The German attitude last week is widespread across Europe.
1) There's a general incredulity towards Brexit.
2) Wonder if we'll revoke.
3) Thanks that following the 'success' of Brexit, no other country has the wish to follow the UK's lead, heck even Marine Le Pen has changed the Front national's Frexit policy. We've done wonders for the cause of European unity.
3) For now.
We're at a rather phony stage of Brexit. Like everything, this too shall pass and then we will see what happens next. If we make a success of it, then Frexit might suddenly become appealing again. Though I would expect Swexit before Frexit.
I would expect neither.
We’ve unilaterally killed the cause of eurosceptism for a generation.
The German attitude last week is widespread across Europe.
1) There's a general incredulity towards Brexit.
2) Wonder if we'll revoke.
3) Thanks that following the 'success' of Brexit, no other country has the wish to follow the UK's lead, heck even Marine Le Pen has changed the Front national's Frexit policy. We've done wonders for the cause of European unity.
All this was foreign incredulity was presciently predicted, back in October 2016
"Thirdly, there will be blood. Brexit is going to be painful, like childbirth. It just is. The Leave quacks who promised a brisk and blissful delivery don’t have enough diamorphine to dull the nerves. We might need epidurals from the Treasury. We will swear a lot, and not care.
"It might be rather embarrassing but again, we probably won’t care, because we’ll be concentrating on the pain. Other countries will look at us and think ‘I’m never going through that’. Immediately after Brexit, we will likely appear reduced, saggy, wrinkled."
Could a GE still be called for 2nd May? When is the last possible deadline for that?
There's still time.
For example the 2005 general election, held on 5th May wasn't called until 5th April (it was out back from 2nd April during to the death of Pope John Paul II)
Different rules under the FTPA.
We need 25 working/sitting days between dissolution and election day.
So middle of next week is the last day for dissolution for a May 2nd election.
The two Easter Bank Holidays probably mean that Tuesday 26th March would be the latest day for a Dissolution - though this would need to be preceded by a Commons vote as in 2017. An election announcement would be required by Monday - possibly earlier.
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Since when was Britain a world power before Brexit? Britain has only been a middle ranking power since the independence of India and that will still be the case Brexit or No Brexit
Could a GE still be called for 2nd May? When is the last possible deadline for that?
There's still time.
For example the 2005 general election, held on 5th May wasn't called until 5th April (it was out back from 2nd April during to the death of Pope John Paul II)
Different rules under the FTPA.
We need 25 working/sitting days between dissolution and election day.
So middle of next week is the last day for dissolution for a May 2nd election.
The two Easter Bank Holidays probably mean that Tuesday 26th March would be the latest day for a Dissolution - though this would need to be preceded by a Commons vote as in 2017. An election announcement would be required by Monday - possibly earlier.
Academic discussion.
It ain’t happening in a month of Sundays.
You are probably correct - though it would come as less of a shock than the 2017 announcement!
Could a GE still be called for 2nd May? When is the last possible deadline for that?
There's still time.
For example the 2005 general election, held on 5th May wasn't called until 5th April (it was out back from 2nd April during to the death of Pope John Paul II)
Different rules under the FTPA.
We need 25 working/sitting days between dissolution and election day.
So middle of next week is the last day for dissolution for a May 2nd election.
The two Easter Bank Holidays probably mean that Tuesday 26th March would be the latest day for a Dissolution - though this would need to be preceded by a Commons vote as in 2017. An election announcement would be required by Monday - possibly earlier.
Dissolution tomorrow would mean a GE on Friday 26th APRIL! I think the last 2 dissolutions have been timed to work out correctly for a Thursday, so Thursday 2nd May would mean a dissolution by Tuesday, 9tb May by Monday week (as we then have another Bank Holiday to skip).
Yes, well there was a little matter of a humongous world financial crash, the worst since at least the 1930s, which happened under the previous Labour government and was made particularly bad for the UK because the Labour government had dismantled supervision of our banking system. Choosing a start point at the top of the unsustainable boom, just before the crash, is a rather, how shall I put it, 'selective' view of the figures.
And the income tax changes makes every basic rate taxpayer about £1,200 a year bettter off.
True. And of course increased employer pension contributions particularly for the lower paid, as a result of auto-enrolment - this is a hidden but very important pay rise.
The German attitude last week is widespread across Europe.
1) There's a general incredulity towards Brexit.
2) Wonder if we'll revoke.
3) Thanks that following the 'success' of Brexit, no other country has the wish to follow the UK's lead, heck even Marine Le Pen has changed the Front national's Frexit policy. We've done wonders for the cause of European unity.
All this was foreign incredulity was presciently predicted, back in October 2016
"Thirdly, there will be blood. Brexit is going to be painful, like childbirth. It just is. The Leave quacks who promised a brisk and blissful delivery don’t have enough diamorphine to dull the nerves. We might need epidurals from the Treasury. We will swear a lot, and not care.
"It might be rather embarrassing but again, we probably won’t care, because we’ll be concentrating on the pain. Other countries will look at us and think ‘I’m never going through that’. Immediately after Brexit, we will likely appear reduced, saggy, wrinkled."
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
That's actually the view from Twitter. What is the circulation of the New Yorker per chance? The problem is you live in an echo chamber. I travel and the discussion about Brexit is no more than Australia's political changes, New Zealand terrorism, Japanese abdication, President Trump, French yellow jackets, Italian extremism or Canadian political scandal.
You need to expand your horizons beyond your twitter following to realise Brexit really is not on the lips of normal people outside the UK despite what you might wish.
We'll have sorted out Brexit and our "laughing stock status" before America has moved Donald Trump out of the White House.
Anyone would think they are SO embarrassed about Trump having been elected, they are looking for some distractions to make them feel better....
"Sorted out Brexit" - we've been arguing over this for half a century or more. It's only going to get worse with the country so divided. Whatever the outcome there are going to be some very ideologically driven people wanting to reverse it. Remainer/leaver is unionist/nationalist, royalist/republican, Dreyfusard/anti-Dreyfusard, ghibellines/guelphs level division that will be multi-generational.
The German attitude last week is widespread across Europe.
1) There's a general incredulity towards Brexit.
2) Wonder if we'll revoke.
3) Thanks that following the 'success' of Brexit, no other country has the wish to follow the UK's lead, heck even Marine Le Pen has changed the Front national's Frexit policy. We've done wonders for the cause of European unity.
3) For now.
We're at a rather phony stage of Brexit. Like everything, this too shall pass and then we will see what happens next. If we make a success of it, then Frexit might suddenly become appealing again. Though I would expect Swexit before Frexit.
I would expect neither.
We’ve unilaterally killed the cause of eurosceptism for a generation.
Call it taking one for the team.
Someone hasn't been paying attention to Europe for a while...
Could a GE still be called for 2nd May? When is the last possible deadline for that?
There's still time.
For example the 2005 general election, held on 5th May wasn't called until 5th April (it was out back from 2nd April during to the death of Pope John Paul II)
Different rules under the FTPA.
We need 25 working/sitting days between dissolution and election day.
So middle of next week is the last day for dissolution for a May 2nd election.
Yes, well there was a little matter of a humongous world financial crash, the worst since at least the 1930s, which happened under the previous Labour government and was made particularly bad for the UK because the Labour government had dismantled supervision of our banking system. Choosing a start point at the top of the unsustainable boom, just before the crash, is a rather, how shall I put it, 'selective' view of the figures.
Nonsense, despite the UK's particular exposure to financial services, the initial and action response of the UK government kept the banks solvent and the economy functioning. It was made particularly bad for the UK because the 2010 UK Government then used it as an excuse to achieve their long cherished desire of cutting public services to the bone, in contrast to the policies followed by much of the rest of the world which recovered far quicker over the subsequent five years.
If you are a Lib Dem then your criticism of the UK's dismantling of bank regulation is a reasonable one, because Cable was making that point prior to the crash. If you are a Conservative then it isn't, because for years the Conservatives had been urging the UK to go even further and faster down that road.
Could a GE still be called for 2nd May? When is the last possible deadline for that?
There's still time.
For example the 2005 general election, held on 5th May wasn't called until 5th April (it was out back from 2nd April during to the death of Pope John Paul II)
Different rules under the FTPA.
We need 25 working/sitting days between dissolution and election day.
So middle of next week is the last day for dissolution for a May 2nd election.
