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
May's deal is being sabotaged by 100 Conservative MPs.
"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.
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.
Apparently there are already over 20000 international standards - I have seen some referenced in my own area of work
I know that we would have some influence on this currently. My dad was on a European technical committee, and if he had not died prematurely would probably have been in line to chair and attend international committee but he would have been representing the European committee even if their wishes were against his own.
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
May's deal is being sabotaged by 100 Conservative MPs.
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.
Though, tbf, Rees Mogg does dress rather like a WW2 spiv...
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.
The vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers and Tory Remainers can't stand Corbyn and will blame him for No Deal.
There will be no 'massive anti Tory backlash' if No Deal and if there were the main beneficiaries would be the LDs not Corbyn as Labour and Tory Remainers could move to them or a new centrist party that is anti Brexit
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
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
Tories will fix that though.
You're predicting Grayling as the next Health Secretary ?
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
Tories will fix that though.
Personally I have no problem with the European or Australian healthcare model
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
May's deal is being sabotaged by 100 Conservative MPs.
That why Remainers such as Jo Johnson are opposed Toyotas well as it ?
May’s deal isn’t worth having. It’s just capitulation to EU demands.
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
The Tories want to kill anyone who's poor (apart from those forced to labour for them).
"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 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.
The EU, China and the US make the rules. Norway gets to decide whether to follow them. That will apply to us in the future, too.
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.'
They are hybrids. Gov determines their income to a large extent. Start charging for GP appointments and they would be private businesses. It would solve the problems oftime wasyerm missed appointments and allow for quality time as well.
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
Tories will fix that though.
Personally I have no problem with the European or Australian healthcare model
There isn't a 'European' healthcare model. Around half of European countries have a tax-funded system largely free at the point of use. So does Canada. Around half have government-subsidised and -regulated private insurance.
I'm well aware that Medicaid is only available to the extremely poor. The authorities have been known to hire private detectives to trace your assets, i.e. Medicaid is means-tested and serious illness is the USA's main cause of bankruptcy. Of course, having been declared bankrupt, you'll be offered Medicaid.
No-one in UK government since ~2010-12 has denied that the UK is heading towards just such a two-tier system. My Tory MP also refuses to deny it.
A man on Mars would be more impressive, the US sent a man to the Moon decades ago
Underlines how backwards we are. We couldn’t do this.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. We don't have the capability to *launch* rockets (although that might come soon for small nanosats or cubesats from Scotland or Cornwall), but much of that is down to our geographic position.
However we are a major player in satellites. Our space market was work £13.7 billion in 2014/5, about 7% of the global market. That's a major success story considering we don't have launch services.
But tbf launchers are sexy, but not where the money is. This is why SpaceX is starting a constellation of satellites: that's where the money is. And we're very well placed in that market - and more so as the market moves towards the smaller satellites that we excel in.
As another example, an Israeli company is planning to land a probe on the Moon in the nextt few months, launched (I think) from a Falcon 9. The rockets are just the trucks. What matters is the cargo, and we could easily do this if there was political will.
But we probably shouldn't.
The Chinese have a very strategic and systematic approach to space development. Their most important objective is military, where it intends to achieve military parity with the US. Recognising the US has a superiority in conventional assets built up over decades, China identified space as an arena where it could achieve parity or superiority relatively quickly. Its second objective is the national prestige of a space programme including manned missions to the moon. Its third objective is developing its commercial satellite and launcher industry.
The far side of the moon programme is impressive because it requires several pieces to be in play: a launch system, the lander and a remote mission control. Which presumably is why it hasn't been attempted before.
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
I'd say the number of Brexit related deaths will be somewhere between the Black Death and the millennium bug.
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
May's deal is being sabotaged by 100 Conservative MPs.
That why Remainers such as Jo Johnson are opposed Toyotas well as it ?
May’s deal isn’t worth having. It’s just capitulation to EU demands.
May's Deal leaves the EU, ends free movement and protects the economy
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
The Tories want to kill anyone who's poor (apart from those forced to labour for them).
"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
Won’t happen. Moving factories is hugely expensive and disruptive. Most will look to add extra inventory in the short term and find alternative sources of supply in the longer term. That’s easier for some businesses that others. Aerospace and pharma industries tend to require end customer approval of component suppliers.
Remainers … "Lib Dem former Cabinet minister Sir Vince Cable said holding the referendum was a "very bad call" by the Prime Minister, who failed to understand what happens "when you just throw the cards in the air". A very wise man. Those pesky voters don't always do what they're told by their betters, do they?
Let's all come together to make this the very best Brexit ever.
Remainers … "Lib Dem former Cabinet minister Sir Vince Cable said holding the referendum was a "very bad call" by the Prime Minister, who failed to understand what happens "when you just throw the cards in the air". A very wise man. Those pesky voters don't always do what they're told by their betters, do they?
Let's all come together to make this the very best Brexit ever.
A man on Mars would be more impressive, the US sent a man to the Moon decades ago
Underlines how backwards we are. We couldn’t do this.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. We don't have the capability to *launch* rockets (although that might come soon for small nanosats or cubesats from Scotland or Cornwall), but much of that is down to our geographic position.
However we are a major player in satellites. Our space market was work £13.7 billion in 2014/5, about 7% of the global market. That's a major success story considering we don't have launch services.
But tbf launchers are sexy, but not where the money is. This is why SpaceX is starting a constellation of satellites: that's where the money is. And we're very well placed in that market - and more so as the market moves towards the smaller satellites that we excel in.
As another example, an Israeli company is planning to land a probe on the Moon in the nextt few months, launched (I think) from a Falcon 9. The rockets are just the trucks. What matters is the cargo, and we could easily do this if there was political will.
But we probably shouldn't.
The Chinese have a very strategic and systematic approach to space development. Their most important objective is military....
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.
.
"will be"
A very bold claim about the powers of national governments to influence events...
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 th?
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
Tories will fix that though.
Personally I have no problem with the European or Australian healthcare model
There isn't a 'European' healthcare model. Around half of European countries have a tax-funded system largely free at the point of use. So does Canada. Around half have government-subsidised and -regulated private insurance.
I'm well aware that Medicaid is only available to the extremely poor. The authorities have been known to hire private detectives to trace your assets, i.e. Medicaid is means-tested and serious illness is the USA's main cause of bankruptcy. Of course, having been declared bankrupt, you'll be offered Medicaid.
No-one in UK government since ~2010-12 has denied that the UK is heading towards just such a two-tier system. My Tory MP also refuses to deny it.
I have no problem with government subsidised and regulated private insurance either.
