The daft thing about Corbyn being against a referendum is that it's almost certainly unachievable in practice given the time constraints so backing calls for one is pretty much a free hit. In the extremely unlikely event that one was forced, Labour would be very powerfully placed to ensure that even if No Deal was on the ballot paper, it wouldn't be chosen (2-question format / 1. Do you favour the UK leaving without a Deal; 2. If No, Deal vs Remain).
Exactly. Corbyn's real problems will begin once we have Brexited under a No Deal or May Deal scenario and he is not felt to have done all that he could have done to prevent it happening.
So we get Brexit and a weakened Corbyn. What's not to love?
The consequences of both: a diminished, poorer, even unhappier Britain and no credible government or opposition.
The daft thing about Corbyn being against a referendum is that it's almost certainly unachievable in practice given the time constraints so backing calls for one is pretty much a free hit. In the extremely unlikely event that one was forced, Labour would be very powerfully placed to ensure that even if No Deal was on the ballot paper, it wouldn't be chosen (2-question format / 1. Do you favour the UK leaving without a Deal; 2. If No, Deal vs Remain).
Exactly. Corbyn's real problems will begin once we have Brexited under a No Deal or May Deal scenario and he is not felt to have done all that he could have done to prevent it happening.
So we get Brexit and a weakened Corbyn. What's not to love?
The consequences of both: a diminished, poorer, even unhappier Britain and no credible government or opposition.
It seems to me that the sort of places that the LDs could pick up remain switchers from Lab are the sort of places they did well post-Iraq: Bristol W, Hornsey, Cambridge, Manchester Withington etc
The key question is whether anger over Brexit now is enough to displace any lingering anger over tuition fees...
Ironically, I could also see the LDs gaining ground in the Islington and Camden constituencies (although nowhere near toppling Corbyn or Thornberry)
Bristol West was an amazing result for Labour at GE17.
It was but I think it overstates Labour's position and that they will go backwards next time in this seat (and also remember that many of the 2015 electors will have now moved away)
If you looked at the votes though it played out like the rest of the country. Conservative vote has been the same at the last e elections around 9.5. Labour have been able to coalesce the left of centre around them rather than being divided between them Greens and LDs. This is a very pro remain area so Labour could lose lots of votes if they are not seen to do the right thing!
The daft thing about Corbyn being against a referendum is that it's almost certainly unachievable in practice given the time constraints so backing calls for one is pretty much a free hit. In the extremely unlikely event that one was forced, Labour would be very powerfully placed to ensure that even if No Deal was on the ballot paper, it wouldn't be chosen (2-question format / 1. Do you favour the UK leaving without a Deal; 2. If No, Deal vs Remain).
Exactly. Corbyn's real problems will begin once we have Brexited under a No Deal or May Deal scenario and he is not felt to have done all that he could have done to prevent it happening.
So we get Brexit and a weakened Corbyn. What's not to love?
Brexit won’t weaken Corbyn. It will strengthen him. The Tories will be blamed for everything and he and his close allies get the chance to implement their socialist nirvana unhindered by any rules. All those who say they won’t vote for him because Brexit are toothless paper tigers. They will put their nose pegs on and vote for him regardless. As will qiite a lot of ordinary voters incensed by rail ticket price increases and similar everyday stuff. The EU will be able to help itself to the cream of Britain’s industries and people.
And his biggest helpers will be those Tories too stupid to see that May’s deal is the best on offer, if Brexit is to proceed, or too cowardly to put a halt to the process, if they think it isn’t.
No Deal Brexit: I think the above analysis is about right.
Soft Brexit: Will be a non-event for most people and businesses. Corbyn might become PM but in a minority governement that severely hampers his socialist dreams.
The one place I disagree with Mike is where he says
"It is hard to predict what’s the next week is going to bring as Mrs. May’s deal comes back to MPs for their approval"
It's very easy to predict: we're in for a re-run of this time a month ago. What happens over the next fortnight - i.e. including the week in which the vote is currently scheduled - is a much more open question.
There's already noises off urging May to bottle the MV again. Difference is this time, she can't, not really. If there's no agreement by the 21st Jan, the emergency fallback procedures of the Withdrawal Act come into play.
Can anyone provide a quick reminder on what those are?
The daft thing about Corbyn being against a referendum is that it's almost certainly unachievable in practice given the time constraints so backing calls for one is pretty much a free hit. In the extremely unlikely event that one was forced, Labour would be very powerfully placed to ensure that even if No Deal was on the ballot paper, it wouldn't be chosen (2-question format / 1. Do you favour the UK leaving without a Deal; 2. If No, Deal vs Remain).
Exactly. Corbyn's real problems will begin once we have Brexited under a No Deal or May Deal scenario and he is not felt to have done all that he could have done to prevent it happening.
So we get Brexit and a weakened Corbyn. What's not to love?
Brexit won’t weaken Corbyn. It will strengthen him. The Tories will be blamed for everything and he and his close allies get the chance to implement their socialist nirvana unhindered by any rules. All those who say they won’t vote for him because Brexit are toothless paper tigers. They will put their nose pegs on and vote for him regardless. As will qiite a lot of ordinary voters incensed by rail ticket price increases and similar everyday stuff. The EU will be able to help itself to the cream of Britain’s industries and people.
And his biggest helpers will be those Tories too stupid to see that May’s deal is the best on offer, if Brexit is to proceed, or too cowardly to put a halt to the process, if they think it isn’t.
No Deal Brexit: I think the above analysis is about right.
Soft Brexit: Will be a non-event for most people and businesses. Corbyn might become PM but in a minority governement that severely hampers his socialist dreams.
Soft Brexit is looking increasingly unlikely, though.
The question is, why is Corbyn saying this, why is he saying it now and who is he talking to? Is clear that he will pay a price for climbing off the fence, he was going to have to disappoint someone, so why this now?
It’s clear that Unite and the left want Brexit, I suspect he is talking to them. So why does he need to restate policy now? What wobbles have there been behind the scenes?
The daft thing about Corbyn being against a referendum is that it's almost certainly unachievable in practice given the time constraints so backing calls for one is pretty much a free hit. In the extremely unlikely event that one was forced, Labour would be very powerfully placed to ensure that even if No Deal was on the ballot paper, it wouldn't be chosen (2-question format / 1. Do you favour the UK leaving without a Deal; 2. If No, Deal vs Remain).
Exactly. Corbyn's real problems will begin once we have Brexited under a No Deal or May Deal scenario and he is not felt to have done all that he could have done to prevent it happening.
So we get Brexit and a weakened Corbyn. What's not to love?
The consequences of both: a diminished, poorer, even unhappier Britain and no credible government or opposition.
Which is what the people voted for.
Democracy in action.
I agree. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out once the abstract delusions become real world consequences. The darkest hour is the one before dawn and all that.
I've bet on the Democrats - but I've got some cover on Warren in the individual POTUS market. She'd be an awful candidate and probably loses if she runs.
"May’s deal is the best on offer" - only in the sense that there is no other deal. It's a bad deal, and no deal is better.
I appreciate it's a 'purer' Brexit, so more aligned to your wishes but you are taking an awful gamble on 'No Deal chaos' being non-existent or a damp squib.
If it's half as bad a some predictions you end up with a severely damaged economy and (consequently) JC elected as PM to fix it.
Is that what you really want?
(PS Or are you based abroad and thus not affected?)
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
lots of dredging can be done for 14M quid, nice for them to get government to fund all their business start up costs. Great when you have friends in high places that have given largesse to political parties.
The question is, why is Corbyn saying this, why is he saying it now and who is he talking to? Is clear that he will pay a price for climbing off the fence, he was going to have to disappoint someone, so why this now?
It’s clear that Unite and the left want Brexit, I suspect he is talking to them. So why does he need to restate policy now? What wobbles have there been behind the scenes?
