not less. More is not on offer. So we stay.
I understand with your logic. I voted leave because I see the EU medium to long term as being managed decline and not greater prosperity. We have to pay down our debt and have to grow our economy to do so, and cannot within the EU constraints. However the TM deal is so bad - and with Macron's comments today showing how it can be misused to constrain us into the backstop - that we have to think again. My concern is that remain isn't an option to remain and reform - our opportunity will be lost. What a mess. I don't think either side has negotiated fairly.
The biggest mistake that Leavers have made was to focus on the customs union and not breaking free from the EU political system. They upset business needlessly with no clear perceived gain. I too envisaged a EFTA/EEA solution as the best route forward and looking back it probably was.
Just about the only thing that distinguishes EFTA/EEA from being in the EU (apart from having no say) is not being in the customs union, so that criticism is illogical. If you start from the point of view that EFTA/EEA is desirable, the customs union is exactly what you'd base the arguments on.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
We'd have had too low interest rates, resulting in an even more extreme house price boom, and an even nastier bust.
We were incredibly lucky to avoid that calamity, as it wasn't by design. We would almost certainly have had a economic depression in the UK as a result.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
The problem isn’t the EU but the domestic political viability of continuing with Brexit. May’s genius has been to blur the lines between hard Brexit as mandated by the referendum and Brexit in name only. Once you make it explicit that Brexit will be in name only, the only possible justification for continuing with it evaporates. It makes a people’s vote much more likely than a Norway stitch up.
We'd have had too low interest rates, resulting in an even more extreme house price boom, and an even nastier bust.
We were incredibly lucky to avoid that calamity, as it wasn't by design. We would almost certainly have had an even worse economic depression in the UK as a result.
We'd have had too low interest rates, resulting in an even more extreme house price boom, and an even nastier bust.
We were incredibly lucky to avoid that calamity, as it wasn't by design. We would almost certainly have had an even worse economic depression in the UK as a result.
Fixed it for you...
By common definitions we didn't have an economic depression, we had a bad recession. Euro membership would almost certainly have enabled us to get into a more precarious position before the crash.
We'd have had too low interest rates, resulting in an even more extreme house price boom, and an even nastier bust.
We were incredibly lucky to avoid that calamity, as it wasn't by design. We would almost certainly have had an even worse economic depression in the UK as a result.
Fixed it for you...
By common definitions we didn't have an economic depression, we had a bad recession. Euro membership would almost certainly have enabled us to get into a more precarious position before the crash.
I prefer the Reagan definition:
'A recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours.'
You do bang on in unfavourable terms an awful lot about something you voted for.
I envisaged that we would exit to EFTA/EEA. Which was naive on my part. Until the last month or so when the door closed on this option I had still advocated EFTA/EEA. Without that the only leave options are really bad (the "Deal") or catastrophic (crash out).
With my envisaged scenario dead and the remaining leave options far worse than the status quo I have changed my mind. And according to the polls a lot of people have changed their minds. And should we edge too close to the cliff edge and the firery furnace of crashing out starts to burn off people's jobs and brings disruption, the noise you will hear will be stampede of people changing their minds.
People voted for more prosperity. Not less. More is not on offer. So we stay.
I understand with your logic. I voted leave because I see the EU medium to long term as being managed decline and not greater prosperity. We have to pay down our debt and have to grow our economy to do so, and cannot within the EU constraints. However the TM deal is so bad - and with Macron's comments today showing how it can be misused to constrain us into the backstop - that we have to think again. My concern is that remain isn't an option to remain and reform - our opportunity will be lost. What a mess. I don't think either side has negotiated fairly.
The biggest mistake that Leavers have made was to focus on the customs union and not breaking free from the EU political system. They upset business needlessly with no clear perceived gain. I too envisaged a EFTA/EEA solution as the best route forward and looking back it probably was.
Just about the only thing that distinguishes EFTA/EEA from being in the EU (apart from having no say) is not being in the customs union, so that criticism is illogical. If you start from the point of view that EFTA/EEA is desirable, the customs union is exactly what you'd base the arguments on.
Apart from if a country is in the EEA/EFTA then it also is not in the CFP, CAP and EU VAT regime.
It is beginning to look as though there is a power struggle going on in the Kremlin. First the head of the Security Service is murdered, now they are heading for full war with Ukraine.
These are not the actions of a state under full control.