Given the NHS does not require any asset test for treatment we are nowhere near the US system let alone the one in much of Europe
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
May's deal is being sabotaged by 100 Conservative MPs.
That why Remainers such as Jo Johnson are opposed Toyotas well as it ?
May’s deal isn’t worth having. It’s just capitulation to EU demands.
May's Deal leaves the EU, ends free movement and protects the economy
It doesn’t actually do those at all. Still being bound by EU trade regs and the ECJ is not leaving the EU; we dont have an immigration policy as yet and freedom of movement is still up for grabs when the trade talks start and trade hasn’t even been discussed as yet so it certainly doesn’t protect that at all.
"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 dore.
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 , 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.
We seem to have deflected from discussing No Deal to discussing Norway that isn't on the table right now. In any case, Richard is being highly selective in ignoring EU regs that Norway has to implement without influence, unlike a EU member. And Norway has minute influence over international regs. It can't even influence the EU, which has a decent amount of say over those regs.
It doesn’t actually do those at all. Still being bound by EU trade regs and the ECJ is not leaving the EU; we dont have an immigration policy as yet and freedom of movement is still up for grabs when the trade talks start and trade hasn’t even been discussed as yet so it certainly doesn’t protect that at all.
I kinda appreciate that HYUFD is still keeping the dream alive and fighting the good fight for May's deal, when even May has given up trying to convince people it has merits. But still, the debate has moved on and it seems futile to talk about May's deal now.
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
May's deal is being sabotaged by 100 Conservative MPs.
That why Remainers such as Jo Johnson are opposed Toyotas well as it ?
May’s deal isn’t worth having. It’s just capitulation to EU demands.
May's Deal leaves the EU, ends free movement and protects the economy
It doesn’t actually do those at all. Still being bound by EU trade regs and the ECJ is not leaving the EU; we dont have an immigration policy as yet and freedom of movement is still up for grabs when the trade talks start and trade hasn’t even been discussed as yet so it certainly doesn’t protect that at all.
Nope it does all of that and is the status quo until a trade deal is agreed.
Just you want to inflict huge damage on the economy, risk Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland and most probably the reversal of Brexit ultimately or BINO just to meet your fanaticism
Mr. B, one of the first things Xi Jinping did when he became leader was to beef up the military. Shortly thereafter he seized a large part of the South China Sea.
We've become used to China operating without overt military force, but that may be changing (and, in the South China Sea, already has).
Edited extra bit: off for a bit now, shall return interfrastically.
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.
"One thing's for sure - we're all gonna be a lot thinner!" - Han Solo in the trash compactor.
It doesn’t actually do those at all. Still being bound by EU trade regs and the ECJ is not leaving the EU; we dont have an immigration policy as yet and freedom of movement is still up for grabs when the trade talks start and trade hasn’t even been discussed as yet so it certainly doesn’t protect that at all.
I kinda appreciate that HYUFD is still keeping the dream alive and fighting the good fight for May's deal, when even May has given up trying to convince people it has merits. But still, the debate has moved on and it seems futile to talk about May's deal now.
What matters is what happens instead.
Once EUref2 and Norway plus are proposed under the Grieve amendment and defeated the Deal can pass as the only alternative to No Deal
Just you want to inflict huge damage on the economy, risk Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland and most probably the reversal of Brexit ultimately or BINO just to meet your fanaticism
You mean the *electorate's* fanaticism?
Crashing out is what the people voted for. Respect the referendum.
As I stated earlier this week the entire purpose of Elizabeth announcing early is to make sure it's impossible for Bernie Sanders to run...
Rubbish. Sanders is still second to Biden in most Democratic nomination polls even with Warren included.
Sanders also polls better than Warren v Trump in general election polls
You understand the concept of vote-splitting, right?
Clearly you did not read a word I said. Sanders is second in most polls even with Warren included.
The centrist vote will be even more split with Biden, Brown, Klobuchar, Bloomberg etc
The point is that her running makes his life harder. Unless he's doing just as well in polls with her included as he's doing in polls without her included
Just you want to inflict huge damage on the economy, risk Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland and most probably the reversal of Brexit ultimately or BINO just to meet your fanaticism
You mean the *electorate's* fanaticism?
Crashing out is what the people voted for. Respect the referendum.
Wrong, Leave only won promising 'the easiest trade deal in history' with the EU on just 52%.
It doesn’t actually do those at all. Still being bound by EU trade regs and the ECJ is not leaving the EU; we dont have an immigration policy as yet and freedom of movement is still up for grabs when the trade talks start and trade hasn’t even been discussed as yet so it certainly doesn’t protect that at all.
I kinda appreciate that HYUFD is still keeping the dream alive and fighting the good fight for May's deal, when even May has given up trying to convince people it has merits. But still, the debate has moved on and it seems futile to talk about May's deal now.
What matters is what happens instead.
Once EUref2 and Norway plus are proposed under the Grieve amendment and defeated the Deal can pass as the only alternative to No Deal
As I stated earlier this week the entire purpose of Elizabeth announcing early is to make sure it's impossible for Bernie Sanders to run...
Rubbish. Sanders is still second to Biden in most Democratic nomination polls even with Warren included.
Sanders also polls better than Warren v Trump in general election polls
You understand the concept of vote-splitting, right?
Clearly you did not read a word I said. Sanders is second in most polls even with Warren included.
The centrist vote will be even more split with Biden, Brown, Klobuchar, Bloomberg etc
The point is that her running makes his life harder. Unless he's doing just as well in polls with her included as he's doing in polls without her included
Given he is still second with her she makes little difference even if included
Just you want to inflict huge damage on the economy, risk Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland and most probably the reversal of Brexit ultimately or BINO just to meet your fanaticism
You mean the *electorate's* fanaticism?
Crashing out is what the people voted for. Respect the referendum.
Wrong, Leave only won promising 'the easiest trade deal in history' with the EU on just 52%.
Very few polls back No Deal
Remain warned on numerous occasions that economic disaster could happen. Everything that could happen was warned again and again by remain. But the people voted for it anyway.
We *must* respect the will of the people, no matter how cretinous, for democracy to mean anything. I can understand your desperation to frustrate the will of the people, but No Deal is the only deal that respects the referendum result and delivers what people voted for. In abundance.
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
Tories will fix that though.
Personally I have no problem with the European or Australian healthcare model
Take that to the next GE as a policy and see how you do.
The EU, China and the US make the rules. Norway gets to decide whether to follow them. That will apply to us in the future, too.
Simply not true. In many of these organisations EU members only effectively have 1/28th of a vote (if that) whereas countries like Norway not only have full voting rights but also chair many of the committees. And in the end they have a veto since all thee organisations work on unanimity. We give up our veto by being members of the EU.