Interesting questions. Let's see how Starmer, McDonnell and Thornberry react.
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
lots of dredging can be done for 14M quid, nice for them to get government to fund all their business start up costs. Great when you have friends in high places that have given largesse to political parties.
I can't wait for us to crash out so I can watch Seaborne "begin operations".
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
lots of dredging can be done for 14M quid, nice for them to get government to fund all their business start up costs. Great when you have friends in high places that have given largesse to political parties.
I can't wait for us to crash out so I can watch Seaborne "begin operations".
It will just be another thread to the massive anti-Tory backlash that No Deal would herald.
I don’t have money on either, so I’m not particularly concerned.
I do wonder who else from outside of the current favourites might emerge. Adam Schiff is a (very long shot) possibility, given his position as chair of the Intelligence Committee will give him a lot of media coverage in the pivotal year for the Mueller investigation.
The question is, why is Corbyn saying this, why is he saying it now and who is he talking to? Is clear that he will pay a price for climbing off the fence, he was going to have to disappoint someone, so why this now?
It’s clear that Unite and the left want Brexit, I suspect he is talking to them. So why does he need to restate policy now? What wobbles have there been behind the scenes?
But Corbyn is simply restating Labour's policy, unchanged since conference. The Guardian is trying to build a betrayal narrative among centrists (as is their right, of course), but to coin a phrase, nothing has changed. Corbyn isn't saying anything he hasn't been saying since September.
I've bet on the Democrats - but I've got some cover on Warren in the individual POTUS market. She'd be an awful candidate and probably loses if she runs.
Warren might well be an awful candidate but: - Hillary was a truly awful candidate and nearly won; - Trump has to put back together the same coalition as last time - or replace lost parts with new parts of the right size in the right places - to even be in with a shout; - Trump was damn lucky that just about everything he needed to come off in 2016 did come off. He can't rely on a re-run.
Now, one thing that Trump is extremely effective on is going negative and Warren provides plenty of targets, so it's quite possible that he could win but on balance, in a head-to-head, I'd make her marginal favourite.
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
There has to be a joke in there about dredging and Chris Grayling.
Chris Grayling is not a joke. He is quite the most incompetent of ministers ever to hold a cabinet position, and there is a lot of competition
My wife says he has disgusting teeth and she could fix them for 10-12 grand. I might drop him an email.
Corbyn is basically uninterested in Brexit, his aim is only a GE victory. As always, when it comes to a GE, many people vote 'against' rather than 'for' if the vote is tight in their constituency.
Consider a Labour Remainer in a marginal seat (the only ones that matter). He can vote for a party of baby-eaters who are strongly Leave, he can vote for a left-wing party who are only weakly Leave, or he can waste his vote by voting Green or LD.
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
There has to be a joke in there about dredging and Chris Grayling.
Chris Grayling is not a joke. He is quite the most incompetent of ministers ever to hold a cabinet position, and there is a lot of competition
My wife says he has disgusting teeth and she could fix them for 10-12 grand. I might drop him an email.
I've bet on the Democrats - but I've got some cover on Warren in the individual POTUS market. She'd be an awful candidate and probably loses if she runs.
Warren might well be an awful candidate but: - Hillary was a truly awful candidate and nearly won; - Trump has to put back together the same coalition as last time - or replace lost parts with new parts of the right size in the right places - to even be in with a shout; - Trump was damn lucky that just about everything he needed to come off in 2016 did come off. He can't rely on a re-run.
Now, one thing that Trump is extremely effective on is going negative and Warren provides plenty of targets, so it's quite possible that he could win but on balance, in a head-to-head, I'd make her marginal favourite.
You might be right. But why risk it? Choose a sensible candidate Dems!
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
There has to be a joke in there about dredging and Chris Grayling.
Chris Grayling is not a joke. He is quite the most incompetent of ministers ever to hold a cabinet position, and there is a lot of competition
My wife says he has disgusting teeth and she could fix them for 10-12 grand. I might drop him an email.
Is she a dentist or just a spirited entrepreneur? Presumably you can rent drills and things after you get the contract.
"May’s deal is the best on offer" - only in the sense that there is no other deal. It's a bad deal, and no deal is better.
I appreciate it's a 'purer' Brexit, so more aligned to your wishes but you are taking an awful gamble on 'No Deal chaos' being non-existent or a damp squib.
If it's half as bad a some predictions you end up with a severely damaged economy and (consequently) JC elected as PM to fix it.
Is that what you really want?
(PS Or are you based abroad and thus not affected?)
I do think 'No Deal chaos' is a damp squib. There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that. I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
There has to be a joke in there about dredging and Chris Grayling.
Chris Grayling is not a joke. He is quite the most incompetent of ministers ever to hold a cabinet position, and there is a lot of competition
My wife says he has disgusting teeth and she could fix them for 10-12 grand. I might drop him an email.
Is she a dentist or just a spirited entrepreneur? Presumably you can rent drills and things after you get the contract.
like, +1 etc.
You jest but as all racing fans know, this is a real-world business model used by top amateur jockey and owner of a small dentistry empire, Sam Waley-Cohen, who in his annus mirabilis won the King George, the Gold Cup and got his two old mates back together -- Kate and Wills something, I think they were called. https://www.portmandentalcare.com/about-us/sam-waley-cohen
The daft thing about Corbyn being against a referendum is that it's almost certainly unachievable in practice given the time constraints so backing calls for one is pretty much a free hit. In the extremely unlikely event that one was forced, Labour would be very powerfully placed to ensure that even if No Deal was on the ballot paper, it wouldn't be chosen (2-question format / 1. Do you favour the UK leaving without a Deal; 2. If No, Deal vs Remain).
Exactly. Corbyn's real problems will begin once we have Brexited under a No Deal or May Deal scenario and he is not felt to have done all that he could have done to prevent it happening.
So we get Brexit and a weakened Corbyn. What's not to love?
Brexit won’t weaken Corbyn. It will strengthen him. The Tories will be blamed for everything and he and his close allies get the chance to implement their socialist nirvana unhindered by any rules. All those who say they won’t vote for him because Brexit are toothless paper tigers. They will put their nose pegs on and vote for him regardless. As will qiite a lot of ordinary voters incensed by rail ticket price increases and similar everyday stuff. The EU will be able to help itself to the cream of Britain’s industries and people.
And his biggest helpers will be those Tories too stupid to see that May’s deal is the best on offer, if Brexit is to proceed, or too cowardly to put a halt to the process, if they think it isn’t.
No Deal Brexit: I think the above analysis is about right.
Soft Brexit: Will be a non-event for most people and businesses. Corbyn might become PM but in a minority governement that severely hampers his socialist dreams.
Soft Brexit is looking increasingly unlikely, though.
The one place I disagree with Mike is where he says
"It is hard to predict what’s the next week is going to bring as Mrs. May’s deal comes back to MPs for their approval"
It's very easy to predict: we're in for a re-run of this time a month ago. What happens over the next fortnight - i.e. including the week in which the vote is currently scheduled - is a much more open question.
There's already noises off urging May to bottle the MV again. Difference is this time, she can't, not really. If there's no agreement by the 21st Jan, the emergency fallback procedures of the Withdrawal Act come into play.
I've just re-read the Section and I don't think they do, legally.
The govt is only required to grant votes in parliament under Sections 13(7) to 13(13) of the Withdrawal Act if:
... the Prime Minister makes a statement before the end of 21 January 2019 that no agreement in principle can be reached in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of— (a)the arrangements for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU, and (b)the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal.
That isn't where we are. An agreement in principle with the EU has been reached; the Act doesn't provide for what happens if no ratification of it takes place at all (though it does mandate some actions if ratification is refused).
In practice, I don't think that legalistic argument would hold - though it'd be entirely in keeping with May's way of working to try it. I expect that the outrage from opposition parties and Con backbenchers at the breach of the spirit of the legislation would force a statement and vote, and that there'd be a majority in the Commons to bring it about through parliamentary procedures if necessary, outside of the Act.