The two Easter Bank Holidays probably mean that Tuesday 26th March would be the latest day for a Dissolution - though this would need to be preceded by a Commons vote as in 2017. An election announcement would be required by Monday - possibly earlier.
Dissolution tomorrow would mean a GE on Friday 26th May. I think the last 2 dissolutions have been timed to work out correctly for a Thursday, so Thursday 2nd May would mean a dissolution by Tuesday, 9tb May by Monday week (as we then have another Bank Holiday to skip).
You need to look at those dates again - 26th May is a Sunday!
Could a GE still be called for 2nd May? When is the last possible deadline for that?
There's still time.
For example the 2005 general election, held on 5th May wasn't called until 5th April (it was out back from 2nd April during to the death of Pope John Paul II)
Different rules under the FTPA.
We need 25 working/sitting days between dissolution and election day.
So middle of next week is the last day for dissolution for a May 2nd election.
The two Easter Bank Holidays probably mean that Tuesday 26th March would be the latest day for a Dissolution - though this would need to be preceded by a Commons vote as in 2017. An election announcement would be required by Monday - possibly earlier.
Dissolution tomorrow would mean a GE on Friday 26th May. I think the last 2 dissolutions have been timed to work out correctly for a Thursday, so Thursday 2nd May would mean a dissolution by Tuesday, 9tb May by Monday week (as we then have another Bank Holiday to skip).
You need to look at those dates again - 26th May is a Sunday!
1. Let them sort themselves out. They chose to move overseas. Global Britain has other things to do.
That wouldn't exactly be popular but it is consistent and shows a commitment to making Brexit something real. Yelps of pain from expats but most people will shrug their shoulders.
2. Cover their health costs in full indefinitely.
Expensive, but it proves you look after your own. Nobody would complain about it - but they might well complain about the lack of whatever it was you could have spent the money on domestically. And you can at least be sure the expats will keep voting blue.
She's actually chosen to fund it for long enough to run up a bill that can be used as evidence against Brexit. But literally nobody is going to be grateful for it. Indeed I have a feeling that it simply stores up the yelps of pain for later when there is less Brexit news to drown it out.
There doesn't seem to be a problem that she tackles where she can't come up with the worst way of solving it.
Could a GE still be called for 2nd May? When is the last possible deadline for that?
There's still time.
For example the 2005 general election, held on 5th May wasn't called until 5th April (it was out back from 2nd April during to the death of Pope John Paul II)
Different rules under the FTPA.
We need 25 working/sitting days between dissolution and election day.
So middle of next week is the last day for dissolution for a May 2nd election.
The two Easter Bank Holidays probably mean that Tuesday 26th March would be the latest day for a Dissolution - though this would need to be preceded by a Commons vote as in 2017. An election announcement would be required by Monday - possibly earlier.
Dissolution tomorrow would mean a GE on Friday 26th May. I think the last 2 dissolutions have been timed to work out correctly for a Thursday, so Thursday 2nd May would mean a dissolution by Tuesday, 9tb May by Monday week (as we then have another Bank Holiday to skip).
You need to look at those dates again - 26th May is a Sunday!
D'oh
Does the FTPA mandate any day for an election, or could it be any day of the week?
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Since when was Britain a world power before Brexit? Britain has only been a middle ranking power since the independence of India and that will still be the case Brexit or No Brexit
Recently recognized as 2nd or 3rd in the power/influence rankings ahead of Russia. Militarily we are lagging but we are still a key world player. London is touted from time to time as the 'capital' of the world. Power isn't about land ownership. Economy 5th highest in world, permanent seat on un security council, queen is the senior head of state in thd world etc etc
On topic: I suspect part of Yang's strength in the betting markets is caused simply by the fact little is so far being traded. With most punters not yet paying attention, Yang's very enthusiastic supporters have an oversized impact on Betfair. It doesn't take that much money to move his odds considerably, at this stage.
Could a GE still be called for 2nd May? When is the last possible deadline for that?
There's still time.
For example the 2005 general election, held on 5th May wasn't called until 5th April (it was out back from 2nd April during to the death of Pope John Paul II)
Different rules under the FTPA.
We need 25 working/sitting days between dissolution and election day.
So middle of next week is the last day for dissolution for a May 2nd election.
The two Easter Bank Holidays probably mean that Tuesday 26th March would be the latest day for a Dissolution - though this would need to be preceded by a Commons vote as in 2017. An election announcement would be required by Monday - possibly earlier.
Dissolution tomorrow would mean a GE on Friday 26th May. I think the last 2 dissolutions have been timed to work out correctly for a Thursday, so Thursday 2nd May would mean a dissolution by Tuesday, 9tb May by Monday week (as we then have another Bank Holiday to skip).
You need to look at those dates again - 26th May is a Sunday!
D'oh
Does the FTPA mandate any day for an election, or could it be any day of the week?
Theoretically it can be any day except national holidays or were it is designed to cause inconvenience to the voters or the execution of the results process, such as Christmas Eve. Can you imagine counting votes on Christmas day?
1. Let them sort themselves out. They chose to move overseas. Global Britain has other things to do.
That wouldn't exactly be popular but it is consistent and shows a commitment to making Brexit something real. Yelps of pain from expats but most people will shrug their shoulders.
2. Cover their health costs in full indefinitely.
Expensive, but it proves you look after your own. Nobody would complain about it - but they might well complain about the lack of whatever it was you could have spent the money on domestically. And you can at least be sure the expats will keep voting blue.
She's actually chosen to fund it for long enough to run up a bill that can be used as evidence against Brexit. But literally nobody is going to be grateful for it. Indeed I have a feeling that it simply stores up the yelps of pain for later when there is less Brexit news to drown it out.
There doesn't seem to be a problem that she tackles where she can't come up with the worst way of solving it.
The running up a bill isn't actually a solution - once we have left we can't return.
It's why the only sane approach if an extension isn't offered is to revoke - have an election and try again with a sensible leader and a plan that people have agreed.
May will of course let as crash out as that means someone else (the EU) gets a bit of the blame
The German attitude last week is widespread across Europe.
1) There's a general incredulity towards Brexit.
2) Wonder if we'll revoke.
3) Thanks that following the 'success' of Brexit, no other country has the wish to follow the UK's lead, heck even Marine Le Pen has changed the Front national's Frexit policy. We've done wonders for the cause of European unity.
3) For now.
We're at a rather phony stage of Brexit. Like everything, this too shall pass and then we will see what happens next. If we make a success of it, then Frexit might suddenly become appealing again. Though I would expect Swexit before Frexit.
I would expect neither.
We’ve unilaterally killed the cause of eurosceptism for a generation.
Call it taking one for the team.
On the contrary, at the moment I can't reciprocate your warm fuzzy feelings towards the likes of Juncker and I don't think that most of the UK electorate does either. If a few are now resigned to being led back into Stalag Luft III looking into the barrel of a gun they have been (mistakenly) convinced is loaded, the hostility generated towards all things EU means that the seeds are there for another attempt under a PM actually committed to giving more than lip service to that course.
Probably right but the court case would be afterwards so wouldn't be a problem.
In fact a court claiming that the revocation was illegal solves a problem - we revoke, court confirms the revocation was illegal so we serve Article 50 again.
Remember the issue here is that No one wants (or wants to get) all the blame. And at the moment the battle is how do I revoke due to having no choice but to revoke....
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Since when was Britain a world power before Brexit? Britain has only been a middle ranking power since the independence of India and that will still be the case Brexit or No Brexit
Recently recognized as 2nd or 3rd in the power/influence rankings ahead of Russia. Militarily we are lagging but we are still a key world player. London is touted from time to time as the 'capital' of the world. Power isn't about land ownership. Economy 5th highest in world, permanent seat on un security council, queen is the senior head of state in thd world etc etc
Which is still essentially a middle ranking power, we are not a world power like the USA or China and have not been a world power since the end of the British Empire
These leaflets were circulating in Newcastle yesterday. Interested in what role "transgender and sexualised children" are playing in facilitating the Muhammadan takeover of society. What could they possibly have to gain?
Fabian socialism, internet regulation, the Euro? Sounds appealing. Do I have to convert to Islam to get it?