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
May's deal is being sabotaged by 100 Conservative MPs.
That why Remainers such as Jo Johnson are opposed Toyotas well as it ?
May’s deal isn’t worth having. It’s just capitulation to EU demands.
May's Deal leaves the EU, ends free movement and protects the economy
It doesn’t actually do those at all. Still being bound by EU trade regs and the ECJ is not leaving the EU; we dont have an immigration policy as yet and freedom of movement is still up for grabs when the trade talks start and trade hasn’t even been discussed as yet so it certainly doesn’t protect that at all.
Nope it does all of that and is the status quo until a trade deal is agreed.
Just you want to inflict huge damage on the economy, risk Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland and most probably the reversal of Brexit ultimately or BINO just to meet your fanaticism
Nobody wants to inflict huge damage to the economy or put the needlessly Union at risk. Asinine to suggest otherwise. Not all of us, however, believe Project Fear to the extent you do. Nor do we subscribe to the lunacy that being part of a United States of Europe is the only way to achieve economic prosperity.
Doesn't seem likely that Norway could get its way against the wishes of a large EU block of countries.
That is the joy of a veto. Moreover the EU speaks for the UK whether we agree or not. And we have to accept the decisions if they are adopted by the EU. Norway gets to have its own voice and decide whether or not to adopt decisions.
You're all worrying too much about Brexit. Over 17 million people voted for it. If Corbyn takes power, nowhere near that that number will have voted for it. He could sneak in with 42% for a Parliamentary majority.
We'll walk together, with wide smiles and carrying our shovels, into the Venezuela sunset. But we'll survive. We'll hardly notice the difference for a few years. When GE's become a simple ratification of the Party's candidates, we'll feel relief at the burden being taken away. Clearly, we were never up to the onerous task of voting. We wouldn't want another Brexit, would we?
We seem to have deflected from discussing No Deal to discussing Norway that isn't on the table right now. In any case, Richard is being highly selective in ignoring EU regs that Norway has to implement without influence, unlike a EU member. And Norway has minute influence over international regs. It can't even influence the EU, which has a decent amount of say over those regs.
I was not discussing either No Deal or Norway. I was simply commenting on the ability of countries outside the EU to influence and decide on adoption of international standards. A choice we do not have inside the EU since they negotiate on our behalf (apparently) and decide on adoption which is then compulsory upon us.
And your comments about Norway's influence over EU regs once again displays your ignorance of reality. Norway outside the EU has far more ability to influence and reject Single Market regulation than the UK inside the EU.
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
May's deal is being sabotaged by 100 Conservative MPs.
That why Remainers such as Jo Johnson are opposed Toyotas well as it ?
May’s deal isn’t worth having. It’s just capitulation to EU demands.
May's Deal leaves the EU, ends free movement and protects the economy
It doesn’t actually do those at all. Still being bound by EU trade regs and the ECJ is not leaving the EU; we dont have an immigration policy as yet and freedom of movement is still up for grabs when the trade talks start and trade hasn’t even been discussed as yet so it certainly doesn’t protect that at all.
Nobody wants to inflict huge damage to the economy or put the needlessly Union at risk. Asinine to suggest otherwise. Not all of us, however, believe Project Fear to the extent you do. Nor do we subscribe to the lunacy that being part of a United States of Europe is the only way to achieve economic prosperity.
Ironically, the biggest threat to the Union might come from a successful No Deal outcome - the SNP could then use that to show people how a highly integrated bloc could be broken up without any major downsides.
Dame Pauline Neville-Jones putting the boot into Mrs May's record at the Home Office on the WATO.
Most enjoyable.
Is there anything May has turned her hand to which hasn't turned to shit?
Its rather pathetic rally tbh. She should have argued her case better. To put the boot in after the event is just so last yr. Mrs May was very successful as Home Sec/ There was no difficulties really apart from the sacking of the head of the Border force.. Not bad after so many yrs in the job.
Dame Pauline Neville-Jones putting the boot into Mrs May's record at the Home Office on the WATO.
Most enjoyable.
Is there anything May has turned her hand to which hasn't turned to shit?
Its rather pathetic rally tbh. She should have argued her case better. To put the boot in after the event is just so last yr. Mrs May was very successful as Home Sec/ There was no difficulties really apart from the sacking of the head of the Border force.. Not bad after so many yrs in the job.
Dame Pauline Neville-Jones putting the boot into Mrs May's record at the Home Office on the WATO.
Most enjoyable.
Is there anything May has turned her hand to which hasn't turned to shit?
I doubt it. She seems to utterly lack the capacity for empathy in any form and I still maintain it is a fundamental requirement for success in politics. I am not saying politicians will always sympathise, agree or even do anything to help those they are serving. Whether they do or not will be a calculation on their part. But they cannot make that calculation if they are unable to empathise. If they cannot do that they have no means of understanding anyone else's point of view.
This is why on every serious issue May has a total tin ear.
Take that to the next GE as a policy and see how you do.
Is there such a thing as the "European health care model"? EU countries have adopted a wide range of medical systems from the almost completely socialized to mostly private, from single-payer to health accounts and contributory insurance schemes.
Dame Pauline Neville-Jones putting the boot into Mrs May's record at the Home Office on the WATO.
Most enjoyable.
Is there anything May has turned her hand to which hasn't turned to shit?
Its rather pathetic rally tbh. She should have argued her case better. To put the boot in after the event is just so last yr. Mrs May was very successful as Home Sec/ There was no difficulties really apart from the sacking of the head of the Border force.. Not bad after so many yrs in the job.
Dame Pauline Neville-Jones putting the boot into Mrs May's record at the Home Office on the WATO.
Most enjoyable.
Is there anything May has turned her hand to which hasn't turned to shit?
Its rather pathetic rally tbh. She should have argued her case better. To put the boot in after the event is just so last yr. Mrs May was very successful as Home Sec/ There was no difficulties really apart from the sacking of the head of the Border force.. Not bad after so many yrs in the job.
*cough*windrush*cough*
.. whilst in situ) ...
It was going on while she was there - it just didn't blow up until after May had left...
Take that to the next GE as a policy and see how you do.
Is there such a thing as the "European health care model"? EU countries have adopted a wide range of medical systems from the almost completely socialized to mostly private, from single-payer to health accounts and contributory insurance schemes.
The EU, China and the US make the rules. Norway gets to decide whether to follow them. That will apply to us in the future, too.
Simply not true. In many of these organisations EU members only effectively have 1/28th of a vote (if that) whereas countries like Norway not only have full voting rights but also chair many of the committees. And in the end they have a veto since all thee organisations work on unanimity. We give up our veto by being members of the EU.