Nah. He's currently not as popular as he thinks he should be, so he's having another foreign adventure to try to bolster his popularity.
It wouldn't be the first time a much smaller and weaker foreign country attacked Russia at a time he's unpopular, allowing him to beat them and hence regain the support of his people. Very helpful, these smaller, weaker countries ....
Given the state of the Russian military it is by no means certain he would win a war against Ukraine (for all their military is hardly better) and he might easily lose Crimea in the meanwhile.
Indeed: just look at the state of their one aircraft carrier (currently with added crane).
However Russia has one great advantage: Putin is willing to not play by civilised norms (as much as war can have civilised norms). As has been shown, he's willing to do anything to get what he wants.
Are you saying he is a man without Skripals?
OK, even by my standards that's awesomely tasteless.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
The problem isn’t the EU but the domestic political viability of continuing with Brexit. May’s genius has been to blur the lines between hard Brexit as mandated by the referendum and Brexit in name only. Once you make it explicit that Brexit will be in name only, the only possible justification for continuing with it evaporates. It makes a people’s vote much more likely than a Norway stitch up.
Where do you get the idea that hard brexit was mandated by the referendum? That's been the whole problem - Leave did no define what Brexit was apart from providing extra cash for the NHS.
'A recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours.'
By those standards I had a depression...
It's a good quote, but it's not useful for comparing economic trends. Of course in reality there is no hard line between a recession and depression, it is a continuum.
One thing is sure though we would have had a hell of lot more trouble trying to support UK banks and keep the economy working if we had been able to borrow the way the PIGS did.
Let’s not forget - without Gina Miller there would be no opportunity for Parliament to reject May’s steaming pile of ordure.
Yet another of the guilty (wo)men that'll history won't look kindly upon when we crash out. There's a reason this sort of power normally rests with the government.
Parliamentary sovereignty except when it disagrees with the executive = fascism.
Yet another person who doesn’t know what “parliamentary sovereignty” means
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
The problem isn’t the EU but the domestic political viability of continuing with Brexit. May’s genius has been to blur the lines between hard Brexit as mandated by the referendum and Brexit in name only. Once you make it explicit that Brexit will be in name only, the only possible justification for continuing with it evaporates. It makes a people’s vote much more likely than a Norway stitch up.
Where do you get the idea that hard brexit was mandated by the referendum? That's been the whole problem - Leave did no define what Brexit was apart from providing extra cash for the NHS.
Where do you get the idea you can block Brexit by arguing that it wasn't mandated by the Referendum?
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
The problem isn’t the EU but the domestic political viability of continuing with Brexit. May’s genius has been to blur the lines between hard Brexit as mandated by the referendum and Brexit in name only. Once you make it explicit that Brexit will be in name only, the only possible justification for continuing with it evaporates. It makes a people’s vote much more likely than a Norway stitch up.
Exactly. That's the charm of it from Labour's point of view. They would have a proposal that at least half of Conservative MPs could live with if it weren't a Labour scheme, and is in any case vastly better than anything May is proposing. Meanwhile the rest of the Conservatives would hate it but it does enable Brexit. For the unengaged it's Labour taking the initiative with a proposal that respects the vote but is relatively chaos free after three years of upheaval to no achievement from the Tories.
It would be Napoleon at Austerlitz. I suspect the plan isn't Corbyn's.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
Labour don't want SM though do they? You think they will pivot even though it will rule out state aid?
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
The problem isn’t the EU but the domestic political viability of continuing with Brexit. May’s genius has been to blur the lines between hard Brexit as mandated by the referendum and Brexit in name only. Once you make it explicit that Brexit will be in name only, the only possible justification for continuing with it evaporates. It makes a people’s vote much more likely than a Norway stitch up.
Where do you get the idea that hard brexit was mandated by the referendum? That's been the whole problem - Leave did no define what Brexit was apart from providing extra cash for the NHS.
The campaign was undeniably focussed on ending free movement and wouldn't have won without it. Even the NHS angle was often just a way to talk about immigration.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
The problem isn’t the EU but the domestic political viability of continuing with Brexit. May’s genius has been to blur the lines between hard Brexit as mandated by the referendum and Brexit in name only. Once you make it explicit that Brexit will be in name only, the only possible justification for continuing with it evaporates. It makes a people’s vote much more likely than a Norway stitch up.