I do think 'No Deal chaos' is a damp squib. There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that. I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
When we crash out in under a hundred days' time, the Tories reputation for economic competence will be shattered for another generation. This is *exactly* what Corbyn is counting on.
Corbyn is stumbling, chaotically, in fits and starts, ever closer to what would be his dream outcome. Crashing out of the EU with no deal.
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
lots of dredging can be done for 14M quid, nice for them to get government to fund all their business start up costs. Great when you have friends in high places that have given largesse to political parties.
I can't wait for us to crash out so I can watch Seaborne "begin operations".
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
get a grip
It's a straight question. No-deal Brexiters are very blasé about the effects but I'm unclear whether it's because they don't believe they will happen and therefore will be appalled if they do, or if they don't mind particularly if they happen because Brexit is more important.
Corbyn is basically uninterested in Brexit, his aim is only a GE victory. As always, when it comes to a GE, many people vote 'against' rather than 'for' if the vote is tight in their constituency.
Consider a Labour Remainer in a marginal seat (the only ones that matter). He can vote for a party of baby-eaters who are strongly Leave, he can vote for a left-wing party who are only weakly Leave, or he can waste his vote by voting Green or LD.
Even OGH might have to think hard.
I thought OGH (M Smithson) voted tactically last time but said never again.
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
Nothing that happens will be down to Brexit, though - you must know this!
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
lots of dredging can be done for 14M quid, nice for them to get government to fund all their business start up costs. Great when you have friends in high places that have given largesse to political parties.
The government said nothing was being paid up front.
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
Nothing that happens will be down to Brexit, though - you must know this!
Well obviously, but let's take this logically step by step.
"May’s deal is the best on offer" - only in the sense that there is no other deal. It's a bad deal, and no deal is better.
I appreciate it's a 'purer' Brexit, so more aligned to your wishes but you are taking an awful gamble on 'No Deal chaos' being non-existent or a damp squib.
If it's half as bad a some predictions you end up with a severely damaged economy and (consequently) JC elected as PM to fix it.
Is that what you really want?
(PS Or are you based abroad and thus not affected?)
I do think 'No Deal chaos' is a damp squib. There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that. I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
We'll go from having the best possible trading relationship with the EU to literally the worst one in the world. I try - I really do - but just can't see how that can be shrugged off as a bit of a lark.
... the Prime Minister makes a statement before the end of 21 January 2019 that no agreement in principle can be reached in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of— (a)the arrangements for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU, and (b)the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal.
There was a bunfight on this between the Commons Library and the Speaker's Office around the time of the Meaningful Vote. The Commons Library was arguing what you were saying, and the Speaker's office were saying that the 21st Jan deadline is still in force.
It seems to be ambiguous, and hooks on whether an agreement with the EU has been reached. The Speaker's view is that, since the government is still trying to seak clarifications and amendments to the WA, then no such agreement with the EU has been reached and the 21st January deadline still stands.
After some discussions between the Speaker, Dominic Grieve, the Clerk of the House and Andrea Leadsom, it seems all now agree that the 21st Jan deadline is still in force.
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
lots of dredging can be done for 14M quid, nice for them to get government to fund all their business start up costs. Great when you have friends in high places that have given largesse to political parties.
I can't wait for us to crash out so I can watch Seaborne "begin operations".
It will just be another thread to the massive anti-Tory backlash that No Deal would herald.
Not sure what difference No Deal will make to the man in the street. Newspapers will be searching out problems to splash of course but there could be a Dunkirk spirit rather than blood, tears and sweat.
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
Nothing that happens will be down to Brexit, though - you must know this!
Well obviously, but let's take this logically step by step.
What we know for certain is that advocates of a No Deal Brexit will take no responsibility for its consequences.
"May’s deal is the best on offer" - only in the sense that there is no other deal. It's a bad deal, and no deal is better.
I appreciate it's a 'purer' Brexit, so more aligned to your wishes but you are taking an awful gamble on 'No Deal chaos' being non-existent or a damp squib.
If it's half as bad a some predictions you end up with a severely damaged economy and (consequently) JC elected as PM to fix it.
Is that what you really want?
(PS Or are you based abroad and thus not affected?)
I do think 'No Deal chaos' is a damp squib. There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that. I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
We'll go from having the best possible trading relationship with the EU to literally the worst one in the world. I try - I really do - but just can't see how that can be shrugged off as a bit of a lark.
We will follow the WTO's MFN rules, and so will the EU.
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
lots of dredging can be done for 14M quid, nice for them to get government to fund all their business start up costs. Great when you have friends in high places that have given largesse to political parties.
I can't wait for us to crash out so I can watch Seaborne "begin operations".
It will just be another thread to the massive anti-Tory backlash that No Deal would herald.
Not sure what difference No Deal will make to the man in the street. Newspapers will be searching out problems to splash of course but there could be a Dunkirk spirit rather than blood, tears and sweat.
We're talking about a nation here that has been triggered and thrown into utter chaos by non-existent drones, a few women in dinghies, and the existence of vegan sausage rolls.
We're barely capable of brushing our own hair, let alone dunkirk spirit.
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
lots of dredging can be done for 14M quid, nice for them to get government to fund all their business start up costs. Great when you have friends in high places that have given largesse to political parties.
I can't wait for us to crash out so I can watch Seaborne "begin operations".
It will just be another thread to the massive anti-Tory backlash that No Deal would herald.
Not sure what difference No Deal will make to the man in the street. Newspapers will be searching out problems to splash of course but there could be a Dunkirk spirit rather than blood, tears and sweat.
We're talking about a nation here that has been triggered and thrown into utter chaos by non-existent drones, a few women in dinghies, and the existence of vegan sausage rolls.
We're barely capable of brushing our own hair, let alone dunkirk spirit.
The one place I disagree with Mike is where he says
"It is hard to predict what’s the next week is going to bring as Mrs. May’s deal comes back to MPs for their approval"
It's very easy to predict: we're in for a re-run of this time a month ago. What happens over the next fortnight - i.e. including the week in which the vote is currently scheduled - is a much more open question.
There's already noises off urging May to bottle the MV again. Difference is this time, she can't, not really. If there's no agreement by the 21st Jan, the emergency fallback procedures of the Withdrawal Act come into play.
Can anyone provide a quick reminder on what those are?
Not sure what difference No Deal will make to the man in the street. Newspapers will be searching out problems to splash of course but there could be a Dunkirk spirit rather than blood, tears and sweat.
Indeed - I expect May to go all Britannia and the pro-Government press to blame the "nasty Europeans". I imagine we'll get calls to make March 29th a national holiday or possibly to augment St George's Day to a national holiday.
Might even help the Conservatives in the local elections.
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
lots of dredging can be done for 14M quid, nice for them to get government to fund all their business start up costs. Great when you have friends in high places that have given largesse to political parties.
The government said nothing was being paid up front.
Though a company with (according to companies house) no funds does seem to have acquired substantial amounts of money for dredging a harbour.
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
Try to post whilst sober, Alastair
It's a straight question, Sunil. Do no-dealers take the view that any avoidable deaths or job losses would be appalling and make no-deal Brexit a bad idea (but in practice this won't happen), or do they take the view that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs - and if so how many would be acceptable?
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
lots of dredging can be done for 14M quid, nice for them to get government to fund all their business start up costs. Great when you have friends in high places that have given largesse to political parties.
I can't wait for us to crash out so I can watch Seaborne "begin operations".
It will just be another thread to the massive anti-Tory backlash that No Deal would herald.
Not sure what difference No Deal will make to the man in the street. Newspapers will be searching out problems to splash of course but there could be a Dunkirk spirit rather than blood, tears and sweat.