What examples are there of Norway using its veto in these organisations or of the UK having to sit on its hands because the other EU member stats have made a decision that we do not want to follow? I am sure it must have happened, but nothing immediately springs to mind. As ever, it is a balance - a notional veto on something relatively obscure that the rest of the world thinks is a good idea has to be set against what we give up by leaving. I guess we are about to find out.
Dame Pauline Neville-Jones putting the boot into Mrs May's record at the Home Office on the WATO.
Most enjoyable.
Is there anything May has turned her hand to which hasn't turned to shit?
I doubt it. She seems to utterly lack the capacity for empathy in any form and I still maintain it is a fundamental requirement for success in politics. I am not saying politicians will always sympathise, agree or even do anything to help those they are serving. Whether they do or not will be a calculation on their part. But they cannot make that calculation if they are unable to empathise. If they cannot do that they have no means of understanding anyone else's point of view.
This is why on every serious issue May has a total tin ear.
Everything in moderation. You can have overmuch empathy too. As Merkel did confronting the pathetic migrant in front of the TV cameras.
Dame Pauline Neville-Jones putting the boot into Mrs May's record at the Home Office on the WATO.
Most enjoyable.
Is there anything May has turned her hand to which hasn't turned to shit?
Its rather pathetic rally tbh. She should have argued her case better. To put the boot in after the event is just so last yr. Mrs May was very successful as Home Sec/ There was no difficulties really apart from the sacking of the head of the Border force.. Not bad after so many yrs in the job.
*cough*windrush*cough*
.. whilst in situ) ...
It was going on while she was there - it just didn't blow up until after May had left...
Exactly, Other Ministers would have been envious of her ability to dodge the bullets. Was she personally implicated in Windrush.. I think it was because she was the Minister rather than her demanding treatment of Windrush cases as indeed happened, but a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then..
What examples are there of Norway using its veto in these organisations or of the UK having to sit on its hands because the other EU member stats have made a decision that we do not want to follow? I am sure it must have happened, but nothing immediately springs to mind. As ever, it is a balance - a notional veto on something relatively obscure that the rest of the world thinks is a good idea has to be set against what we give up by leaving. I guess we are about to find out.
EEA states act essentially like expert advisors, sitting on commission committees and providing feedback and advice. No EEA state has a veto as such.
EEA countries can choose not to implement directives, but if they do so they effectively lose all access to the covered segment of the single market, so it's not much of a threat.
This is also why, I think, the EU would never agree to an EEA-style deal for the UK. The UK is much bigger than any other EEA country, so our refusal to implement legislation would be a much more dangerous threat.
Thus, I think, the EEA will never be available to us as it stands. Perhaps some bespoke arrangement more like Switzerland, but the EU will want to make sure the it's much tighter than the Swiss bilateral treaties so the UK doesn't have blanket power to veto or derail EU legislation.
Just been for a drive and was struck by the number of potholes. Some of them quite deep too. I could strangle Chris Grayling, I really could. Still, the drive gave me an opportunity to think some more about Brexit and I had a flash of insight which I am keen to share while it’s still piping hot. It’s to do with the Prime Minister. Theresa May.
Up until today I have been intoxicated by the notion of a person who, for all her flaws, is consumed by a sense of duty to act in the national interest, or at least what she believes that to be. But waiting on a red light on the Finchley Rd, I suddenly realized that this is total and utter bullshit. TM has reached the very top in politics. She is PM, a job that few in the whole of history get to do, a position of enormous power and prestige. It is a state of affairs she will have grown accustomed to and to adore. So forget ‘sense of duty’ and ‘national interest’, all of that baloney, the question Mrs May will be asking herself at each and every crux point over the next 100 or so days of Brexit drama is this:
Which course of action maximizes the chances of me staying at 10 Downing St?
This is particularly relevant for the decision she must make if she cannot get her deal through parliament. Will the pivot be to No Deal or to another referendum, a.k.a. renege on Brexit? Previously I have thought the referendum more likely. But that was under my old view of TM as a good egg. Adopting this new revelation, that she is a normal power-grubbing politico, causes me to change my mind. No Deal gives her a better shot at hanging on as PM (but does it? am I right?) and therefore will be the preference. If MPs want to stop it they must either ratify the Deal or get rid of her.
In the event of No Deal, I would predict a very serious short-term disruption - a range of goods and foodstuffs in very short supply, immediate and serious job losses, large numbers of insolvencies, serious disruption to travel, a recession this year, etc. Quantifying this into numbers of unemployed and a percentage hit on GDP is extremely difficult, because this kind of cliff-edge hit to established trade in an advanced economy is unprecedented outside wartime, we can't know in advance what mitigating actions might be possible, and traditional economic models (which aren't that great in the first place) are simply not appropriate to such a disruption. Still, the general picture is clear - No Deal would be an unmitigated and immediate disaster.
As regards the political fall-out: In the short term, it seems inevitable that the government would get the blame, propelling Corbyn into No 10. But, after that, it's Labour who would get the blame; after all, they'd then be the ones in power, and Corbyn would inevitably fall into the trap of over-promising that he could fix things, whereas in fact all he would do is make them massively worse. Beyond that immediate reaction, what parties would end up rising up out of the ashes of this mess is anyone's guess, frankly; a lot would depend on whether the Tories had come to their senses in the meantime.
Hate preacher Abu Hamza's son, 26, is man being quizzed over bouncer's murder at Mayfair New Year party as he appears in court charged with firearms possession
Still, the general picture is clear - No Deal would be an unmitigated and immediate disaster.
Well, we warned leavers all of this could happen during the referendum, and they voted for it anyway.
That's democracy.
Not really so, literally no-one was contemplating crashing out without a withdrawal deal, not even those few like Patrick Minford who didn't want a trade deal.
In the event of No Deal, I would predict a very serious short-term disruption - a range of goods and foodstuffs in very short supply, immediate and serious job losses, large numbers of insolvencies, serious disruption to travel, a recession this year, etc. Quantifying this into numbers of unemployed and a percentage hit on GDP is extremely difficult, because this kind of cliff-edge hit to established trade in an advanced economy is unprecedented outside wartime, we can't know in advance what mitigating actions might be possible, and traditional economic models (which aren't that great in the first place) are simply not appropriate to such a disruption. Still, the general picture is clear - No Deal would be an unmitigated and immediate disaster.