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Since when was Britain a world power before Brexit? Britain has only been a middle ranking power since the independence of India and that will still be the case Brexit or No Brexit
Recently recognized as 2nd or 3rd in the power/influence rankings ahead of Russia. Militarily we are lagging but we are still a key world player. London is touted from time to time as the 'capital' of the world. Power isn't about land ownership. Economy 5th highest in world, permanent seat on un security council, queen is the senior head of state in thd world etc etc
It's bollocks tho, isn't it.
There are two superpowers: China and America. Right now America is supreme, but China is fast overtaking. Both are in a totally different league to the second tier powers:
Japan Germany France UK Russia
All of which are roughly equal, even though they have different strengths. Britain exerts more soft power than most, but Russia has a huge military it is happy to use; Japan and Germany are economically strongest, but culturally weaker than France, and so forth.
Meanwhile India, Indonesia and Brazil are moving up the ladder, and will overtake most of the 2nd ranking powers, soon.
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Since when was Britain a world power before Brexit? Britain has only been a middle ranking power since the independence of India and that will still be the case Brexit or No Brexit
Recently recognized as 2nd or 3rd in the power/influence rankings ahead of Russia. Militarily we are lagging but we are still a key world player. London is touted from time to time as the 'capital' of the world. Power isn't about land ownership. Economy 5th highest in world, permanent seat on un security council, queen is the senior head of state in thd world etc etc
Which is still essentially a middle ranking power, we are not a world power like the USA or China and have not been a world power since the end of the British Empire
I'd suggest only the USA is s global power. China will be there by 2030. I'd put us as a senior power - alongside Russia, China, France and Germany
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Since when was Britain a world power before Brexit? Britain has only been a middle ranking power since the independence of India and that will still be the case Brexit or No Brexit
Recently recognized as 2nd or 3rd in the power/influence rankings ahead of Russia. Militarily we are lagging but we are still a key world player. London is touted from time to time as the 'capital' of the world. Power isn't about land ownership. Economy 5th highest in world, permanent seat on un security council, queen is the senior head of state in thd world etc etc
It's bollocks tho, isn't it.
There are two superpowers: China and America. Right now America is supreme, but China is fast overtaking. Both are in a totally different league to the second tier powers:
Japan Germany France UK Russia
All of which are roughly equal, even though they have different strengths. Britain exerts more soft power than most, but Russia has a huge military it is happy to use; Japan and Germany are economically strongest, but culturally weaker than France, and so forth.
Meanwhile India, Indonesia and Brazil are moving up the ladder, and will overtake most of the 2nd ranking powers, soon.
I agree aside from China not quite being a superpower yet. I was saying we still are a major player, I completely accept we are doomed to become Italy in 15 yearz
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Since when was Britain a world power before Brexit? Britain has only been a middle ranking power since the independence of India and that will still be the case Brexit or No Brexit
Recently recognized as 2nd or 3rd in the power/influence rankings ahead of Russia. Militarily we are lagging but we are still a key world player. London is touted from time to time as the 'capital' of the world. Power isn't about land ownership. Economy 5th highest in world, permanent seat on un security council, queen is the senior head of state in thd world etc etc
It's bollocks tho, isn't it.
There are two superpowers: China and America. Right now America is supreme, but China is fast overtaking. Both are in a totally different league to the second tier powers:
Japan Germany France UK Russia
All of which are roughly equal, even though they have different strengths. Britain exerts more soft power than most, but Russia has a huge military it is happy to use; Japan and Germany are economically strongest, but culturally weaker than France, and so forth.
Meanwhile India, Indonesia and Brazil are moving up the ladder, and will overtake most of the 2nd ranking powers, soon.
I agree aside from China not quite being a superpower yet. I was saying we still are a major player, I completely accept we are doomed to become Italy in 15 yearz
Good food, fast cars, beauty and a decent quality of life?
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Since when was Britain a world power before Brexit? Britain has only been a middle ranking power since the independence of India and that will still be the case Brexit or No Brexit
Recently recognized as 2nd or 3rd in the power/influence rankings ahead of Russia. Militarily we are lagging but we are still a key world player. London is touted from time to time as the 'capital' of the world. Power isn't about land ownership. Economy 5th highest in world, permanent seat on un security council, queen is the senior head of state in thd world etc etc
Which is still essentially a middle ranking power, we are not a world power like the USA or China and have not been a world power since the end of the British Empire
I'd suggest only the USA is s global power. China will be there by 2030. I'd put us as a senior power - alongside Russia, China, France and Germany
A senior power is not a superpower, the only 2 superpowers now are the USA and probably China, China having replaced the old USSR as the main rival of the USA
If you are a Lib Dem then your criticism of the UK's dismantling of bank regulation is a reasonable one, because Cable was making that point prior to the crash. If you are a Conservative then it isn't, because for years the Conservatives had been urging the UK to go even further and faster down that road.
Utter poppycock. You are making the absolutely classic error, always made on the left because of a strange blindspot, of confusing supervision of the stability of the banking system, which Brown dismantled, with nonsensical bureaucratic box-ticking regulation, which is a completely different thing. RBS had armies of compliance officers, all carefully ticking the boxes, as required by the FSA. Oodles of 'regulation', much if it unnecessary.
What was missing was systemic banking supervision, because Brown had created a 'tripartite' system in which there was literally no-one looking after the stability of the whole system.
Hindsight? Not at all. Peter Lilley nailed it when the catastrophic legislation was discussed in parliament:
"With the removal of banking control to the Financial Services Authority—the "super-SIB"—it is difficult to see how and whether the Bank remains, as it surely must, responsible for ensuring the liquidity of the banking system and preventing systemic collapse. ... The coverage of the FSA will be huge: its objectives will be many, and potentially in conflict with one another. The range of its activities will be so diverse that no one person in it will understand them all. Its structure will be as complex as those of the organisations that it replaces, if not more so. Practitioner involvement is likely to diminish, and costs are likely to escalate as salaries are equalised upwards.
We have no objection to the objective of trying to bring greater simplicity and one-stop shopping to the business of financial regulation, but we fear that the Government may, almost casually, have bitten off more than they can chew. The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day. "
Prescient words. At a result of Brown's catastrophic blunder, there was no top-level consideration at all of the risk to the stability of the banking system caused by RBS's takeover of ABN Amro. That was because Brown had destroyed the supervisory system which for 150 years had ensured that we had no bank runs in the UK - a 150 years which included a whole series of world financial crises, two world wars, the Great Depression, and the oil-price crisis. But Brown thought he knew better, and we all paid the price.
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Since when was Britain a world power before Brexit? Britain has only been a middle ranking power since the independence of India and that will still be the case Brexit or No Brexit
Recently recognized as 2nd or 3rd in the power/influence rankings ahead of Russia. Militarily we are lagging but we are still a key world player. London is touted from time to time as the 'capital' of the world. Power isn't about land ownership. Economy 5th highest in world, permanent seat on un security council, queen is the senior head of state in thd world etc etc
Which is still essentially a middle ranking power, we are not a world power like the USA or China and have not been a world power since the end of the British Empire
I'd suggest only the USA is s global power. China will be there by 2030. I'd put us as a senior power - alongside Russia, China, France and Germany
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Since when was Britain a world power before Brexit? Britain has only been a middle ranking power since the independence of India and that will still be the case Brexit or No Brexit
Recently recognized as 2nd or 3rd in the power/influence rankings ahead of Russia. Militarily we are lagging but we are still a key world player. London is touted from time to time as the 'capital' of the world. Power isn't about land ownership. Economy 5th highest in world, permanent seat on un security council, queen is the senior head of state in thd world etc etc
Which is still essentially a middle ranking power, we are not a world power like the USA or China and have not been a world power since the end of the British Empire
I'd suggest only the USA is s global power. China will be there by 2030. I'd put us as a senior power - alongside Russia, China, France and Germany
A senior power is not a superpower, the only 2 superpowers now are the USA and probably China, China having replaced the old USSR as the main rival of the USA
I never claimed we were a superpower. I said major power, senior power- I.e. aside fro the USA the top set
1. Let them sort themselves out. They chose to move overseas. Global Britain has other things to do.
That wouldn't exactly be popular but it is consistent and shows a commitment to making Brexit something real. Yelps of pain from expats but most people will shrug their shoulders.
2. Cover their health costs in full indefinitely.
Expensive, but it proves you look after your own. Nobody would complain about it - but they might well complain about the lack of whatever it was you could have spent the money on domestically. And you can at least be sure the expats will keep voting blue.