So following on from the Dunkirk spirit, food shortages, a Blitz, a series of global defeats and Vladimir & Donald jumping in to save us?
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
get a grip
It's a straight question. No-deal Brexiters are very blasé about the effects but I'm unclear whether it's because they don't believe they will happen and therefore will be appalled if they do, or if they don't mind particularly if they happen because Brexit is more important.
Jacob Rees-Mogg said we'd be a trillion quid better off out. I've not seen his workings, I do not think anyone has, but we must admit the possibility there might be an economic case for Brexit even if but nobody to know what it is.
When I saw the headline I thought he was going to have made a comment regarding the fans booing him in the final. But no:
“It’s horrible isn’t it. Did you vote for Brexit? Brex-shit. I don’t like it. Look at the pound and the euro. I get everything paid in pounds so just have a look how much it dropped. Let’s say it dropped by 10%, that’s cost me 10% of my prize money straight away. So that’s quite a lot of money. But it’s not only that. It’s horrible.”
He could have hedge sterling against the euro. His choice.
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
get a grip
It's a straight question. No-deal Brexiters are very blasé about the effects but I'm unclear whether it's because they don't believe they will happen and therefore will be appalled if they do, or if they don't mind particularly if they happen because Brexit is more important.
Jacob Rees-Mogg said we'd be a trillion quid better off out. I've not seen his workings, I do not think anyone has, but we must admit the possibility there might be an economic case for Brexit even if but nobody to know what it is.
He left the economic case for Brexit in his other trousers
"May’s deal is the best on offer" - only in the sense that there is no other deal. It's a bad deal, and no deal is better.
I appreciate it's a 'purer' Brexit, so more aligned to your wishes but you are taking an awful gamble on 'No Deal chaos' being non-existent or a damp squib.
If it's half as bad a some predictions you end up with a severely damaged economy and (consequently) JC elected as PM to fix it.
Is that what you really want?
(PS Or are you based abroad and thus not affected?)
I do think 'No Deal chaos' is a damp squib. There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that. I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
We'll go from having the best possible trading relationship with the EU to literally the worst one in the world. I try - I really do - but just can't see how that can be shrugged off as a bit of a lark.
We will follow the WTO's MFN rules, and so will the EU.
And every factory with a JIT logistics supply will be put on to short time working as notice is served and the owners work out how to move their factory nearer their suppliers
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
get a grip
It's a straight question. No-deal Brexiters are very blasé about the effects but I'm unclear whether it's because they don't believe they will happen and therefore will be appalled if they do, or if they don't mind particularly if they happen because Brexit is more important.
Jacob Rees-Mogg said we'd be a trillion quid better off out. I've not seen his workings, I do not think anyone has, but we must admit the possibility there might be an economic case for Brexit even if but nobody to know what it is.
Is that a trillion quid or a trillionth of a quid....
When I saw the headline I thought he was going to have made a comment regarding the fans booing him in the final. But no:
“It’s horrible isn’t it. Did you vote for Brexit? Brex-shit. I don’t like it. Look at the pound and the euro. I get everything paid in pounds so just have a look how much it dropped. Let’s say it dropped by 10%, that’s cost me 10% of my prize money straight away. So that’s quite a lot of money. But it’s not only that. It’s horrible.”
He could have hedge sterling against the euro. His choice.
You can see why he's unpopular. I was at the semi in last year's tournament when Rob Cross beat him in sudden death - was one of the great sporting moments I've been at.
You certainly don't get other sports stars moaning about exchange rates after becoming World Champions.
Commission spokeswoman: ‘Negotiations have now been concluded. President Juncker is, of course, *always* available to listen to Prime Minister May’s views in terms of the temporary nature of the backstop.’
So, that's where we're at. The EU is just taking the piss out of her now.
"May’s deal is the best on offer" - only in the sense that there is no other deal. It's a bad deal, and no deal is better.
I appreciate it's a 'purer' Brexit, so more aligned to your wishes but you are taking an awful gamble on 'No Deal chaos' being non-existent or a damp squib.
If it's half as bad a some predictions you end up with a severely damaged economy and (consequently) JC elected as PM to fix it.
Is that what you really want?
(PS Or are you based abroad and thus not affected?)
I do think 'No Deal chaos' is a damp squib. There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that. I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
We'll go from having the best possible trading relationship with the EU to literally the worst one in the world. I try - I really do - but just can't see how that can be shrugged off as a bit of a lark.
We will follow the WTO's MFN rules, and so will the EU.
And every factory with a JIT logistics supply will be put on to short time working as notice is served and the owners work out how to move their factory nearer their suppliers
And suppliers are working out how to move their operations nearer to their customers. This has happened at my own employer: the warehouse in the Netherlands has already been earmarked.
Very early days, but it's interesting to note Warren does pretty well in head to head polling with Trump, certainly on par with most likely candidates. A notable exception: Beto O'Rourke who, in the only poll so far naming him, is 7% down.
Tough to compare to 2016 since Trump wasn't being polled in Jan 2015, but it's true Clinton had solid leads against most GOP candidates but still lost. On the other hand, she did win the popular vote by a sizeable margin so maybe the polls weren't that far off. I wouldn't take the polls super-seriously at this point in the cycle but I think we can forget that they have a decent track record even this far out.
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
Try to post whilst sober, Alastair
It's a straight question, Sunil. Do no-dealers take the view that any avoidable deaths or job losses would be appalling and make no-deal Brexit a bad idea (but in practice this won't happen), or do they take the view that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs - and if so how many would be acceptable?
Perhaps hospitals could ask how prospective patients they voted as a gateway to acceptable treatment.
I get the sense that lots of leavers are getting deeply worried they're about to discover the true meaning of the phrase "be careful what you wish for"...
... the Prime Minister makes a statement before the end of 21 January 2019 that no agreement in principle can be reached in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of— (a)the arrangements for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU, and (b)the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal.
There was a bunfight on this between the Commons Library and the Speaker's Office around the time of the Meaningful Vote. The Commons Library was arguing what you were saying, and the Speaker's office were saying that the 21st Jan deadline is still in force.
It seems to be ambiguous, and hooks on whether an agreement with the EU has been reached. The Speaker's view is that, since the government is still trying to seak clarifications and amendments to the WA, then no such agreement with the EU has been reached and the 21st January deadline still stands.
After some discussions between the Speaker, Dominic Grieve, the Clerk of the House and Andrea Leadsom, it seems all now agree that the 21st Jan deadline is still in force.
And that makes political sense. While I still think that legally, the deadline doesn't apply - the Act refers to an "agreement in principle", so even if clarifications are still being sought, that condition's been satisfied - the political capital that would have to be used to try to avoid a vote that would probably come about anyway would be so high as to be pointless. Better to appear in control of events, and to be generous, and simply concede one 'in the spirit of the Act'.
As I asked yesterday, if Remainers are hopping with fury about Labour's stance on Brexit, then how come...
-Labour continues to do far better with Remain voters than with Leave voters (50% compared to 22%)? -The Lib Dems remain stuck at the 7% they polled in 2017? -Proportionally more LibDem voters have switched to Labour since 2017 (15%), than Labour voters going to the Lib Dems (5%)?
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
Try to post whilst sober, Alastair
It's a straight question, Sunil. Do no-dealers take the view that any avoidable deaths or job losses would be appalling and make no-deal Brexit a bad idea (but in practice this won't happen), or do they take the view that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs - and if so how many would be acceptable?
Perhaps hospitals could ask how prospective patients they voted as a gateway to acceptable treatment.
If only we had a privatised healthcare system like Brexiteers want, we could class "gammon" as a pre-existing condition.
"May’s deal is the best on offer" - only in the sense that there is no other deal. It's a bad deal, and no deal is better.
I appreciate it's a 'purer' Brexit, so more aligned to your wishes but you are taking an awful gamble on 'No Deal chaos' being non-existent or a damp squib.