As regards the political fall-out: In the short term, it seems inevitable that the government would get the blame, propelling Corbyn into No 10. But, after that, it's Labour who would get the blame; after all, they'd then be the ones in power, and Corbyn would inevitably fall into the trap of over-promising that he could fix things, whereas in fact all he would do is make them massively worse. Beyond that immediate reaction, what parties would end up rising up out of the ashes of this mess is anyone's guess, frankly; a lot would depend on whether the Tories had come to their senses in the meantime.
Very possible,however, that the theme 'Clearing up the Tory Brexit Mess' could run for several years - given how Osborne managed to spin 'Clearing up Labour's Mess' for the entirety of the 2010 Parliament.
Hate preacher Abu Hamza's son, 26, is man being quizzed over bouncer's murder at Mayfair New Year party as he appears in court charged with firearms possession
A self-styled Lord who was released from prison as an ‘act of mercy’ when he convinced judges he was gravely ill is clearly enjoying life as a free man.
Edward Davenport, nicknamed ‘Fast Eddie’, was jailed for eight years in 2011 for masterminding a £4.5million fraud where he hoodwinked the rich and famous.
Last May he was released early after claiming he was 'at death's door' because of kidney problems and suffering the 'ordeal' of having to leave prison each week for life-saving dialysis.
But eight months on socialite Davenport looks to be close to a full recovery as he had fun with a friend on Saturday.
Still, the general picture is clear - No Deal would be an unmitigated and immediate disaster.
Well, we warned leavers all of this could happen during the referendum, and they voted for it anyway.
That's democracy.
Not really so, literally no-one was contemplating crashing out without a withdrawal deal, not even those few like Patrick Minford who didn't want a trade deal.
The remain campaign warned again, and again, and again all the disaster scenarios we're about to unleash. The fact that the great unhosed decided to ignore the warnings and vote for Brexit anyway is the point.
We told leavers what would happen, and they said "lol Project Fear!" and voted for it anyway.
We tried to warn them. They ignored our advice. Now, in the interests of respecting democracy, we have no choice but to deliver what they voted for: total and unmitigated chaos and disaster.
In the event of No Deal, I would predict a very serious short-term disruption - a range of goods and foodstuffs in very short supply, immediate and serious job losses, large numbers of insolvencies, serious disruption to travel, a recession this year, etc. Quantifying this into numbers of unemployed and a percentage hit on GDP is extremely difficult, because this kind of cliff-edge hit to established trade in an advanced economy is unprecedented outside wartime, we can't know in advance what mitigating actions might be possible, and traditional economic models (which aren't that great in the first place) are simply not appropriate to such a disruption. Still, the general picture is clear - No Deal would be an unmitigated and immediate disaster.
As regards the political fall-out: In the short term, it seems inevitable that the government would get the blame, propelling Corbyn into No 10. But, after that, it's Labour who would get the blame; after all, they'd then be the ones in power, and Corbyn would inevitably fall into the trap of over-promising that he could fix things, whereas in fact all he would do is make them massively worse. Beyond that immediate reaction, what parties would end up rising up out of the ashes of this mess is anyone's guess, frankly; a lot would depend on whether the Tories had come to their senses in the meantime.
What was that about Project Fear?
But if you're right, and TBH I think you are, then while the Government would almost certainly fall and the Tories crushed at any subsequent GE I suspect that the Tories wouldn't be forgiven by many five years later.
In the event of No Deal, I would predict a very serious short-term disruption - a range of goods and foodstuffs in very short supply, immediate and serious job losses, large numbers of insolvencies, serious disruption to travel, a recession this year, etc. Quantifying this into numbers of unemployed and a percentage hit on GDP is extremely difficult, because this kind of cliff-edge hit to established trade in an advanced economy is unprecedented outside wartime, we can't know in advance what mitigating actions might be possible, and traditional economic models (which aren't that great in the first place) are simply not appropriate to such a disruption. Still, the general picture is clear - No Deal would be an unmitigated and immediate disaster.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, and this is no exception. I'd argue high on any Government's list of priorities, along with the defence of the country and the administration of law, would be the distribution of food.
On one level, it has been said we are only three meals away from anarchy - perhaps so. Those who actually distribute food have, one would like to think, contingency plans for a No Deal and yes it's quite possible some temporary shortages may occur of some items in some areas and for those of us brought up on seasonality in fruit and veg for example, no strawberries in April wouldn't be a disaster but if you are used to having strawberries whenever, it may be a shock.
I'd also argue the economic headwinds would indicate a slowdown even if we agree the Deal so I'm not sure how much of a difference No Deal will may.
As for employment, the 2008-09 GFC did not, it appears, bring the high levels of unemployment predicted so why will No Deal? Again, I don't know.
Dame Pauline Neville-Jones putting the boot into Mrs May's record at the Home Office on the WATO.
Most enjoyable.
Is there anything May has turned her hand to which hasn't turned to shit?
I doubt it. She seems to utterly lack the capacity for empathy in any form and I still maintain it is a fundamental requirement for success in politics. I am not saying politicians will always sympathise, agree or even do anything to help those they are serving. Whether they do or not will be a calculation on their part. But they cannot make that calculation if they are unable to empathise. If they cannot do that they have no means of understanding anyone else's point of view.
This is why on every serious issue May has a total tin ear.
Everything in moderation. You can have overmuch empathy too. As Merkel did confronting the pathetic migrant in front of the TV cameras.
I think she demonstrated too much sympathy. Not quite the same as empathy. Empathy is the ability to feel another's emotions, sympathy is caring about it. Too much empathy might be more like that classic of B movies, Scanners.
So you could say Bill Clinton exhibited both (I feel your pain) or, more likely, just strong empathy and the ability to fake caring. I think the best politicians all have very strong empathy, and come across as authentically caring, but still are able to make the hard-hearted decisions when necessary.
Very possible,however, that the theme 'Clearing up the Tory Brexit Mess' could run for several years - given how Osborne managed to spin 'Clearing up Labour's Mess' for the entirety of the 2010 Parliament.
Except that Labour would have voted for the mess, and the vast bulk of Labour supporters would have wanted them to avoid the mess at all costs, which makes it awkward.
Hate preacher Abu Hamza's son, 26, is man being quizzed over bouncer's murder at Mayfair New Year party as he appears in court charged with firearms possession
A self-styled Lord who was released from prison as an ‘act of mercy’ when he convinced judges he was gravely ill is clearly enjoying life as a free man.
Edward Davenport, nicknamed ‘Fast Eddie’, was jailed for eight years in 2011 for masterminding a £4.5million fraud where he hoodwinked the rich and famous.
Last May he was released early after claiming he was 'at death's door' because of kidney problems and suffering the 'ordeal' of having to leave prison each week for life-saving dialysis.