She's actually chosen to fund it for long enough to run up a bill that can be used as evidence against Brexit. But literally nobody is going to be grateful for it. Indeed I have a feeling that it simply stores up the yelps of pain for later when there is less Brexit news to drown it out.
There doesn't seem to be a problem that she tackles where she can't come up with the worst way of solving it.
I'm no fan of May's but I respectfully disagree. View this as like a safety net.
People have moved overseas expecting to get certain benefits we had signed up to Treaties saying they would get. If that ends overnight due to No Deal then that's not reasonable. Look after them for a year to smooth things out while alternative arrangements can be made in that year. They could return home to the UK but that could take quite a while to arrange, they could make other arrangements overseas etc
If after a year they've chosen to stay overseas then that's their choice. They've had a year's warning by now, they can live with their choice.
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Since when was Britain a world power before Brexit? Britain has only been a middle ranking power since the independence of India and that will still be the case Brexit or No Brexit
Recently recognized as 2nd or 3rd in the power/influence rankings ahead of Russia. Militarily we are lagging but we are still a key world player. London is touted from time to time as the 'capital' of the world. Power isn't about land ownership. Economy 5th highest in world, permanent seat on un security council, queen is the senior head of state in thd world etc etc
It's bollocks tho, isn't it.
There are two superpowers: China and America. Right now America is supreme, but China is fast overtaking. Both are in a totally different league to the second tier powers:
Japan Germany France UK Russia
All of which are roughly equal, even though they have different strengths. Britain exerts more soft power than most, but Russia has a huge military it is happy to use; Japan and Germany are economically strongest, but culturally weaker than France, and so forth.
Meanwhile India, Indonesia and Brazil are moving up the ladder, and will overtake most of the 2nd ranking powers, soon.
I agree aside from China not quite being a superpower yet. I was saying we still are a major player, I completely accept we are doomed to become Italy in 15 yearz
Good food, fast cars, beauty and a decent quality of life?
Faintly ridiculous and using language as a surrogate penis
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Since when was Britain a world power before Brexit? Britain has only been a middle ranking power since the independence of India and that will still be the case Brexit or No Brexit
Recently recognized as 2nd or 3rd in the power/influence rankings ahead of Russia. Militarily we are lagging but we are still a key world player. London is touted from time to time as the 'capital' of the world. Power isn't about land ownership. Economy 5th highest in world, permanent seat on un security council, queen is the senior head of state in thd world etc etc
It's bollocks tho, isn't it.
There are two superpowers: China and America. Right now America is supreme, but China is fast overtaking. Both are in a totally different league to the second tier powers:
Japan Germany France UK Russia
All of which are roughly equal, even though they have different strengths. Britain exerts more soft power than most, but Russia has a huge military it is happy to use; Japan and Germany are economically strongest, but culturally weaker than France, and so forth.
Meanwhile India, Indonesia and Brazil are moving up the ladder, and will overtake most of the 2nd ranking powers, soon.
I agree aside from China not quite being a superpower yet. I was saying we still are a major player, I completely accept we are doomed to become Italy in 15 yearz
Good food, fast cars, beauty and a decent quality of life?
Faintly ridiculous and using language as a surrogate penis
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Since when was Britain a world power before Brexit? Britain has only been a middle ranking power since the independence of India and that will still be the case Brexit or No Brexit
Recently recognized as 2nd or 3rd in the power/influence rankings ahead of Russia. Militarily we are lagging but we are still a key world player. London is touted from time to time as the 'capital' of the world. Power isn't about land ownership. Economy 5th highest in world, permanent seat on un security council, queen is the senior head of state in thd world etc etc
It's bollocks tho, isn't it.
There are two superpowers: China and America. Right now America is supreme, but China is fast overtaking. Both are in a totally different league to the second tier powers:
Japan Germany France UK Russia
All of which are roughly equal, even though they have different strengths. Britain exerts more soft power than most, but Russia has a huge military it is happy to use; Japan and Germany are economically strongest, but culturally weaker than France, and so forth.
Meanwhile India, Indonesia and Brazil are moving up the ladder, and will overtake most of the 2nd ranking powers, soon.
I agree aside from China not quite being a superpower yet. I was saying we still are a major player, I completely accept we are doomed to become Italy in 15 yearz
Good food, fast cars, beauty and a decent quality of life?
Faintly ridiculous and using language as a surrogate penis
Utter poppycock. You are making the absolutely classic error, always made on the left because of a strange blindspot, of confusing supervision of the stability of the banking system, which Brown dismantled, with nonsensical bureaucratic box-ticking regulation, which is a completely different thing. RBS had armies of compliance officers, all carefully ticking the boxes, as required by the FSA. Oodles of 'regulation', much if it unnecessary.
What was missing was systemic banking supervision, because Brown had created a 'tripartite' system in which there was literally no-one looking after the stability of the whole system.
Hindsight? Not at all. Peter Lilley nailed it when the catastrophic legislation was discussed in parliament:
Lilley snipped for length: has Vanilla reduced the limit again?
Prescient words. At a result of Brown's catastrophic blunder, there was no top-level consideration at all of the risk to the stability of the banking system caused by RBS's takeover of ABN Amro. That was because Brown had destroyed the supervisory system which for 150 years had ensured that we had no bank runs in the UK - a 150 years which included a whole series of world financial crises, two world wars, the Great Depression, and the oil-price crisis. But Brown thought he knew better, and we all paid the price.
Nonsense on stilts. One speech by Peter Lilley but then the Conservatives were on board if not running ahead (and there was a technical reason I've since forgotten why the system had to change -- something to do with a conflict of interest in one of the markets iirc). Nor is it true that there were no bank crises under BoE: BCCI, Johnson Matthey and Barings spring to mind. And there have been larger scandals since 2010 such as UBS.
But none of this matters because it had sod all to do with the global financial crisis.
Could a GE still be called for 2nd May? When is the last possible deadline for that?
There's still time.
For example the 2005 general election, held on 5th May wasn't called until 5th April (it was out back from 2nd April during to the death of Pope John Paul II)
Different rules under the FTPA.
We need 25 working/sitting days between dissolution and election day.
So middle of next week is the last day for dissolution for a May 2nd election.
The two Easter Bank Holidays probably mean that Tuesday 26th March would be the latest day for a Dissolution - though this would need to be preceded by a Commons vote as in 2017. An election announcement would be required by Monday - possibly earlier.
Dissolution tomorrow would mean a GE on Friday 26th May. I think the last 2 dissolutions have been timed to work out correctly for a Thursday, so Thursday 2nd May would mean a dissolution by Tuesday, 9tb May by Monday week (as we then have another Bank Holiday to skip).
You need to look at those dates again - 26th May is a Sunday!
D'oh
Does the FTPA mandate any day for an election, or could it be any day of the week?
Theoretically it can be any day except national holidays or were it is designed to cause inconvenience to the voters or the execution of the results process, such as Christmas Eve. Can you imagine counting votes on Christmas day?
I don't quite understand what the point of their resigning in protest at that would be. It's not like May will take such an option much by choice, and like her they have stuck around rather than join the 'no deal is fine' brigade so they cannot act like they are keen on another outcome.
It's the logical compromise. I'm a bleeding heart remoaner but would accept EEA.
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
Nonsense on stilts. One speech by Peter Lilley but then the Conservatives were on board if not running ahead (and there was a technical reason I've since forgotten why the system had to change -- something to do with a conflict of interest in one of the markets iirc). Nor is it true that there were no bank crises under BoE: BCCI, Johnson Matthey and Barings spring to mind. And there have been larger scandals since 2010 such as UBS.
But none of this matters because it had sod all to do with the global financial crisis.
LOL, you have comprehensively missed the point. Yes, exactly, there were bank crises under the BoE's supervision. In history there have always been bank crises from time to time, in all countries. But in the UK, it was only under Brown's tripartite structure that they weren't prevented from causing systemic danger to the banking system. In particular, you have completely ignored the crucial example, which was the fact that it was no-one's job to consider whether the ABN Amro deal was a danger to the banking system. And that certainly had a massive impact on the degree to which we were clobbered by the global financial crisis.
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Talk of banana republics and global laughing stocks are just silly or pointless respectively. People laugh at the USA too. Was France a laughing stock when Le Pen got 30+% in a presidential election? Since when does having divisive politics make somewhere a banana republic?