Peak confirmation bias.
Its not Brexit in name only.
Oh, and the domestic viability of not continuing with Brexit goes as follows:
Up to 52% of voters justifiably angered that their wishes, which were in the majority, were not followed. Lets call this democratic failure.
Up to 85% of the Tory party base, around 50% of the MPs, and majority % of councillors and party members furious. Lets call this party failure.
You simply will never understand what others see in leaving the EU, it seems. You might want to think about that blind spot of the country and the Tory party before suggesting that Brexit shouldn't happen.
You might also want to think of the consequences of your smoke-filled-rooms based schemes: democratic failure leads to discontent, rejection of authority and risks civil disobedience and conflict.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
The problem isn’t the EU but the domestic political viability of continuing with Brexit. May’s genius has been to blur the lines between hard Brexit as mandated by the referendum and Brexit in name only. Once you make it explicit that Brexit will be in name only, the only possible justification for continuing with it evaporates. It makes a people’s vote much more likely than a Norway stitch up.
Where do you get the idea that hard brexit was mandated by the referendum? That's been the whole problem - Leave did no define what Brexit was apart from providing extra cash for the NHS.
Where do you get the idea you can block Brexit by arguing that it wasn't mandated by the Referendum?
Simple logic - it is a worse deal than the one we have now! Maybe you are one of these people who buys things from the most expensive shop rather than going for the best deal?
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
Labour don't want SM though do they? You think they will pivot even though it will rule out state aid?
Corbyn has said today he does want SM.
Edit I am not necessarily endorsing this, but I think this might be Labour's plan and I can see cleverness in it. It's quite likely to split the Conservatives.
Random off-topic question but why are Sky so obsessed with independent commissions to run general election debates?
I mean it's not necessarily a terrible idea in itself (but not exactly world-changing either) but the amount of time they spend trying to promote this thing for the amount of times it would happen over a standard FTPA parliament seems...disproportionate. What's the agenda/angle?
Let’s not forget - without Gina Miller there would be no opportunity for Parliament to reject May’s steaming pile of ordure.
Yet another of the guilty (wo)men that'll history won't look kindly upon when we crash out. There's a reason this sort of power normally rests with the government.
Parliamentary sovereignty except when it disagrees with the executive = fascism.
Yet another person who doesn’t know what “parliamentary sovereignty” means
The correlation between annoyed Remainers and those who don't understand the term is remarkably consistent...
This makes a lot of sense to me. If Labour doesn't go for the People's Vote route, it ties any vote for the Withdrawal Agreement to the government formally committing to negotiating the end state on Labour's terms. ie Single Market + Customs Union. The government would then have to argue why that was a bad thing. It would be clever politicking, give momentum to Labour and at the same time Labour can claim to be acting in the national interest if the Conservatives don't bite.
As usual May has seen them coming. The current political declaration defines respecting the 2016 referendum as having an independent trade policy and ending free movement. It's very hard to see how that could be rewritten for a Norway-based Brexit without looking like a political stitch up.
The EU doesn't care about any of that, which is all that matters. Those were included as sops to Brexiteers. Labour would win whether Theresa May went along with it or not, which is why I think it might do it. If Labour pitch in for SM+CU and only those, that really would be the only deal on offer.
The problem isn’t the EU but the domestic political viability of continuing with Brexit. May’s genius has been to blur the lines between hard Brexit as mandated by the referendum and Brexit in name only. Once you make it explicit that Brexit will be in name only, the only possible justification for continuing with it evaporates. It makes a people’s vote much more likely than a Norway stitch up.
Where do you get the idea that hard brexit was mandated by the referendum? That's been the whole problem - Leave did no define what Brexit was apart from providing extra cash for the NHS.
The campaign was undeniably focussed on ending free movement and wouldn't have won without it. Even the NHS angle was often just a way to talk about immigration.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
You would suspect wrongly, I've driven several such, and I don't like them. Lumpier than an automatic and less economical than a manual.
You clearly haven’t driven a modern well engineered automatic from, say, the German fleet. Far superior to manuals these days. Manual gearboxs are an anachronism - more dangerous, less efficient (under typical driving) and far less comfortable than contemporary automatic transmission.
Even if we rejoin the EU we will likely remain semi-detached members like Poland, Sweden and Denmark, not full members of the EU project and Eurozone like France, Germany and the Benelux nations
If Brexit is reversed, the Brexiteers will need a sense of national mission. Don't be surprised if they end up being the keenest on joining the Euro.