But eight months on socialite Davenport looks to be close to a full recovery as he had fun with a friend on Saturday.
Even al-Megrahi didn't make as good a recovery as that.
"A firm awarded a government contract to provide extra ferry services has used website terms and conditions apparently intended for a takeaway food firm.
Its original terms and conditions advised customers to check goods before "agreeing to pay for any meal/order".
The government said the section was "put up in errror" and was now correct."
Very possible,however, that the theme 'Clearing up the Tory Brexit Mess' could run for several years - given how Osborne managed to spin 'Clearing up Labour's Mess' for the entirety of the 2010 Parliament.
Except that Labour would have voted for the mess, and the vast bulk of Labour supporters would have wanted them to avoid the mess at all costs, which makes it awkward.
But that is a bit like saying that Cameron and Osborne had agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-2008.
Very possible,however, that the theme 'Clearing up the Tory Brexit Mess' could run for several years - given how Osborne managed to spin 'Clearing up Labour's Mess' for the entirety of the 2010 Parliament.
Except that Labour would have voted for the mess, and the vast bulk of Labour supporters would have wanted them to avoid the mess at all costs, which makes it awkward.
Labour have the easy get out of blaming it all on Corbyn though. "The big Momentum boys did it and then ran away"
Dame Pauline Neville-Jones putting the boot into Mrs May's record at the Home Office on the WATO.
Most enjoyable.
Is there anything May has turned her hand to which hasn't turned to shit?
I doubt it. She seems to utterly lack the capacity for empathy in any form and I still maintain it is a fundamental requirement for success in politics. I am not saying politicians will always sympathise, agree or even do anything to help those they are serving. Whether they do or not will be a calculation on their part. But they cannot make that calculation if they are unable to empathise. If they cannot do that they have no means of understanding anyone else's point of view.
This is why on every serious issue May has a total tin ear.
Everything in moderation. You can have overmuch empathy too. As Merkel did confronting the pathetic migrant in front of the TV cameras.
I think she demonstrated too much sympathy. Not quite the same as empathy. Empathy is the ability to feel another's emotions, sympathy is caring about it. Too much empathy might be more like that classic of B movies, Scanners.
So you could say Bill Clinton exhibited both (I feel your pain) or, more likely, just strong empathy and the ability to fake caring. I think the best politicians all have very strong empathy, and come across as authentically caring, but still are able to make the hard-hearted decisions when necessary.
As regards the political fall-out: In the short term, it seems inevitable that the government would get the blame, propelling Corbyn into No 10. But, after that, it's Labour who would get the blame; after all, they'd then be the ones in power, and Corbyn would inevitably fall into the trap of over-promising that he could fix things, whereas in fact all he would do is make them massively worse. Beyond that immediate reaction, what parties would end up rising up out of the ashes of this mess is anyone's guess, frankly; a lot would depend on whether the Tories had come to their senses in the meantime.
IF the consequences of No Deal are as dire as you state, there will be a political backlash of some support and it may be seen as early as the May local elections.
That doesn't put Corbyn into No.10 per se - the Conservative-DUP agreement would remain in place (it's more threatened by the passing of the Deal it seems) and the not inconsiderable fear of and antipathy toward Corbyn remains and would no doubt be a major part of any campaign. Whether Corbyn wins by Conservative abstention or not I don't know.
I do agree (see, it does happen) Corbyn will over-promise but as McDonnell will be running the Government and the finances I'm of the view the problems will be within the new Government as McDonnell may not be as financially forthcoming as some hope.
As for the Conservatives, they are frankly pretty useless in Opposition most of the time but can rely on Labour to help them massively. How they will regroup after what has happened - well you'd have a better idea than me. I do wonder whether a new pro-rejoin grouping (bits of LDs, bits of Labour, bits of Conservatives) will emerge by the mid-2020s.
In the event of No Deal, I would predict a very serious short-term disruption - a range of goods and foodstuffs in very short supply, immediate and serious job losses, large numbers of insolvencies, serious disruption to travel, a recession this year, etc. Quantifying this into numbers of unemployed and a percentage hit on GDP is extremely difficult, because this kind of cliff-edge hit to established trade in an advanced economy is unprecedented outside wartime, we can't know in advance what mitigating actions might be possible, and traditional economic models (which aren't that great in the first place) are simply not appropriate to such a disruption. Still, the general picture is clear - No Deal would be an unmitigated and immediate disaster.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, and this is no exception. I'd argue high on any Government's list of priorities, along with the defence of the country and the administration of law, would be the distribution of food.
On one level, it has been said we are only three meals away from anarchy - perhaps so. Those who actually distribute food have, one would like to think, contingency plans for a No Deal and yes it's quite possible some temporary shortages may occur of some items in some areas and for those of us brought up on seasonality in fruit and veg for example, no strawberries in April wouldn't be a disaster but if you are used to having strawberries whenever, it may be a shock.
I'd also argue the economic headwinds would indicate a slowdown even if we agree the Deal so I'm not sure how much of a difference No Deal will may.
As for employment, the 2008-09 GFC did not, it appears, bring the high levels of unemployment predicted so why will No Deal? Again, I don't know.
Once you’re talking about the government ensuring everyone gets access to food you’re not in a very good place.
Very possible,however, that the theme 'Clearing up the Tory Brexit Mess' could run for several years - given how Osborne managed to spin 'Clearing up Labour's Mess' for the entirety of the 2010 Parliament.
Except that Labour would have voted for the mess, and the vast bulk of Labour supporters would have wanted them to avoid the mess at all costs, which makes it awkward.
But that is a bit like saying that Cameron and Osborne had agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-2008.
Not really - this is about an actual vote in parliament. Most Tories will vote for the deal. As things stand, it looks as though Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, the Green and Plaid will be joining Jacob Rees-Mogg in voting to make a deal impossible.
I expect she would resign, but if she didn't, then 2nd Ref, perhaps allowing parliament to force it on her.
That's been my view, No Deal is such an absurd outcome that she will not allow it to happen, but I am not so sure now. She is pledged to deliver Brexit and IMO would have to resign if she doesn't. And I bet that losing her job is her plan Z.
"I've done the best deal possible and if you guys won't support it, tough, we're leaving anyway."
As I stated earlier this week the entire purpose of Elizabeth announcing early is to make sure it's impossible for Bernie Sanders to run...
Rubbish. Sanders is still second to Biden in most Democratic nomination polls even with Warren included.
Sanders also polls better than Warren v Trump in general election polls
You understand the concept of vote-splitting, right?
Clearly you did not read a word I said. Sanders is second in most polls even with Warren included.