Too many people are enjoying wallowing in self pity over such reports, or practically getting engorged with self satisfaction about them. We shouldn't just ignore what others think about us, but acting like a political crisis makes us a banana republic doesn't reflect well on the person saying it or the people breathlessly excited at others saying it. I'm far from the best person to suggest this, but people really need to calm the heck down on such things.
It's the logical compromise. I'm a bleeding heart remoaner but would accept EEA.
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
Agreed. But in defence of May, the vote for Brexit was overwhelmingly against European immigration and the causes of European immigration (how else to parse “sovereignty”?)
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
I'd have been fine with EEA also, but parliamentary arithmetic would be just as bad. There's zero chance of the ERG voting for it, and whatever the Tories proposed Corbyn would find a reason to vote against.
Unfortunately, this same logic applies to just about any proposal that can be dreamed up.
I don't quite understand what the point of their resigning in protest at that would be. It's not like May will take such an option much by choice, and like her they have stuck around rather than join the 'no deal is fine' brigade so they cannot act like they are keen on another outcome.
It's the logical compromise. I'm a bleeding heart remoaner but would accept EEA.
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
Agreed. But in defence of May, the vote for Brexit was overwhelmingly against European immigration and the causes of European immigration (how else to parse “sovereignty”?)
In the rest of the world, Britain is increasingly being seen as resembling a patient in a dementia ward, mumbling "We used to rule a quarter of the world you know!"
Talk of banana republics and global laughing stocks are just silly or pointless respectively. People laugh at the USA too. Was France a laughing stock when Le Pen got 30+% in a presidential election? Since when does having divisive politics make somewhere a banana republic?
Too many people are enjoying wallowing in self pity over such reports, or practically getting engorged with self satisfaction about them.
I agree Trump has made the USA an international laughing stock, but for all the attention to FN and the Gilet Jaune, there is not much to laugh at.
Personally it doesn't bother me too much how others see us. Reputation is a trifling thing of little consequence.
It's the logical compromise. I'm a bleeding heart remoaner but would accept EEA.
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
Agreed. But in defence of May, the vote for Brexit was overwhelmingly against European immigration and the causes of European immigration (how else to parse “sovereignty”?)
The fact EU immigration to the UK has fallen significantly since the Brexit vote makes EEA more plausible now
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
It's the logical compromise. I'm a bleeding heart remoaner but would accept EEA.
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
Agreed. But in defence of May, the vote for Brexit was overwhelmingly against European immigration and the causes of European immigration (how else to parse “sovereignty”?)
Yes, I've never understood the argument that we should have gone for an EEA-style deal (assuming one was available, which is not certain of course). What would be the point? All the main factors which made people vote Leave would still apply. We might as well have Remained if we were going to do that.
For that matter, we have a better option. Just stay in the backstop. It's pretty much the EEA+Customs Union without the fees and without Freedom of Movement.
It's the logical compromise. I'm a bleeding heart remoaner but would accept EEA.
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
Agreed. But in defence of May, the vote for Brexit was overwhelmingly against European immigration and the causes of European immigration (how else to parse “sovereignty”?)
Yes, I've never understood the argument that we should have gone for an EEA-style deal (assuming one was available, which is not certain of course). What would be the point? All the main factors which made people vote Leave would still apply. We might as well have Remained if we were going to do that.
For that matter, we have a better option. Just stay in the backstop. It's pretty much the EEA+Customs Union without the fees and without Freedom of Movement.
There is no point to any of it, but some people insist we have do it no matter what. EEA is better than the hated backstop. You can leave the EEA.
At this point it's like a once exciting TV series in its 7th season, turning to ever more ridiculous plot twists beyond suspension of disbelief, and characters becoming complete caricatures of their former selves.
I do miss the X-Files. Then they bought it back. And I remembered why it was cancelled in the first place...
Well sure, but it reminded us that Gillian Anderson should be on TV more, and that's a plus.
It's the logical compromise. I'm a bleeding heart remoaner but would accept EEA.
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
Agreed. But in defence of May, the vote for Brexit was overwhelmingly against European immigration and the causes of European immigration (how else to parse “sovereignty”?)
The fact EU immigration to the UK has fallen significantly since the Brexit vote makes EEA more plausible now
Presumably that'll go back up if Britain stops giving off the current racist alcoholic cripple vibe?
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
It's the logical compromise. I'm a bleeding heart remoaner but would accept EEA.
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
Agreed. But in defence of May, the vote for Brexit was overwhelmingly against European immigration and the causes of European immigration (how else to parse “sovereignty”?)
Yes, I've never understood the argument that we should have gone for an EEA-style deal (assuming one was available, which is not certain of course). What would be the point? All the main factors which made people vote Leave would still apply. We might as well have Remained if we were going to do that.
For that matter, we have a better option. Just stay in the backstop. It's pretty much the EEA+Customs Union without the fees and without Freedom of Movement.
There is no point to any of it, but some people insist we have do it no matter what. EEA is better than the hated backstop. You can leave the EEA.
Well, if May's deal 'isn't Brexit' as the Leavers insist, then the EEA certainly isn't. They really would have a valid complaint that the referendum result wasn't being respected in an EEA-style deal.
It's the logical compromise. I'm a bleeding heart remoaner but would accept EEA.
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
Agreed. But in defence of May, the vote for Brexit was overwhelmingly against European immigration and the causes of European immigration (how else to parse “sovereignty”?)
Yes, I've never understood the argument that we should have gone for an EEA-style deal (assuming one was available, which is not certain of course). What would be the point? All the main factors which made people vote Leave would still apply. We might as well have Remained if we were going to do that.
For that matter, we have a better option. Just stay in the backstop. It's pretty much the EEA+Customs Union without the fees and without Freedom of Movement.
There is no point to any of it, but some people insist we have do it no matter what. EEA is better than the hated backstop. You can leave the EEA.
Well, if May's deal 'isn't Brexit' as the Leavers insist, then the EEA certainly isn't. They really would have a valid complaint that the referendum result wasn't being respected in an EEA-style deal.
The Leavers who say that are more properly referred to as Remainers, thank you.
It's the logical compromise. I'm a bleeding heart remoaner but would accept EEA.
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
Agreed. But in defence of May, the vote for Brexit was overwhelmingly against European immigration and the causes of European immigration (how else to parse “sovereignty”?)
Yes, I've never understood the argument that we should have gone for an EEA-style deal (assuming one was available, which is not certain of course). What would be the point? All the main factors which made people vote Leave would still apply. We might as well have Remained if we were going to do that.
For that matter, we have a better option. Just stay in the backstop. It's pretty much the EEA+Customs Union without the fees and without Freedom of Movement.
I would've agreed a couple of years ago, but now I sort of think there's a chunk of Leave voters who want a sensible solution, without having to outright admit they got it wrong - in which case the EEA would make sense as the way out.
Nonsense on stilts. One speech by Peter Lilley but then the Conservatives were on board if not running ahead (and there was a technical reason I've since forgotten why the system had to change -- something to do with a conflict of interest in one of the markets iirc). Nor is it true that there were no bank crises under BoE: BCCI, Johnson Matthey and Barings spring to mind. And there have been larger scandals since 2010 such as UBS.
But none of this matters because it had sod all to do with the global financial crisis.
LOL, you have comprehensively missed the point. Yes, exactly, there were bank crises under the BoE's supervision. In history there have always been bank crises from time to time, in all countries. But in the UK, it was only under Brown's tripartite structure that they weren't prevented from causing systemic danger to the banking system. In particular, you have completely ignored the crucial example, which was the fact that it was no-one's job to consider whether the ABN Amro deal was a danger to the banking system. And that certainly had a massive impact on the degree to which we were clobbered by the global financial crisis.
The crucial market change was in the degree of interlinking (and increased leverage) thanks to the exponential growth of derivatives markets. LTCM's collapse should perhaps, with hindsight, have rung more bells. Tripartite supervision was and is irrelevant to the global financial crisis as was RBS/ABNAmro.
It's the logical compromise. I'm a bleeding heart remoaner but would accept EEA.
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
Agreed. But in defence of May, the vote for Brexit was overwhelmingly against European immigration and the causes of European immigration (how else to parse “sovereignty”?)
Yes, I've never understood the argument that we should have gone for an EEA-style deal (assuming one was available, which is not certain of course). What would be the point? All the main factors which made people vote Leave would still apply. We might as well have Remained if we were going to do that.