If it's half as bad a some predictions you end up with a severely damaged economy and (consequently) JC elected as PM to fix it.
Is that what you really want?
(PS Or are you based abroad and thus not affected?)
I do think 'No Deal chaos' is a damp squib. There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that. I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
We'll go from having the best possible trading relationship with the EU to literally the worst one in the world. I try - I really do - but just can't see how that can be shrugged off as a bit of a lark.
The question is what is the delta between the the deal we have now and the leaving with the time limited minimal disruption deals that the EU has offered? If you look at the CET 50% of goods are zero tariff another 30% are 2% or less and the rest are where the EU wants to limited trade Food, Textiles, Cars etc. So (in simple terms) 70% of trade should not be affected by tariffs.
Then customs, since the Customs Union was formed huge changes have taken place in terms of customs regs and the use of technology. We check 3% of non EU trade, the Irish 1%, this trade flows freely from boat to dock to truck to customer, 21% of car parts used in the UK come from non EU sources, 34% come from the EU (Boston Consulting Group).
The above are not enough in my opinion to "destroy" trade. There will be an effect but to me it will be like the forecasts have predicted a slow down that may or may not cause a recession and then growth again with jobs being created, mainly because the UK has a very flexible economy (see response to GFC versus other EU economies.
The main delta we lose is not being at the table when regs are made.
I do think 'No Deal chaos' is a damp squib. There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that. I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
When we crash out in under a hundred days' time, the Tories reputation for economic competence will be shattered for another generation. This is *exactly* what Corbyn is counting on.
Corbyn is stumbling, chaotically, in fits and starts, ever closer to what would be his dream outcome. Crashing out of the EU with no deal.
Especially as I suspect he would walk away scot-free from the crime scene with most people saying the government of the day carries the can for delivering its policies.
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
lots of dredging can be done for 14M quid, nice for them to get government to fund all their business start up costs. Great when you have friends in high places that have given largesse to political parties.
I can't wait for us to crash out so I can watch Seaborne "begin operations".
It will just be another thread to the massive anti-Tory backlash that No Deal would herald.
Not sure what difference No Deal will make to the man in the street. Newspapers will be searching out problems to splash of course but there could be a Dunkirk spirit rather than blood, tears and sweat.
So following on from the Dunkirk spirit, food shortages, a Blitz, a series of global defeats and Vladimir & Donald jumping in to save us?
Not so many people overweight during the war. Brexit could mean the country becomes healthier with food rationing.
I can remember in the 1950s going to the shops for my mother to get sugar and butter but needing to hand over the right ration stamps. I was skinny.
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
get a grip
It's a straight question. No-deal Brexiters are very blasé about the effects but I'm unclear whether it's because they don't believe they will happen and therefore will be appalled if they do, or if they don't mind particularly if they happen because Brexit is more important.
It is hardly likely to mean deaths, job losses perhaps, so a bit alarmist. The politicians can sort it in a day or two if they want to, a single sheet extending all existing treaties for a period or till trade deals agreed would do it. Hard to imagine there is anything critical that we buy from Europe that is unique, worst case we can buy it via a 3rd party.
So he's saying Corbyn is NOT defying calls for a second referendum?
I'm confused by the labour position on all this. Not least the cries of betrayal previously about Corbyn following the actual party policy rather than what people wished was party policy. So now I don't know whether he is changing position or not or if he's just pulling a May, putting off a decision or sticking to one position long past the point it is no longer viable.
I think almost certainly the latter. I think the important thing to remember about Corbyn is that he's one of the few politicians who is totally uninterested in Brexit. Even his ideological allies are either Lexiteers or fear Brexit would fatally hobble a Corbyn government. They care about it in some way. Corbyn's political worldview is subtly different though in that he essentially believes that whatever problems exist can be solved merely by a socialist government with the will to solve them. As such, it's a political irritant rather than the great issue of the day. He's just going to moan until it happens and then claim his own brand of declarative socialism is the only antidote.
Nail and head. This is far closer to the truth than the suggestions that Corbyn is some sort of secret strong leaver, despite having said or written next to nothing on the subject during a very long political career.
Simply not true. Corbyn has been open about his opposition to the EU all his political life. He can be heard railing against the euro in Radio 4’s “Brexit: A Love Story? Only recently he was telling some socialist allies that the EU was a capitalists’ club.
Yes - he mentions the state aid rules. But remember that not being in the Single Market means he no longer has to follow the rules on the freedom of movement of capital. A hard Brexit followed by a Corbyn government would be disastrous for Britain. Never mind the penny dropping for Labour supporters. When will it drop for Tory MPs? They are currently being Corbyn’s useful idiots.
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
lots of dredging can be done for 14M quid, nice for them to get government to fund all their business start up costs. Great when you have friends in high places that have given largesse to political parties.
I can't wait for us to crash out so I can watch Seaborne "begin operations".
It will just be another thread to the massive anti-Tory backlash that No Deal would herald.
Not sure what difference No Deal will make to the man in the street. Newspapers will be searching out problems to splash of course but there could be a Dunkirk spirit rather than blood, tears and sweat.
So following on from the Dunkirk spirit, food shortages, a Blitz, a series of global defeats and Vladimir & Donald jumping in to save us?
Not so many people overweight during the war. Brexit could mean the country becomes healthier with food rationing.
I can remember in the 1950s going to the shops for my mother to get sugar and butter but needing to hand over the right ration stamps. I was skinny.
Well done for a post that is Brexit in a nutshell. A mix of nostalgia and self-congratulation.
I didn't mention UKIP but HYUFD does have a mindset that UKIP will surge if Brexit falls
I'm sure they would if Brexit stoped - I'm not sure they would win any seats though - the end result would likely be a few Labour Seats being surprise Tory wins...
Batten has put in place the same sort of ceiling on UKIP's performance (and a much lower one) than Corbyn has on Labour's. I can't see that party under his leadership getting back over 10-15 per cent, because the rest of the population simply couldn't countenance voting that way. His political nous leading a small party in an FPTP system is highly questionable. A new Farage grouping (or his returning to save UKIP) might well do better.
A big question of our time will be where continuity Remainers and betrayed Brexiters end up after this is over.. because UKIP and the LibDems don't look optimally-placed to hoover them up en masse to me.
Even if the parties don't fracture, I sense a massive throwing-of-the-cards-in-the-air among some voters before long.
I think there could be a large voter strike with voters staying at home.
Tories appalled at No Deal or some for compromising with the EU.
For Labour, it could be they get punished for enabling a No Deal Brexit when revocation was available.
I will never vote for either whilst the current crop of politicians are in charge. It looks like it has to be Lib Dem or some new party formed by those ashamed of the Nationalists and Marxists that infest noth of the big two
We should start our own. Its USP will be common-sense. And its members will be well-dressed and exquisitely well-shod.
It certainly would rule out most politicians, but Mrs May's application cannot be accepted no matter how good her shoes are.
With you there. Plus she has terrible taste in lipstick.
Why would we want most existing politicians in it anyway? I’d like any new party to at least aim for a modicum of competence and honesty
That is a good point about the lippy (I prefer paler shades myself). Perhaps we should have a basic "IQ" test to filter out the dunces - you know sort of thing... Where does most of our trade go? Can you explain why Marxism has failed everywhere it has been tried? Have you ever entered the Upper Class Twit of the Year contest? etc etc.....
And that makes political sense. While I still think that legally, the deadline doesn't apply - the Act refers to an "agreement in principle", so even if clarifications are still being sought, that condition's been satisfied - the political capital that would have to be used to try to avoid a vote that would probably come about anyway would be so high as to be pointless. Better to appear in control of events, and to be generous, and simply concede one 'in the spirit of the Act'.