The £ in my pocket would be worth 25% more if we'd joined in 1999.
And exports would cost 25% more so fewer people would have a job, let alone a £ in their pocket. Ask the Greeks.
...and imports would cost 25%[1] percent less, meaning more people would get jobs working with importing raw materials. Which given there are quite a few things we can't make internally, is quite a lot
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
Agreed, I was oversimplifying but nonetheless it is broadly true. That is why countries that manipulate their currencies do so in a downwards direction. What should annoy you is the greater number of people who see a high exchange rate as a virility symbol.
If devaluation is a good thing, the UK should be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe (GDP/cap.). The £ has gone down 70% against the US$ since WW2.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
You would suspect wrongly, I've driven several such, and I don't like them. Lumpier than an automatic and less economical than a manual.
You clearly haven’t driven a modern well engineered automatic from, say, the German fleet. Far superior to manuals these days. Manual gearboxs are an anachronism - more dangerous, less efficient (under typical driving) and far less comfortable than contemporary automatic transmission.
Let’s not forget - without Gina Miller there would be no opportunity for Parliament to reject May’s steaming pile of ordure.
Yet another of the guilty (wo)men that'll history won't look kindly upon when we crash out. There's a reason this sort of power normally rests with the government.
Parliamentary sovereignty except when it disagrees with the executive = fascism.
Yet another person who doesn’t know what “parliamentary sovereignty” means
The correlation between annoyed Remainers and those who don't understand the term is remarkably consistent...
Instead of behaving like a smug patronising twerp perhaps you might regale the thickos with your understanding of it?
Comments
We'd have had too low interest rates, resulting in an even more extreme house price boom, and an even nastier bust.
Do the people at the fun run get a vote on the deal?
1. The "deal" gets demolished in the Commons. The DUP no confidence the PM which in the midst of the bitter acrimony of the Tory civil war which has finally broken out does indeed bring down the government.
2. A new minority government is formed. In effect it is a coalition between Labour, the SNP, Plaid and the remainer wing of the Tory party. It promises fresh elections once the National Emergency has passed.
3. Prime Minister (Corbyn? Clarke?) requests the rescinding of Article 50. "Its is clear that the deal agreed with the previous government does not have the support of Parliament. As you have made clear that this was the only deal on offer, the position of the interim government is to withdraw Article 50
4. The EU, mindful of the "pull A50 then put it in again later" risk mandate that the UK is welcome to stay if it becomes a full participant in the EU project - Schengen and the Euro.
Which would really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Leave and face economic calamity, or finish up even more in than you were when you were loudly objecting about it.
(sorry to be a pain, it's just a constant annoyance to me that people think that devaluing a currency is automatically good: it's not that simple.)
[1] oh alright, (1-(1/1.25))% =20% less...
BTW I agree that they absolutely should not up the ante in that way. But you can see how it could happen.
Indeed if the Euro and Schengen were a requirement of EU membership with loss of control of our economy and our borders as a result even I would reluctantly prefer No Deal
https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/1066769280157577216?s=21
It would lead to his credibility collapsing but since Corbyn has all the credibility of Neville Chamberlain after Norway anyway that's hardly a problem.
These are not the actions of a state under full control.
With my envisaged scenario dead and the remaining leave options far worse than the status quo I have changed my mind. And according to the polls a lot of people have changed their minds. And should we edge too close to the cliff edge and the firery furnace of crashing out starts to burn off people's jobs and brings disruption, the noise you will hear will be stampede of people changing their minds.
People voted for more prosperity. Not less. More is not on offer. So we stay.
But I'd expect Switzerland with its ultra-strong currency to be poverty-stricken. Apparently not so
http://www.sccij.jp/news/overview/detail/article/2013/05/06/switzerland-manufacturing-bigger-than-banking/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/04/putin-slumps-lowest-poll-rating-since-2013-controversial-increase/
It wouldn't be the first time a much smaller and weaker foreign country attacked Russia at a time he's unpopular, allowing him to beat them and hence regain the support of his people. Very helpful, these smaller, weaker countries ....
https://twitter.com/ritholtzwealth/status/1066662900557889537?s=21
Which means that a Corbyn government would be reliant on the other parties AND the Tories. Labour, SNP, PC, LibDems all agree that No Deal must be avoided at all costs. As do a substantial number of Tory MPs. Knowing that a VONC against the Corbyn minority government triggers a general election whilst they are riven, surely Tory MPs would abstain. And as the sole purpose of a Corbyn government would initially be to avoid crash brexit I can envisage some Tories voting In The National Interest to back such a move.