For that matter, we have a better option. Just stay in the backstop. It's pretty much the EEA+Customs Union without the fees and without Freedom of Movement.
There is no point to any of it, but some people insist we have do it no matter what. EEA is better than the hated backstop. You can leave the EEA.
Well, if May's deal 'isn't Brexit' as the Leavers insist, then the EEA certainly isn't. They really would have a valid complaint that the referendum result wasn't being respected in an EEA-style deal.
EEA is not the EU, it avoids the political dimension which is what people used to complain about. Obviously now they have gone silly.
Apparently the meaningful vote could be next Thursday !
Pretty disgraceful, and May refuses to change course . I expect pandemonium to break out in Parliament if the government confirm this latest act of lunacy .
It's the logical compromise. I'm a bleeding heart remoaner but would accept EEA.
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
Agreed. But in defence of May, the vote for Brexit was overwhelmingly against European immigration and the causes of European immigration (how else to parse “sovereignty”?)
Yes, I've never understood the argument that we should have gone for an EEA-style deal (assuming one was available, which is not certain of course). What would be the point? All the main factors which made people vote Leave would still apply. We might as well have Remained if we were going to do that.
For that matter, we have a better option. Just stay in the backstop. It's pretty much the EEA+Customs Union without the fees and without Freedom of Movement.
I would've agreed a couple of years ago, but now I sort of think there's a chunk of Leave voters who want a sensible solution, without having to outright admit they got it wrong - in which case the EEA would make sense as the way out.
Yes, possibly. It would be a bloody expensive and damaging way of covering their embarrassment, though.
And of course the Withdrawal Agreement and backstop would still stand. Barnier is making encouraging noises about the possibility of modifying the political declaration towards a softer Brexit, if that's what parliament wants, but there's no suggestion of a change to the WA.
Apparently the meaningful vote could be next Thursday !
Pretty disgraceful, and May refuses to change course . I expect pandemonium to break out in Parliament if the government confirm this latest act of lunacy .
They have the power to do something about the government suggesting lunacy. Sometimes it has seemed May is daring them to do so and surprised they haven't.
Nonsense on stilts. One speech by Peter Lilley but then the Conservatives were on board if not running ahead (and there was a technical reason I've since forgotten why the system had to change -- something to do with a conflict of interest in one of the markets iirc). Nor is it true that there were no bank crises under BoE: BCCI, Johnson Matthey and Barings spring to mind. And there have been larger scandals since 2010 such as UBS.
But none of this matters because it had sod all to do with the global financial crisis.
LOL, you have comprehensively missed the point. Yes, exactly, there were bank crises under the BoE's supervision. In history there have always been bank crises from time to time, in all countries. But in the UK, it was only under Brown's tripartite structure that they weren't prevented from causing systemic danger to the banking system. In particular, you have completely ignored the crucial example, which was the fact that it was no-one's job to consider whether the ABN Amro deal was a danger to the banking system. And that certainly had a massive impact on the degree to which we were clobbered by the global financial crisis.
The crucial market change was in the degree of interlinking (and increased leverage) thanks to the exponential growth of derivatives markets. LTCM's collapse should perhaps, with hindsight, have rung more bells. Tripartite supervision was and is irrelevant to the global financial crisis as was RBS/ABNAmro.
You are being (I presume deliberately) obtuse. Yes of course the UK's lack of proper banking supervision was not the cause of the world financial crisis (although it was probably a factor). That is not the point - the point is that the impact on the UK was particularly bad because of Brown's destruction of the supervisory system. Can you really not understand the distinction?
Apparently the meaningful vote could be next Thursday !
Pretty disgraceful, and May refuses to change course . I expect pandemonium to break out in Parliament if the government confirm this latest act of lunacy .
They have the power to do something about the government suggesting lunacy. Sometimes it has seemed May is daring them to do so and surprised they haven't.
They have sat on their hands hoping a miracle would turn up . There’s very little time now, the last chance comes on Monday .
It's the logical compromise. I'm a bleeding heart remoaner but would accept EEA.
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
Agreed. But in defence of May, the vote for Brexit was overwhelmingly against European immigration and the causes of European immigration (how else to parse “sovereignty”?)
The fact EU immigration to the UK has fallen significantly since the Brexit vote makes EEA more plausible now
Presumably that'll go back up if Britain stops giving off the current racist alcoholic cripple vibe?
Would that be the racist alcoholic cripple vibe that is SO offputting we got net immigration of about 275,000 last year? i.e. a figure so large it is unprecedented in UK history, outside the last 15 years?
Nonsense on stilts. One speech by Peter Lilley but then the Conservatives were on board if not running ahead (and there was a technical reason I've since forgotten why the system had to change -- something to do with a conflict of interest in one of the markets iirc). Nor is it true that there were no bank crises under BoE: BCCI, Johnson Matthey and Barings spring to mind. And there have been larger scandals since 2010 such as UBS.
But none of this matters because it had sod all to do with the global financial crisis.
LOL, you have comprehensively missed the point. Yes, exactly, there were bank crises under the BoE's supervision. In history there have always been bank crises from time to time, in all countries. But in the UK, it was only under Brown's tripartite structure that they weren't prevented from causing systemic danger to the banking system. In particular, you have completely ignored the crucial example, which was the fact that it was no-one's job to consider whether the ABN Amro deal was a danger to the banking system. And that certainly had a massive impact on the degree to which we were clobbered by the global financial crisis.
The crucial market change was in the degree of interlinking (and increased leverage) thanks to the exponential growth of derivatives markets. LTCM's collapse should perhaps, with hindsight, have rung more bells. Tripartite supervision was and is irrelevant to the global financial crisis as was RBS/ABNAmro.
You are being (I presume deliberately) obtuse. Yes of course the UK's lack of proper banking supervision was not the cause of the world financial crisis (although it was probably a factor). That is not the point - the point is that the impact on the UK was particularly bad because of Brown's destruction of the supervisory system. Can you really not understand the distinction?
It's the logical compromise. I'm a bleeding heart remoaner but would accept EEA.
EEA was always the obvious step, but didn’t meet the great Theresa’s red lines. Instead she had to come up with an insane technocratic nonsense. So sad.
Agreed. But in defence of May, the vote for Brexit was overwhelmingly against European immigration and the causes of European immigration (how else to parse “sovereignty”?)
The fact EU immigration to the UK has fallen significantly since the Brexit vote makes EEA more plausible now
Presumably that'll go back up if Britain stops giving off the current racist alcoholic cripple vibe?
Maybe but we will have got it down and we can still control non EU immigration and we will also have dealt with many of the sovereignty concerns driving Brexit, on a narrow 52% Leave to 48% Remain vote EEA is the best long term solution
Apparently the meaningful vote could be next Thursday !
Pretty disgraceful, and May refuses to change course . I expect pandemonium to break out in Parliament if the government confirm this latest act of lunacy .
They have the power to do something about the government suggesting lunacy. Sometimes it has seemed May is daring them to do so and surprised they haven't.
They have sat on their hands hoping a miracle would turn up . There’s very little time now, the last chance comes on Monday .
Why what happens on Monday? The irony is of course that thanks to Bercow pulling the vote he's pulled any chance to lay amendments too.
In practice can the EU agree an extension right up to the last minute or does TMay kill the extension on Thursday by making a proposal that's obviously going to be rejected at the Council of Ministers meeting like "we want to extend, no we don't have a plan, also fuck you"?
Nonsense on stilts. One speech by Peter Lilley but then the Conservatives were on board if not running ahead (and there was a technical reason I've since forgotten why the system had to change -- something to do with a conflict of interest in one of the markets iirc). Nor is it true that there were no bank crises under BoE: BCCI, Johnson Matthey and Barings spring to mind. And there have been larger scandals since 2010 such as UBS.
But none of this matters because it had sod all to do with the global financial crisis.
LOL, you have comprehensively missed the point. Yes, exactly, there were bank crises under the BoE's supervision. In history there have always been bank crises from time to time, in all countries. But in the UK, it was only under Brown's tripartite structure that they weren't prevented from causing systemic danger to the banking system. In particular, you have completely ignored the crucial example, which was the fact that it was no-one's job to consider whether the ABN Amro deal was a danger to the banking system. And that certainly had a massive impact on the degree to which we were clobbered by the global financial crisis.