Quite. The spirit of Grieve's amendments certainly didn't anticipate the government getting an agreement in principle and then failing to bring the meaningful vote for months. Any further delay to the MV would be unconscionable at this point, so a broad acceptance that the intent behind the 21st Jan deadline still stands is an easy concession to make.
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
Try to post whilst sober, Alastair
It's a straight question, Sunil. Do no-dealers take the view that any avoidable deaths or job losses would be appalling and make no-deal Brexit a bad idea (but in practice this won't happen), or do they take the view that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs - and if so how many would be acceptable?
Perhaps hospitals could ask how prospective patients they voted as a gateway to acceptable treatment.
If only we had a privatised healthcare system like Brexiteers want, we could class "gammon" as a pre-existing condition.
They're slowly getting their way since the 2012 'reforms'. Privatised GP services are popping up. One floor of a London hospital has been turned over to private patients.
If you challenge a Tory MP I think you'll be told 'the NHS will stay free at the point of use.'
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
lots of dredging can be done for 14M quid, nice for them to get government to fund all their business start up costs. Great when you have friends in high places that have given largesse to political parties.
I can't wait for us to crash out so I can watch Seaborne "begin operations".
It will just be another thread to the massive anti-Tory backlash that No Deal would herald.
Not sure what difference No Deal will make to the man in the street. Newspapers will be searching out problems to splash of course but there could be a Dunkirk spirit rather than blood, tears and sweat.
We're talking about a nation here that has been triggered and thrown into utter chaos by non-existent drones, a few women in dinghies, and the existence of vegan sausage rolls.
We're barely capable of brushing our own hair, let alone dunkirk spirit.
Never saw any mention of women in the boats, all economic migrant men fleeing the tyrannical French in the main.
"May’s deal is the best on offer" - only in the sense that there is no other deal. It's a bad deal, and no deal is better.
I appreciate it's a 'purer' Brexit, so more aligned to your wishes but you are taking an awful gamble on 'No Deal chaos' being non-existent or a damp squib.
If it's half as bad a some predictions you end up with a severely damaged economy and (consequently) JC elected as PM to fix it.
Is that what you really want?
(PS Or are you based abroad and thus not affected?)
I do think 'No Deal chaos' is a damp squib. There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that. I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
We'll go from having the best possible trading relationship with the EU to literally the worst one in the world. I try - I really do - but just can't see how that can be shrugged off as a bit of a lark.
The question is what is the delta between the the deal we have now and the leaving with the time limited minimal disruption deals that the EU has offered? If you look at the CET 50% of goods are zero tariff another 30% are 2% or less and the rest are where the EU wants to limited trade Food, Textiles, Cars etc. So (in simple terms) 70% of trade should not be affected by tariffs.
Then customs, since the Customs Union was formed huge changes have taken place in terms of customs regs and the use of technology. We check 3% of non EU trade, the Irish 1%, this trade flows freely from boat to dock to truck to customer, 21% of car parts used in the UK come from non EU sources, 34% come from the EU (Boston Consulting Group).
The above are not enough in my opinion to "destroy" trade. There will be an effect but to me it will be like the forecasts have predicted a slow down that may or may not cause a recession and then growth again with jobs being created, mainly because the UK has a very flexible economy (see response to GFC versus other EU economies.
The main delta we lose is not being at the table when regs are made.
Even that is not exactly the case. Currently many of the regs are made at a level above the EU with the EU making decisions for us at that table. Being outside the EU gives a country like Norway far more negotiating power compared to being one of the 28 when it comes to these international bodies.
"May’s deal is the best on offer" - only in the sense that there is no other deal. It's a bad deal, and no deal is better.
I appreciate it's a 'purer' Brexit, so more aligned to your wishes but you are taking an awful gamble on 'No Deal chaos' being non-existent or a damp squib.
If it's half as bad a some predictions you end up with a severely damaged economy and (consequently) JC elected as PM to fix it.
Is that what you really want?
(PS Or are you based abroad and thus not affected?)
I do think 'No Deal chaos' is a damp squib. There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that. I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
We'll go from having the best possible trading relationship with the EU to literally the worst one in the world. I try - I really do - but just can't see how that can be shrugged off as a bit of a lark.
The question is what is the delta between the the deal we have now and the leaving with the time limited minimal disruption deals that the EU has offered? If you look at the CET 50% of goods are zero tariff another 30% are 2% or less and the rest are where the EU wants to limited trade Food, Textiles, Cars etc. So (in simple terms) 70% of trade should not be affected by tariffs.
Then customs, since the Customs Union was formed huge changes have taken place in terms of customs regs and the use of technology. We check 3% of non EU trade, the Irish 1%, this trade flows freely from boat to dock to truck to customer, 21% of car parts used in the UK come from non EU sources, 34% come from the EU (Boston Consulting Group).
The above are not enough in my opinion to "destroy" trade. There will be an effect but to me it will be like the forecasts have predicted a slow down that may or may not cause a recession and then growth again with jobs being created, mainly because the UK has a very flexible economy (see response to GFC versus other EU economies.
The main delta we lose is not being at the table when regs are made.
We could still have as much influence outside the room as we had inside the room. It all depends on the arguments and how persuasive we are. I know UK bankers attended Euro meetings as 'observers' but contributed more than many euro country representatives.
"May’s deal is the best on offer" - only in the sense that there is no other deal. It's a bad deal, and no deal is better.
I appreciate it's a 'purer' Brexit, so more aligned to your wishes but you are taking an awful gamble on 'No Deal chaos' being non-existent or a damp squib.
If it's half as bad a some predictions you end up with a severely damaged economy and (consequently) JC elected as PM to fix it.
Is that what you really want?
(PS Or are you based abroad and thus not affected?)
I do think 'No Deal chaos' is a damp squib. There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that. I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
We'll go from having the best possible trading relationship with the EU to literally the worst one in the world. I try - I really do - but just can't see how that can be shrugged off as a bit of a lark.
The question is what is the delta between the the deal we have now and the leaving with the time limited minimal disruption deals that the EU has offered? If you look at the CET 50% of goods are zero tariff another 30% are 2% or less and the rest are where the EU wants to limited trade Food, Textiles, Cars etc. So (in simple terms) 70% of trade should not be affected by tariffs.
Then customs, since the Customs Union was formed huge changes have taken place in terms of customs regs and the use of technology. We check 3% of non EU trade, the Irish 1%, this trade flows freely from boat to dock to truck to customer, 21% of car parts used in the UK come from non EU sources, 34% come from the EU (Boston Consulting Group).
The above are not enough in my opinion to "destroy" trade. There will be an effect but to me it will be like the forecasts have predicted a slow down that may or may not cause a recession and then growth again with jobs being created, mainly because the UK has a very flexible economy (see response to GFC versus other EU economies.
The main delta we lose is not being at the table when regs are made.
We could still have as much influence outside the room as we had inside the room. It all depends on the arguments and how persuasive we are. I know UK bankers attended Euro meetings as 'observers' but contributed more than many euro country representatives.
So if as now that will be no influence at all then.
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
Try to post whilst sober, Alastair
It's a straight question, Sunil. Do no-dealers take the view that any avoidable deaths or job losses would be appalling and make no-deal Brexit a bad idea (but in practice this won't happen), or do they take the view that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs - and if so how many would be acceptable?
Perhaps hospitals could ask how prospective patients they voted as a gateway to acceptable treatment.
If only we had a privatised healthcare system like Brexiteers want, we could class "gammon" as a pre-existing condition.
They're slowly getting their way since the 2012 'reforms'. Privatised GP services are popping up. One floor of a London hospital has been turned over to private patients.
If you challenge a Tory MP I think you'll be told 'the NHS will stay free at the point of use.'
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
Try to post whilst sober, Alastair
It's a straight question, Sunil. Do no-dealers take the view that any avoidable deaths or job losses would be appalling and make no-deal Brexit a bad idea (but in practice this won't happen), or do they take the view that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs - and if so how many would be acceptable?