See the problem yet?
1. The strength of a currency reflects the strength of a country's economy.
2. Countries which try and maintain their currencies at artificially high levels ultimately weaken their economies.
It is a bit like driving a car. Ultimately to go fastest you need to be in 5th or 6th gear. But if you are struggling going up a hill, then if you change up to 5th or 6th you'll only stall the car.
JRM from the Harlot Catholic Church and Corbyn from the CCCP.
(Ok the latter is a joke before his lawyers contact Mike, I mean the CCCP doesn't exist any more)
However Russia has one great advantage: Putin is willing to not play by civilised norms (as much as war can have civilised norms). As has been shown, he's willing to do anything to get what he wants.
OK, even by my standards that's awesomely tasteless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-shift_gearbox
I have a manual licence, and my first two cars were manual, but my dodgy left ankle means that it's easier to drive an automatic, as if my ankle huts (thankfully rare nowadays) it means it hurts to press the clutch, and at worst I can't drive. There's no such problem with autos.
The main downside to having automatics is not having a great second-hand choice.
With front & rear cameras & sensors I'm not sure I could pass my driving test in a working man's car.
I remember when I picked up my Mercedes ML in 2006, that people carrier* didn't have a handbrake or gearstick**.
My scariest driving experience is driving in a foreign country where they drive on the wrong side of the road.
**It was the Mercedes foot operated handbrake, which is where the clutch is normally for manual cars, and where in automatics you rest your left foot. The paddle shift gearstick was fun, is where I expected the indicators to be.
*I called it a people carrier, everyone else called it a 4x4 or a one man global warming machine.
Mrs J told me one earlier:
Why does every ship in the Norwegian Navy have barcodes painted on them?
So they can scan de navy in.
https://twitter.com/tomashirstecon/status/1066697815190056960
In my early days (the 80s) automatics were awful - slow, slushy and uneconomical.
Today's modern automatics are both quicker and more economical than manual cars... and you can always drive them manually if you prefer (no one ever does though!).
(Mind you, the Passat we've replaced it with is lovely too!)
Sorry about that. I blame my son.
I cant see TM getting enough support to pass her plan and like most people here I just don't see the country being able to bring enough enthusiasm from key workers to execute a hard Brexit. Thus we are left with no Brexit.
e,g, One big loser from a hard Brexit would be lorry drivers who would waste hours in new queues even in the best scenario. As our last fuel strike showed they can close down the country in less than a week. The yellow jackets in France are a sign of key workers flexing their muscles against weakened governments. We should not think this is just the French being French.
'A recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours.'
By those standards I had a depression...
One thing is sure though we would have had a hell of lot more trouble trying to support UK banks and keep the economy working if we had been able to borrow the way the PIGS did.
Brexit is three places below a story about last year’s ridiculed Christmas tree in Camborne on the BBC news “most popular” stories.
Makes you think.
It would be Napoleon at Austerlitz. I suspect the plan isn't Corbyn's.
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/741363396550000640
Its not Brexit in name only.
Oh, and the domestic viability of not continuing with Brexit goes as follows:
Up to 52% of voters justifiably angered that their wishes, which were in the majority, were not followed. Lets call this democratic failure.
Up to 85% of the Tory party base, around 50% of the MPs, and majority % of councillors and party members furious. Lets call this party failure.
You simply will never understand what others see in leaving the EU, it seems. You might want to think about that blind spot of the country and the Tory party before suggesting that Brexit shouldn't happen.
You might also want to think of the consequences of your smoke-filled-rooms based schemes: democratic failure leads to discontent, rejection of authority and risks civil disobedience and conflict.
Edit I am not necessarily endorsing this, but I think this might be Labour's plan and I can see cleverness in it. It's quite likely to split the Conservatives.
I mean it's not necessarily a terrible idea in itself (but not exactly world-changing either) but the amount of time they spend trying to promote this thing for the amount of times it would happen over a standard FTPA parliament seems...disproportionate. What's the agenda/angle?