The crucial market change was in the degree of interlinking (and increased leverage) thanks to the exponential growth of derivatives markets. LTCM's collapse should perhaps, with hindsight, have rung more bells. Tripartite supervision was and is irrelevant to the global financial crisis as was RBS/ABNAmro.
You are being (I presume deliberately) obtuse. Yes of course the UK's lack of proper banking supervision was not the cause of the world financial crisis (although it was probably a factor). That is not the point - the point is that the impact on the UK was particularly bad because of Brown's destruction of the supervisory system. Can you really not understand the distinction?
Nonsense on stilts. One speech by Peter Lilley but then the Conservatives were on board if not running ahead (and there was a technical reason I've since forgotten why the system had to change -- something to do with a conflict of interest in one of the markets iirc). Nor is it true that there were no bank crises under BoE: BCCI, Johnson Matthey and Barings spring to mind. And there have been larger scandals since 2010 such as UBS.
But none of this matters because it had sod all to do with the global financial crisis.
LOL, you have comprehensively missed the point. Yes, exactly, there were bank crises under the BoE's supervision. In history there have always been bank crises from time to time, in all countries. But in the UK, it was only under Brown's tripartite structure that they weren't prevented from causing systemic danger to the banking system. In particular, you have completely ignored the crucial example, which was the fact that it was no-one's job to consider whether the ABN Amro deal was a danger to the banking system. And that certainly had a massive impact on the degree to which we were clobbered by the global financial crisis.
The crucial market change was in the degree of interlinking (and increased leverage) thanks to the exponential growth of derivatives markets. LTCM's collapse should perhaps, with hindsight, have rung more bells. Tripartite supervision was and is irrelevant to the global financial crisis as was RBS/ABNAmro.
You are being (I presume deliberately) obtuse. Yes of course the UK's lack of proper banking supervision was not the cause of the world financial crisis (although it was probably a factor). That is not the point - the point is that the impact on the UK was particularly bad because of Brown's destruction of the supervisory system. Can you really not understand the distinction?
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
As we have been proved so spineless here, the parents will come back for more, and more. The cause will spread to secondary schools, and they will cave, pathetically, as well. Next it will be gender values, family values, maybe even evolution, everything the Muslim community doesn't like will be removed from the curriculum.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
Nonsense on stilts. One speech by Peter Lilley but then the Conservatives were on board if not running ahead (and there was a technical reason I've since forgotten why the system had to change -- something to do with a conflict of interest in one of the markets iirc). Nor is it true that there were no bank crises under BoE: BCCI, Johnson Matthey and Barings spring to mind. And there have been larger scandals since 2010 such as UBS.
But none of this matters because it had sod all to do with the global financial crisis.
LOL, you have comprehensively missed the point. Yes, exactly, there were bank crises under the BoE's supervision. In history there have always been bank crises from time to time, in all countries. But in the UK, it was only under Brown's tripartite structure that they weren't prevented from causing systemic danger to the banking system. In particular, you have completely ignored the crucial example, which was the fact that it was no-one's job to consider whether the ABN Amro deal was a danger to the banking system. And that certainly had a massive impact on the degree to which we were clobbered by the global financial crisis.
The crucial market change was in the degree of interlinking (and increased leverage) thanks to the exponential growth of derivatives markets. LTCM's collapse should perhaps, with hindsight, have rung more bells. Tripartite supervision was and is irrelevant to the global financial crisis as was RBS/ABNAmro.
You are being (I presume deliberately) obtuse. Yes of course the UK's lack of proper banking supervision was not the cause of the world financial crisis (although it was probably a factor). That is not the point - the point is that the impact on the UK was particularly bad because of Brown's destruction of the supervisory system. Can you really not understand the distinction?
What you claim is just wrong.
LOL! Well there's a really convincing argument.
At least I've not called you obtuse, or deliberately obtuse which is presumably intended as a smart-arsed synonym for liar.
Apparently the meaningful vote could be next Thursday !
Pretty disgraceful, and May refuses to change course . I expect pandemonium to break out in Parliament if the government confirm this latest act of lunacy .
They have the power to do something about the government suggesting lunacy. Sometimes it has seemed May is daring them to do so and surprised they haven't.
They have sat on their hands hoping a miracle would turn up . There’s very little time now, the last chance comes on Monday .
Why what happens on Monday? The irony is of course that thanks to Bercow pulling the vote he's pulled any chance to lay amendments too.
You can still lay amendments but they have to include some changes , for example rather than just say indicative votes you actually name the options .
O/t but Local Elections related. I was at a U3a Group meeting this afternoon. One of the members remarked that she was standing as a Conservative candidate in the forthcoming local elections. A few minutes later she wished 'we could get rid of this shower in government'!
Nonsense on stilts. One speech by Peter Lilley but then the Conservatives were on board if not running ahead (and there was a technical reason I've since forgotten why the system had to change -- something to do with a conflict of interest in one of the markets iirc). Nor is it true that there were no bank crises under BoE: BCCI, Johnson Matthey and Barings spring to mind. And there have been larger scandals since 2010 such as UBS.
But none of this matters because it had sod all to do with the global financial crisis.
LOL, you have comprehensively missed the point. Yes, exactly, there were bank crises under the BoE's supervision. In history there have always been bank crises from time to time, in all countries. But in the UK, it was only under Brown's tripartite structure that they weren't prevented from causing systemic danger to the banking system. In particular, you have completely ignored the crucial example, which was the fact that it was no-one's job to consider whether the ABN Amro deal was a danger to the banking system. And that certainly had a massive impact on the degree to which we were clobbered by the global financial crisis.
The crucial market change was in the degree of interlinking (and increased leverage) thanks to the exponential growth of derivatives markets. LTCM's collapse should perhaps, with hindsight, have rung more bells. Tripartite supervision was and is irrelevant to the global financial crisis as was RBS/ABNAmro.
You are being (I presume deliberately) obtuse. Yes of course the UK's lack of proper banking supervision was not the cause of the world financial crisis (although it was probably a factor). That is not the point - the point is that the impact on the UK was particularly bad because of Brown's destruction of the supervisory system. Can you really not understand the distinction?
What you claim is just wrong.
LOL! Well there's a really convincing argument.
At least I've not called you obtuse, or deliberately obtuse which is presumably intended as a smart-arsed synonym for liar.
You didn't seem to understand a distinction so simple that I found it hard to believe that you didn't understand it.
Apparently the meaningful vote could be next Thursday !
Pretty disgraceful, and May refuses to change course . I expect pandemonium to break out in Parliament if the government confirm this latest act of lunacy .
A week on Thursday? You mean March 28? Why, despite all logic and reason am I utterly unsurprised?
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
Wouldn't that be horribly counter-productive? As I understand it, the school opted to teach this material, it's not on the national curriculum. If schools faced being shut down for withdrawing material that they introduced, none of them would ever dare introduce anything that might be in the slightest bit controversial.
As far as I'm concerned, if we care about this material being taught, add it to the national curriculum. That would not only mean that this school would teach it, it would also mean children at other schools wouldn't miss out
In practice can the EU agree an extension right up to the last minute or does TMay kill the extension on Thursday by making a proposal that's obviously going to be rejected at the Council of Ministers meeting like "we want to extend, no we don't have a plan, also fuck you"?
We want to extend please.
What's your plan?
We will renegotiate the deal to remove the backstop so it can pass Parliament.
But we've said we won't do that.
Once we've extended we will vote against every proposal and veto everything until the backstop is changed. Then it can pass Parliament.
Apparently the meaningful vote could be next Thursday !
Pretty disgraceful, and May refuses to change course . I expect pandemonium to break out in Parliament if the government confirm this latest act of lunacy .
They have the power to do something about the government suggesting lunacy. Sometimes it has seemed May is daring them to do so and surprised they haven't.
They have sat on their hands hoping a miracle would turn up . There’s very little time now, the last chance comes on Monday .
A lot of sides in this, May included, have put things off over and over again, hoping for the right moment, and for the right thing to come up, for the other side to back down before they make their play in case they act too soon and their cause suffers. A great many may have left things far too late because of that attitude.
But it is also why extension is so attractive for so many.
Apparently the meaningful vote could be next Thursday !
Pretty disgraceful, and May refuses to change course . I expect pandemonium to break out in Parliament if the government confirm this latest act of lunacy .