I think the deaths thing is completely overplayed. The number of deaths would be negligible and within reporting errors. That’s not to say that the media and opposition wouldn’t be looking at every death for claims that no deal has had some influence on it.
The job losses thing is much more of an issue. Disruption to supply chains would almost certainly happen which could result in some business failure and some other job losses, and some other disruption to work life such as pay cuts and reduced working hours to mitigate as happened in the last recession. We do currently have record levels of employment so that might fall back a little but it would depend on a range of mitigation factors that the government employed - direct grant support, logistical support and targeted waiving of rules etc, and what the Bank of England did. Obviously remain said during the election that we would be down a significant number of jobs and be in recession immediately after the vote, not allowing for action by BOE. Unfortunately we do not have an impartial civil service to provide guidance in this, with the terms of reference being set by two remain supporting CoEs.
I’ve actually come around to the deal from thinking remain would be better. After considering the political impact I think the deal is the best option and we better hope that we don’t get stuck in the backstop.
"May’s deal is the best on offer" - only in the sense that there is no other deal. It's a bad deal, and no deal is better.
I appreciate it's a 'purer' Brexit, so more aligned to your wishes but you are taking an awful gamble on 'No Deal chaos' being non-existent or a damp squib.
If it's half as bad a some predictions you end up with a severely damaged economy and (consequently) JC elected as PM to fix it.
Is that what you really want?
(PS Or are you based abroad and thus not affected?)
I do think 'No Deal chaos' is a damp squib. There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that. I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
We'll go from having the best possible trading relationship with the EU to literally the worst one in the world. I try - I really do - but just can't see how that can be shrugged off as a bit of a lark.
The question is what is the delta between the the deal we have now and the leaving with the time limited minimal disruption deals that the EU has offered? If you look at the CET 50% of goods are zero tariff another 30% are 2% or less and the rest are where the EU wants to limited trade Food, Textiles, Cars etc. So (in simple terms) 70% of trade should not be affected by tariffs.
Then customs, since the Customs Union was formed huge changes have taken place in terms of customs regs and the use of technology. We check 3% of non EU trade, the Irish 1%, this trade flows freely from boat to dock to truck to customer, 21% of car parts used in the UK come from non EU sources, 34% come from the EU (Boston Consulting Group).
The above are not enough in my opinion to "destroy" trade. There will be an effect but to me it will be like the forecasts have predicted a slow down that may or may not cause a recession and then growth again with jobs being created, mainly because the UK has a very flexible economy (see response to GFC versus other EU economies.
The main delta we lose is not being at the table when regs are made.
Even that is not exactly the case. Currently many of the regs are made at a level above the EU with the EU making decisions for us at that table. Being outside the EU gives a country like Norway far more negotiating power compared to being one of the 28 when it comes to these international bodies.
On the regs I agree with you I just did not want to go there as it seems to make the pro-EU peoples heads go all fuzzy as they seem to have a belief that the EU makes all the rules and the whole world follows.
Sky have just reported from Ramsgate that Seaborne have started dredging the former ferry port with the intention of having it up and ready for the end of march to receive freight. A Seaborne dredger was shown actively working in the port and Sky said that this is the work Seaborne have been commissioned to complete. No mention of Seabourne leased ferries though that may follow but Seaborne are actively engaged in operations at Ramsgate from today
lots of dredging can be done for 14M quid, nice for them to get government to fund all their business start up costs. Great when you have friends in high places that have given largesse to political parties.
I can't wait for us to crash out so I can watch Seaborne "begin operations".
It will just be another thread to the massive anti-Tory backlash that No Deal would herald.
Not sure what difference No Deal will make to the man in the street. Newspapers will be searching out problems to splash of course but there could be a Dunkirk spirit rather than blood, tears and sweat.
So following on from the Dunkirk spirit, food shortages, a Blitz, a series of global defeats and Vladimir & Donald jumping in to save us?
Not so many people overweight during the war. Brexit could mean the country becomes healthier with food rationing.
I can remember in the 1950s going to the shops for my mother to get sugar and butter but needing to hand over the right ration stamps. I was skinny.
Well done for a post that is Brexit in a nutshell. A mix of nostalgia and self-congratulation.
And topicality since obesity is in the news today.
"May’s deal is the best on offer" - only in the sense that there is no other deal. It's a bad deal, and no deal is better.
I appreciate it's a 'purer' Brexit, so more aligned to your wishes but you are taking an awful gamble on 'No Deal chaos' being non-existent or a damp squib.
If it's half as bad a some predictions you end up with a severely damaged economy and (consequently) JC elected as PM to fix it.
Is that what you really want?
(PS Or are you based abroad and thus not affected?)
I do think 'No Deal chaos' is a damp squib. There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that. I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
We'll go from having the best possible trading relationship with the EU to literally the worst one in the world. I try - I really do - but just can't see how that can be shrugged off as a bit of a lark.
The question is what is the delta between the the deal we have now and the leaving with the time limited minimal disruption deals that the EU has offered? If you look at the CET 50% of goods are zero tariff another 30% are 2% or less and the rest are where the EU wants to limited trade Food, Textiles, Cars etc. So (in simple terms) 70% of trade should not be affected by tariffs.
Then customs, since the Customs Union was formed huge changes have taken place in terms of customs regs and the use of technology. We check 3% of non EU trade, the Irish 1%, this trade flows freely from boat to dock to truck to customer, 21% of car parts used in the UK come from non EU sources, 34% come from the EU (Boston Consulting Group).
The above are not enough in my opinion to "destroy" trade. There will be an effect but to me it will be like the forecasts have predicted a slow down that may or may not cause a recession and then growth again with jobs being created, mainly because the UK has a very flexible economy (see response to GFC versus other EU economies.
The main delta we lose is not being at the table when regs are made.
Even that is not exactly the case. Currently many of the regs are made at a level above the EU with the EU making decisions for us at that table. Being outside the EU gives a country like Norway far more negotiating power compared to being one of the 28 when it comes to these international bodies.
Doesn't seem likely that Norway could get its way against the wishes of a large EU block of countries.
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
Try to post whilst sober, Alastair
It's a straight question, Sunil. Do no-dealers take the view that any avoidable deaths or job losses would be appalling and make no-deal Brexit a bad idea (but in practice this won't happen), or do they take the view that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs - and if so how many would be acceptable?
I think the deaths thing is completely overplayed. The number of deaths would be negligible and within reporting errors. That’s not to say that the media and opposition wouldn’t be looking at every death for claims that no deal has had some influence on it.
The job losses thing is much more of an issue. Disruption to supply chains would almost certainly happen which could result in some business failure and some other job losses, and some other disruption to work life such as pay cuts and reduced working hours to mitigate as happened in the last recession. We do currently have record levels of employment so that might fall back a little but it would depend on a range of mitigation factors that the government employed - direct grant support, logistical support and targeted waiving of rules etc, and what the Bank of England did. Obviously remain said during the election that we would be down a significant number of jobs and be in recession immediately after the vote, not allowing for action by BOE. Unfortunately we do not have an impartial civil service to provide guidance in this, with the terms of reference being set by two remain supporting CoEs.
I’ve actually come around to the deal from thinking remain would be better. After considering the political impact I think the deal is the best option and we better hope that we don’t get stuck in the backstop.
I'll be satisfied if Brexit is better than the Black Death.
It would be helpful if the no-deal Brexiters could put some metrics around the level of disruption that they would consider acceptable from Britain leaving the EU with no deal so that it was still worthwhile, eg:
Number of avoidable deaths Number of job losses
Try to post whilst sober, Alastair
It's a straight question, Sunil. Do no-dealers take the view that any avoidable deaths or job losses would be appalling and make no-deal Brexit a bad idea (but in practice this won't happen), or do they take the view that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs - and if so how many would be acceptable?