The centrist vote will be even more split with Biden, Brown, Klobuchar, Bloomberg etc
The point is that her running makes his life harder. Unless he's doing just as well in polls with her included as he's doing in polls without her included
Sanders is toast, particularly with today's news.
His defence for not being aware of, and hence not doing anything about, sexual harassment within his campaign is that 'I was a little busy'. How on earth does that qualify him to be President? It will be played on loop throughout any campaign he may launch by his primary opponents. And think what the GOP will do with that if in the unlikely event he does get the Dem nod.
Hate preacher Abu Hamza's son, 26, is man being quizzed over bouncer's murder at Mayfair New Year party as he appears in court charged with firearms possession
A self-styled Lord who was released from prison as an ‘act of mercy’ when he convinced judges he was gravely ill is clearly enjoying life as a free man.
Edward Davenport, nicknamed ‘Fast Eddie’, was jailed for eight years in 2011 for masterminding a £4.5million fraud where he hoodwinked the rich and famous.
Last May he was released early after claiming he was 'at death's door' because of kidney problems and suffering the 'ordeal' of having to leave prison each week for life-saving dialysis.
But eight months on socialite Davenport looks to be close to a full recovery as he had fun with a friend on Saturday.
Even al-Megrahi didn't make as good a recovery as that.
Remember Ernest Saunders? The only case of recovery from Alzheimers.
In the event of No Deal, I would predict a very serious short-term disruption - a range of goods and foodstuffs in very short supply, immediate and serious job losses, large numbers of insolvencies, serious disruption to travel, a recession this year, etc. Quantifying this into numbers of unemployed and a percentage hit on GDP is extremely difficult, because this kind of cliff-edge hit to established trade in an advanced economy is unprecedented outside wartime, we can't know in advance what mitigating actions might be possible, and traditional economic models (which aren't that great in the first place) are simply not appropriate to such a disruption. Still, the general picture is clear - No Deal would be an unmitigated and immediate disaster.
As regards the political fall-out: In the short term, it seems inevitable that the government would get the blame, propelling Corbyn into No 10. But, after that, it's Labour who would get the blame; after all, they'd then be the ones in power, and Corbyn would inevitably fall into the trap of over-promising that he could fix things, whereas in fact all he would do is make them massively worse. Beyond that immediate reaction, what parties would end up rising up out of the ashes of this mess is anyone's guess, frankly; a lot would depend on whether the Tories had come to their senses in the meantime.
What was that about Project Fear?
But if you're right, and TBH I think you are, then while the Government would almost certainly fall and the Tories crushed at any subsequent GE I suspect that the Tories wouldn't be forgiven by many five years later.
Precisely. Tuition fees was seven plus years ago; Black Wednesday hit the Tories for a decade. Anything close to what Richard describes would tarnish the Tories - who championed and thrust us into this fiasco from the beginning - for a generation.
I expect she would resign, but if she didn't, then 2nd Ref, perhaps allowing parliament to force it on her.
That's been my view, No Deal is such an absurd outcome that she will not allow it to happen, but I am not so sure now. She is pledged to deliver Brexit and IMO would have to resign if she doesn't. And I bet that losing her job is her plan Z.
"I've done the best deal possible and if you guys won't support it, tough, we're leaving anyway."
Starting to suspect that it's no bluff.
Nah, the Revocation Bill is already drafted. No PM would want no deal to be their legacy and it would destroy the Tory party and the union, about both of which Mrs M cares greatly.
Comments
https://www.iso.org/store.html
I know that we would have some influence on this currently. My dad was on a European technical committee, and if he had not died prematurely would probably have been in line to chair and attend international committee but he would have been representing the European committee even if their wishes were against his own.
There will be no 'massive anti Tory backlash' if No Deal and if there were the main beneficiaries would be the LDs not Corbyn as Labour and Tory Remainers could move to them or a new centrist party that is anti Brexit
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/02/warren-iowa-staff-1077881
And a rather blunt satire on the misogyny directed at Warren:
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-dont-hate-women-candidates-i-just-hated-hillary-and-coincidentally-im-starting-to-hate-elizabeth-warren
Sanders also polls better than Warren v Trump in general election polls
May’s deal isn’t worth having. It’s just capitulation to EU demands.
I'm well aware that Medicaid is only available to the extremely poor. The authorities have been known to hire private detectives to trace your assets, i.e. Medicaid is means-tested and serious illness is the USA's main cause of bankruptcy. Of course, having been declared bankrupt, you'll be offered Medicaid.
No-one in UK government since ~2010-12 has denied that the UK is heading towards just such a two-tier system. My Tory MP also refuses to deny it.
The far side of the moon programme is impressive because it requires several pieces to be in play: a launch system, the lander and a remote mission control. Which presumably is why it hasn't been attempted before.
Won’t happen. Moving factories is hugely expensive and disruptive. Most will look to add extra inventory in the short term and find alternative sources of supply in the longer term. That’s easier for some businesses that others. Aerospace and pharma industries tend to require end customer approval of component suppliers.
Student drug dealers are SPARED jail after impressing judge with 'spelling and grammar' in text messages arranging cannabis deals
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6553585/Student-drug-dealers-spared-jail-impressing-judge-spelling-punctuation.html
Yup, Easy to confuse the two.
Leavers want democracy enacted.
Remainers … "Lib Dem former Cabinet minister Sir Vince Cable said holding the referendum was a "very bad call" by the Prime Minister, who failed to understand what happens "when you just throw the cards in the air". A very wise man. Those pesky voters don't always do what they're told by their betters, do they?
Let's all come together to make this the very best Brexit ever.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/sink-two-aircraft-carriers-chinese-admirals-chilling-recipie-to-dominate-the-south-china-sea/news-story/aaa8c33d57da62e7d5e28e791aa26e0f
A very bold claim about the powers of national governments to influence events...
Given the NHS does not require any asset test for treatment we are nowhere near the US system let alone the one in much of Europe
The centrist vote will be even more split with Biden, Brown, Klobuchar, Bloomberg etc
What matters is what happens instead.
Just you want to inflict huge damage on the economy, risk Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland and most probably the reversal of Brexit ultimately or BINO just to meet your fanaticism
We've become used to China operating without overt military force, but that may be changing (and, in the South China Sea, already has).
Edited extra bit: off for a bit now, shall return interfrastically.
Crashing out is what the people voted for. Respect the referendum.
Very few polls back No Deal
We *must* respect the will of the people, no matter how cretinous, for democracy to mean anything. I can understand your desperation to frustrate the will of the people, but No Deal is the only deal that respects the referendum result and delivers what people voted for. In abundance.
Most enjoyable.