They have the power to do something about the government suggesting lunacy. Sometimes it has seemed May is daring them to do so and surprised they haven't.
They have sat on their hands hoping a miracle would turn up . There’s very little time now, the last chance comes on Monday .
Why what happens on Monday? The irony is of course that thanks to Bercow pulling the vote he's pulled any chance to lay amendments too.
You can still lay amendments but they have to include some changes , for example rather than just say indicative votes you actually name the options .
How can backbenchers lay changes when there's no bill or motion to change?
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
As we have been proved so spineless here, the parents will come back for more, and more. The cause will spread to secondary schools, and they will cave, pathetically, as well. Next it will be gender values, family values, maybe even evolution, everything the Muslim community doesn't like will be removed from the curriculum.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
Indeed. However, this is a natural result of Academisation (businesses) and giving parent's more power in schools (as consumers). The customers don't want what is being sold. Ain't market forces wonderful?
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
Wouldn't that be horribly counter-productive? As I understand it, the school opted to teach this material, it's not on the national curriculum. If schools faced being shut down for withdrawing material that they introduced, none of them would ever dare introduce anything that might be in the slightest bit controversial.
As far as I'm concerned, if we care about this material being taught, add it to the national curriculum. That would not only mean that this school would teach it, it would also mean children at other schools wouldn't miss out
If this is not on the national curriculum that does add some complexity, as you say, however the reasoning espoused by the homophobic protestors, that it should not allowed because it contradicts their faith, is such a major problem because who knows what else they will decide contradicts their faith?
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
Wouldn't that be horribly counter-productive? As I understand it, the school opted to teach this material, it's not on the national curriculum. If schools faced being shut down for withdrawing material that they introduced, none of them would ever dare introduce anything that might be in the slightest bit controversial.
As far as I'm concerned, if we care about this material being taught, add it to the national curriculum. That would not only mean that this school would teach it, it would also mean children at other schools wouldn't miss out
Comments
This is money that we should be spend on our NHS.
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1108050093960237057
We’ve unilaterally killed the cause of eurosceptism for a generation.
Call it taking one for the team.
"Thirdly, there will be blood. Brexit is going to be painful, like childbirth. It just is. The Leave quacks who promised a brisk and blissful delivery don’t have enough diamorphine to dull the nerves. We might need epidurals from the Treasury. We will swear a lot, and not care.
"It might be rather embarrassing but again, we probably won’t care, because we’ll be concentrating on the pain. Other countries will look at us and think ‘I’m never going through that’. Immediately after Brexit, we will likely appear reduced, saggy, wrinkled."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/brexit-just-like-baby/
Someone give that journalist a coconut.
It ain’t happening in a month of Sundays.
If you are a Lib Dem then your criticism of the UK's dismantling of bank regulation is a reasonable one, because Cable was making that point prior to the crash. If you are a Conservative then it isn't, because for years the Conservatives had been urging the UK to go even further and faster down that road.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108068940721336321
1. Let them sort themselves out. They chose to move overseas. Global Britain has other things to do.
That wouldn't exactly be popular but it is consistent and shows a commitment to making Brexit something real. Yelps of pain from expats but most people will shrug their shoulders.
2. Cover their health costs in full indefinitely.
Expensive, but it proves you look after your own. Nobody would complain about it - but they might well complain about the lack of whatever it was you could have spent the money on domestically. And you can at least be sure the expats will keep voting blue.
She's actually chosen to fund it for long enough to run up a bill that can be used as evidence against Brexit. But literally nobody is going to be grateful for it. Indeed I have a feeling that it simply stores up the yelps of pain for later when there is less Brexit news to drown it out.
There doesn't seem to be a problem that she tackles where she can't come up with the worst way of solving it.
It's why the only sane approach if an extension isn't offered is to revoke - have an election and try again with a sensible leader and a plan that people have agreed.
May will of course let as crash out as that means someone else (the EU) gets a bit of the blame
In fact a court claiming that the revocation was illegal solves a problem - we revoke, court confirms the revocation was illegal so we serve Article 50 again.
Remember the issue here is that No one wants (or wants to get) all the blame. And at the moment the battle is how do I revoke due to having no choice but to revoke....
There are two superpowers: China and America. Right now America is supreme, but China is fast overtaking. Both are in a totally different league to the second tier powers:
Japan
Germany
France
UK
Russia
All of which are roughly equal, even though they have different strengths. Britain exerts more soft power than most, but Russia has a huge military it is happy to use; Japan and Germany are economically strongest, but culturally weaker than France, and so forth.
Meanwhile India, Indonesia and Brazil are moving up the ladder, and will overtake most of the 2nd ranking powers, soon.
I'd put us as a senior power - alongside Russia, China, France and Germany
What was missing was systemic banking supervision, because Brown had created a 'tripartite' system in which there was literally no-one looking after the stability of the whole system.
Hindsight? Not at all. Peter Lilley nailed it when the catastrophic legislation was discussed in parliament:
"With the removal of banking control to the Financial Services Authority—the "super-SIB"—it is difficult to see how and whether the Bank remains, as it surely must, responsible for ensuring the liquidity of the banking system and preventing systemic collapse.
...
The coverage of the FSA will be huge: its objectives will be many, and potentially in conflict with one another. The range of its activities will be so diverse that no one person in it will understand them all. Its structure will be as complex as those of the organisations that it replaces, if not more so. Practitioner involvement is likely to diminish, and costs are likely to escalate as salaries are equalised upwards.
We have no objection to the objective of trying to bring greater simplicity and one-stop shopping to the business of financial regulation, but we fear that the Government may, almost casually, have bitten off more than they can chew. The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day. "
Prescient words. At a result of Brown's catastrophic blunder, there was no top-level consideration at all of the risk to the stability of the banking system caused by RBS's takeover of ABN Amro. That was because Brown had destroyed the supervisory system which for 150 years had ensured that we had no bank runs in the UK - a 150 years which included a whole series of world financial crises, two world wars, the Great Depression, and the oil-price crisis. But Brown thought he knew better, and we all paid the price.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1997/nov/11/bank-of-england-bill
https://youtu.be/dezv7X1VLOA
People have moved overseas expecting to get certain benefits we had signed up to Treaties saying they would get. If that ends overnight due to No Deal then that's not reasonable. Look after them for a year to smooth things out while alternative arrangements can be made in that year. They could return home to the UK but that could take quite a while to arrange, they could make other arrangements overseas etc
If after a year they've chosen to stay overseas then that's their choice. They've had a year's warning by now, they can live with their choice.
That was a party political broadcast for the Brextention Party.
But none of this matters because it had sod all to do with the global financial crisis.
Too many people are enjoying wallowing in self pity over such reports, or practically getting engorged with self satisfaction about them. We shouldn't just ignore what others think about us, but acting like a political crisis makes us a banana republic doesn't reflect well on the person saying it or the people breathlessly excited at others saying it. I'm far from the best person to suggest this, but people really need to calm the heck down on such things.
3 month extension to prepare for No Deal seems to be the plan.
Unfortunately, this same logic applies to just about any proposal that can be dreamed up.
Vote Leave's promises were just too damn contradictory to be deliverable.
Personally it doesn't bother me too much how others see us. Reputation is a trifling thing of little consequence.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
For that matter, we have a better option. Just stay in the backstop. It's pretty much the EEA+Customs Union without the fees and without Freedom of Movement.
Pretty disgraceful, and May refuses to change course . I expect pandemonium to break out in Parliament if the government confirm this latest act of lunacy .
And of course the Withdrawal Agreement and backstop would still stand. Barnier is making encouraging noises about the possibility of modifying the political declaration towards a softer Brexit, if that's what parliament wants, but there's no suggestion of a change to the WA.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
A few minutes later she wished 'we could get rid of this shower in government'!
Fortunately she's not standing in my ward.
Why, despite all logic and reason am I utterly unsurprised?
As far as I'm concerned, if we care about this material being taught, add it to the national curriculum. That would not only mean that this school would teach it, it would also mean children at other schools wouldn't miss out
What's your plan?
We will renegotiate the deal to remove the backstop so it can pass Parliament.
But we've said we won't do that.
Once we've extended we will vote against every proposal and veto everything until the backstop is changed. Then it can pass Parliament.
Wait what did you just say?
You heard me. Now about that extension . . .
But it is also why extension is so attractive for so many.
Ain't market forces wonderful?