Perhaps hospitals could ask how prospective patients they voted as a gateway to acceptable treatment.
If only we had a privatised healthcare system like Brexiteers want, we could class "gammon" as a pre-existing condition.
They're slowly getting their way since the 2012 'reforms'. Privatised GP services are popping up. One floor of a London hospital has been turned over to private patients.
If you challenge a Tory MP I think you'll be told 'the NHS will stay free at the point of use.'
In the US Medicaid is only available to the very poor and Medicare to the retired everyone who wants healthcare had to have private insurance. We are still a long way from that, or even the continental insurance model or the Australian system where if you earn enough you get fined if you do not have private healthcare
I do think 'No Deal chaos' is a damp squib. There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that. I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
When we crash out in under a hundred days' time, the Tories reputation for economic competence will be shattered for another generation. This is *exactly* what Corbyn is counting on.
Corbyn is stumbling, chaotically, in fits and starts, ever closer to what would be his dream outcome. Crashing out of the EU with no deal.
The Tories have a Deal, May's Deal and if Corbyn refuses to back it and tries to become PM under No Deal so be it, he will soon start to lose centrist Remainers while Leavers still rally round the Tories
Comments
Democracy in action.
Soft Brexit: Will be a non-event for most people and businesses. Corbyn might become PM but in a minority governement that severely hampers his socialist dreams.
- only in the sense that there is no other deal.
It's a bad deal, and no deal is better.
It’s clear that Unite and the left want Brexit, I suspect he is talking to them. So why does he need to restate policy now? What wobbles have there been behind the scenes?
If it's half as bad a some predictions you end up with a severely damaged economy and (consequently) JC elected as PM to fix it.
Is that what you really want?
(PS Or are you based abroad and thus not affected?)
I do wonder who else from outside of the current favourites might emerge.
Adam Schiff is a (very long shot) possibility, given his position as chair of the Intelligence Committee will give him a lot of media coverage in the pivotal year for the Mueller investigation.
- Hillary was a truly awful candidate and nearly won;
- Trump has to put back together the same coalition as last time - or replace lost parts with new parts of the right size in the right places - to even be in with a shout;
- Trump was damn lucky that just about everything he needed to come off in 2016 did come off. He can't rely on a re-run.
Now, one thing that Trump is extremely effective on is going negative and Warren provides plenty of targets, so it's quite possible that he could win but on balance, in a head-to-head, I'd make her marginal favourite.
Consider a Labour Remainer in a marginal seat (the only ones that matter). He can vote for a party of baby-eaters who are strongly Leave, he can vote for a left-wing party who are only weakly Leave, or he can waste his vote by voting Green or LD.
Even OGH might have to think hard.
There will be some disruption no doubt, but the cliff-edge doom-mongers are just that.
I am not abroad, though I have lots of close family scattered throughout the EU and indeed a second home there.
https://www.portmandentalcare.com/about-us/sam-waley-cohen
The govt is only required to grant votes in parliament under Sections 13(7) to 13(13) of the Withdrawal Act if:
... the Prime Minister makes a statement before the end of 21 January 2019 that no agreement in principle can be reached in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of—
(a)the arrangements for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU, and
(b)the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal.
That isn't where we are. An agreement in principle with the EU has been reached; the Act doesn't provide for what happens if no ratification of it takes place at all (though it does mandate some actions if ratification is refused).
In practice, I don't think that legalistic argument would hold - though it'd be entirely in keeping with May's way of working to try it. I expect that the outrage from opposition parties and Con backbenchers at the breach of the spirit of the legislation would force a statement and vote, and that there'd be a majority in the Commons to bring it about through parliamentary procedures if necessary, outside of the Act.
Corbyn is stumbling, chaotically, in fits and starts, ever closer to what would be his dream outcome. Crashing out of the EU with no deal.
Number of avoidable deaths
Number of job losses
It seems to be ambiguous, and hooks on whether an agreement with the EU has been reached. The Speaker's view is that, since the government is still trying to seak clarifications and amendments to the WA, then no such agreement with the EU has been reached and the 21st January deadline still stands.
After some discussions between the Speaker, Dominic Grieve, the Clerk of the House and Andrea Leadsom, it seems all now agree that the 21st Jan deadline is still in force.
"No further meetings are foreseen between the commission’s negotiators and the UK’s negotiators, as negotiations have concluded."
We're barely capable of brushing our own hair, let alone dunkirk spirit.
Might even help the Conservatives in the local elections.
62,000 people died during Dunkirk
THESE ARE NOT TARGETS TO BE AIMING FOR, LEAVERS.
You certainly don't get other sports stars moaning about exchange rates after becoming World Champions.
So, that's where we're at. The EU is just taking the piss out of her now.
The wailing and the gnashing of the teeth from Leavers is so sad. They lost a democratic vote and the sky is falling in.
I hesitate to mention we'll soon see snowflakes falling from the sky, but perhaps we ought to cordon off Beachy Head just in case.
Cheer up, it's only politics. There's a famous quotation by Richard Feynman, but I'll refrain. I wouldn't want to upset anyone.
Tough to compare to 2016 since Trump wasn't being polled in Jan 2015, but it's true Clinton had solid leads against most GOP candidates but still lost. On the other hand, she did win the popular vote by a sizeable margin so maybe the polls weren't that far off. I wouldn't take the polls super-seriously at this point in the cycle but I think we can forget that they have a decent track record even this far out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#General_election_polling
I get the sense that lots of leavers are getting deeply worried they're about to discover the true meaning of the phrase "be careful what you wish for"...
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1080522931602628614
-Labour continues to do far better with Remain voters than with Leave voters (50% compared to 22%)?
-The Lib Dems remain stuck at the 7% they polled in 2017?
-Proportionally more LibDem voters have switched to Labour since 2017 (15%), than Labour voters going to the Lib Dems (5%)?
If you look at the CET 50% of goods are zero tariff another 30% are 2% or less and the rest are where the EU wants to limited trade Food, Textiles, Cars etc. So (in simple terms) 70% of trade should not be affected by tariffs.
Then customs, since the Customs Union was formed huge changes have taken place in terms of customs regs and the use of technology. We check 3% of non EU trade, the Irish 1%, this trade flows freely from boat to dock to truck to customer, 21% of car parts used in the UK come from non EU sources, 34% come from the EU (Boston Consulting Group).
The above are not enough in my opinion to "destroy" trade. There will be an effect but to me it will be like the forecasts have predicted a slow down that may or may not cause a recession and then growth again with jobs being created, mainly because the UK has a very flexible economy (see response to GFC versus other EU economies.
The main delta we lose is not being at the table when regs are made.
Not so many people overweight during the war. Brexit could mean the country becomes healthier with food rationing.
I can remember in the 1950s going to the shops for my mother to get sugar and butter but needing to hand over the right ration stamps. I was skinny.
If you challenge a Tory MP I think you'll be told 'the NHS will stay free at the point of use.'
So will Medicaid: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/index.html. It doesn't mean that if you get ill you'd want to use it except as a last resort. You'd have to sell your house first anyway.
Most GPs are private businesses.
The job losses thing is much more of an issue. Disruption to supply chains would almost certainly happen which could result in some business failure and some other job losses, and some other disruption to work life such as pay cuts and reduced working hours to mitigate as happened in the last recession. We do currently have record levels of employment so that might fall back a little but it would depend on a range of mitigation factors that the government employed - direct grant support, logistical support and targeted waiving of rules etc, and what the Bank of England did. Obviously remain said during the election that we would be down a significant number of jobs and be in recession immediately after the vote, not allowing for action by BOE. Unfortunately we do not have an impartial civil service to provide guidance in this, with the terms of reference being set by two remain supporting CoEs.
I’ve actually come around to the deal from thinking remain would be better. After considering the political impact I think the deal is the best option and we better hope that we don’t get stuck in the backstop.