Is there anything May has turned her hand to which hasn't turned to shit?
We'll walk together, with wide smiles and carrying our shovels, into the Venezuela sunset. But we'll survive. We'll hardly notice the difference for a few years. When GE's become a simple ratification of the Party's candidates, we'll feel relief at the burden being taken away. Clearly, we were never up to the onerous task of voting. We wouldn't want another Brexit, would we?
And your comments about Norway's influence over EU regs once again displays your ignorance of reality. Norway outside the EU has far more ability to influence and reject Single Market regulation than the UK inside the EU.
This is why on every serious issue May has a total tin ear.
More credulous minds might believe them deliberate, even.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Health_Insurance_Card
This just seems even more messed up to me...
EEA countries can choose not to implement directives, but if they do so they effectively lose all access to the covered segment of the single market, so it's not much of a threat.
This is also why, I think, the EU would never agree to an EEA-style deal for the UK. The UK is much bigger than any other EEA country, so our refusal to implement legislation would be a much more dangerous threat.
Thus, I think, the EEA will never be available to us as it stands. Perhaps some bespoke arrangement more like Switzerland, but the EU will want to make sure the it's much tighter than the Swiss bilateral treaties so the UK doesn't have blanket power to veto or derail EU legislation.
Up until today I have been intoxicated by the notion of a person who, for all her flaws, is consumed by a sense of duty to act in the national interest, or at least what she believes that to be. But waiting on a red light on the Finchley Rd, I suddenly realized that this is total and utter bullshit. TM has reached the very top in politics. She is PM, a job that few in the whole of history get to do, a position of enormous power and prestige. It is a state of affairs she will have grown accustomed to and to adore. So forget ‘sense of duty’ and ‘national interest’, all of that baloney, the question Mrs May will be asking herself at each and every crux point over the next 100 or so days of Brexit drama is this:
Which course of action maximizes the chances of me staying at 10 Downing St?
This is particularly relevant for the decision she must make if she cannot get her deal through parliament. Will the pivot be to No Deal or to another referendum, a.k.a. renege on Brexit? Previously I have thought the referendum more likely. But that was under my old view of TM as a good egg. Adopting this new revelation, that she is a normal power-grubbing politico, causes me to change my mind. No Deal gives her a better shot at hanging on as PM (but does it? am I right?) and therefore will be the preference. If MPs want to stop it they must either ratify the Deal or get rid of her.
As regards the political fall-out: In the short term, it seems inevitable that the government would get the blame, propelling Corbyn into No 10. But, after that, it's Labour who would get the blame; after all, they'd then be the ones in power, and Corbyn would inevitably fall into the trap of over-promising that he could fix things, whereas in fact all he would do is make them massively worse. Beyond that immediate reaction, what parties would end up rising up out of the ashes of this mess is anyone's guess, frankly; a lot would depend on whether the Tories had come to their senses in the meantime.
Hate preacher Abu Hamza's son, 26, is man being quizzed over bouncer's murder at Mayfair New Year party as he appears in court charged with firearms possession
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6554045/Man-26-arrested-murder-New-Years-Eve-party-charged-firearms-offences.html
That's democracy.
Interesting post. So you clearly reckon that No Deal would live up to the hype.
What's your view on what May does if she has to choose between No Deal and 2nd Ref?
Which way does she jump?
Well would you look at that...
https://tinyurl.com/ydy3bmsj
A self-styled Lord who was released from prison as an ‘act of mercy’ when he convinced judges he was gravely ill is clearly enjoying life as a free man.
Edward Davenport, nicknamed ‘Fast Eddie’, was jailed for eight years in 2011 for masterminding a £4.5million fraud where he hoodwinked the rich and famous.
Last May he was released early after claiming he was 'at death's door' because of kidney problems and suffering the 'ordeal' of having to leave prison each week for life-saving dialysis.
But eight months on socialite Davenport looks to be close to a full recovery as he had fun with a friend on Saturday.
We told leavers what would happen, and they said "lol Project Fear!" and voted for it anyway.
We tried to warn them. They ignored our advice. Now, in the interests of respecting democracy, we have no choice but to deliver what they voted for: total and unmitigated chaos and disaster.
But if you're right, and TBH I think you are, then while the Government would almost certainly fall and the Tories crushed at any subsequent GE I suspect that the Tories wouldn't be forgiven by many five years later.
On one level, it has been said we are only three meals away from anarchy - perhaps so. Those who actually distribute food have, one would like to think, contingency plans for a No Deal and yes it's quite possible some temporary shortages may occur of some items in some areas and for those of us brought up on seasonality in fruit and veg for example, no strawberries in April wouldn't be a disaster but if you are used to having strawberries whenever, it may be a shock.
I'd also argue the economic headwinds would indicate a slowdown even if we agree the Deal so I'm not sure how much of a difference No Deal will may.
As for employment, the 2008-09 GFC did not, it appears, bring the high levels of unemployment predicted so why will No Deal? Again, I don't know.
So you could say Bill Clinton exhibited both (I feel your pain) or, more likely, just strong empathy and the ability to fake caring. I think the best politicians all have very strong empathy, and come across as authentically caring, but still are able to make the hard-hearted decisions when necessary.
"A firm awarded a government contract to provide extra ferry services has used website terms and conditions apparently intended for a takeaway food firm.
Its original terms and conditions advised customers to check goods before "agreeing to pay for any meal/order".
The government said the section was "put up in errror" and was now correct."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46748193
That doesn't put Corbyn into No.10 per se - the Conservative-DUP agreement would remain in place (it's more threatened by the passing of the Deal it seems) and the not inconsiderable fear of and antipathy toward Corbyn remains and would no doubt be a major part of any campaign. Whether Corbyn wins by Conservative abstention or not I don't know.
I do agree (see, it does happen) Corbyn will over-promise but as McDonnell will be running the Government and the finances I'm of the view the problems will be within the new Government as McDonnell may not be as financially forthcoming as some hope.
As for the Conservatives, they are frankly pretty useless in Opposition most of the time but can rely on Labour to help them massively. How they will regroup after what has happened - well you'd have a better idea than me. I do wonder whether a new pro-rejoin grouping (bits of LDs, bits of Labour, bits of Conservatives) will emerge by the mid-2020s.
"I've done the best deal possible and if you guys won't support it, tough, we're leaving anyway."
Starting to suspect that it's no bluff.
His defence for not being aware of, and hence not doing anything about, sexual harassment within his campaign is that 'I was a little busy'. How on earth does that qualify him to be President? It will be played on loop throughout any campaign he may launch by his primary opponents. And think what the GOP will do with that if in the unlikely event he does get the Dem nod.