IMO. a Brexit that leaves something on the table for its opponents is more likely to succeed than one that doesn't.
IMO its a binary choice, we should be in, or we should be out.
If we are in we should be in: Schengen, Euro, the works. If we are out we should be out: Trade agreement sure, but no politics at all. No ECJ, no European Parliament laws.
I view us as like Canada to the EU's USA. You don't see Canadians adopting wholesale without any choice laws from the US Congress. You don't see President Trump getting involved with Canadian laws. You don't see SCOTUS adjudicating the laws of Canada.
What we need is an equivalent of NAFTA, or whatever they're going to call it now.
Rip off the bandage, survey the lay of the land and then get trade agreements sorted. No politics. Or go whole hog in.
I don’t agree with either of those.
There’s in with opt outs (what we had) and out with opt ins (what May was working on).
I think it has to be one of those to reflect social, political, geopolitical and economic realities of the UK and either of the two pure solutions wouldn’t be appropriate and would be hated by many, rather than accepted.
If we wanted in with opt-outs or out with opt-ins we should have remained with Cameron's deal. Its what we already had. The status quo ante was a semi-engaged membership already.
What we didn't have was being properly out or properly in. Properly in wasn't on the ballot paper but out was. If you didn't want real change, I don't see any point in the disruption of leaving Cameron's status quo ante.
Sorry, but the "home" is now trashed. And also I am sorry that I do not buy that many people with your type of views are just moderates with Brexit clothes. Once you espouse the politics of the extreme you will always be nothing else but, until the day when you admit your mistake. Brexit is founded on the politics of hatred and division. There have always been a few people in the Tory Party that used to hold those views, but they were once a minority. Sadly that is no longer the case.
I have no hate. I've been posting here for 13 years I dare you to say anything I've ever said that was based on "hate and division".
I see more hate from those wishing death upon the elderly.
One of the most inspiring quotes I find is Edith Cavell’s statement before her execution:
Patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness for anyone
After you’ve fallen in enthusiastically behind a campaign of xenophobic lies.
Seek help.
I’m not having pious platitudes mouthed by people who played a substantial part in getting the country mired in the current mess by their completely unprincipled support of a vile campaign.
You yourself have often given the impression the impression, since 2016, that you have intense hatred for people who voted Leave.
You revelled in the Leave campaign. You’d do it all again, you said.
At some point Leave advocates will come to realise just how terribly they’ve damaged this country. But not yet, unfortunately.
I have lurked on this board for a number of months now. Sean has always come over as one of the most measured participants while you have been one of the most vitriolic. I say this as a Remainer that wants to rejoin.
Yet @Sean_Fear enthusiastically fell in behind a campaign of xenophobic lies and announced that he would do it all over again.
And I have no axe to grind, other than the deep sadness that whatever happens now, the civic society of the country I once loved is decaying rapidly and inexorably.
Even if one was to accept your final sentence (and I don't) there might be a few reasons other than Brexit as to why that might be so.
They are in denial. I was speaking to a German friend the other day who was saying that the UK used to be seen as a beacon of political stability and common sense, and how astonished everyone is in Europe that we are now make Italy look like a paragon of political virtue
Until we leave, the sky doesn't fall in and all this drama turns out to be much ado about nothing.
Oh the sky wont fall in, but there will be huge collateral damage, businesses bust and people losing jobs, people taking their own lives as a consequence. You will be smirking, because your nationalistic anti-philosophy won the day. Shame on your callousness, or idiocy, whichever it is.
@Charles has put the level at which the price for Brexit is too high to pay at 200,000 people out of work.
He has not so far let us know what is an appropriate level of people out of work for it to be the right price.
Perhaps one of the Leaver altruist geniuses on here ("it won't run out there just won't be any of it for some people for a while") could let us know the right level.
You've misunderstood my original post.
I was gently pointing out to @HYUFD that some of his comments (e.g. X unemployed people is a price worth paying for Y) are foolish for an aspiring politician to make.
I don't have a view myself because I think its a flawed analytical approach.
How many Conservative members are leaving quietly - just cancelling or not renewing their direct debits? Did anyone go to Brecon - was there a good turnout of Conservative supporters to leaflet and canvas?
The Conservatives did better than expected in Brecon.
I feel that I am one of the few people who has not moved substantially on the pro-/anti-EU axis in years. For many years I've felt that the EU is an ungainly lumbering, bureaucratic and corporatist behemoth but that Britain's membership of it is nevertheless on balance better than any alternative course of action that anyone has come up with. I still have no desire to join the Euro, nor have I fallen in love with the EU, which is still an ungainly lumbering, bureaucratic and corporatist behemoth. But after three years of trying no one has come up with an appetising proposition for Brexit.
Meanwhile, there has been a move all around me to both extremes.
I am pretty much with you. I always saw Brexit as more trouble than it was worth - that the notional benefits were heavily outweighed by the practical negatives. In retrospect, the only thing I got wrong was that I believed the Tories would, as the pro-business party, seek to leave as pragmatically as possible. I never envisaged the three year descent into loondom we have seen.
The Tories did seek to Leave pragmatically with the Withdrawal Agreement but Labour and the LDs rejected it so rather than be killed by the Brexit Party the Tories now have to go for No Deal
The Tories had a majority. The WA was killed by the ERG.
No they did not, the Tories needed the DUP for a majority and the DUP opposed the Withdrawal Agreement because of the backstop.
Thus even if every ERG MP had voted for the Withdrawal Agreement it still would have failed, it needed Labour MPs votes to pass absent a Tory majority
Ah - progress! Yes - the WA needed to be Labour-friendly to pass. But May was too obstinate to bend her red lines to allow this to happen. Instead she kept chasing ERG votes in a strategy that was doomed to fail.
Garbage, the WA was Labour-friendly even including a temporary customs union that could have been made permanent in the future. What part of the WA [not the political declaration] and the transition was not Labour-friendly?
You've given the answer - a permanent CU would have got Labour on board. But May refused. And lost. Three times. And resigned. And went to the cricket.
A permanent anything wasn't on the table. Whatever comes permanently needs to be negotiated in the next phase of negotiations, the EU refused to negotiate our permanent arrangements. All that was negotiated was the temporary arrangements and that was exactly what Labour had asked for.
How many Conservative members are leaving quietly - just cancelling or not renewing their direct debits? Did anyone go to Brecon - was there a good turnout of Conservative supporters to leaflet and canvas?
I was there, but didn’t see any Tories campaigning. But it is a big place. And the weather was mostly too hot for delivering and canvassing in a thick tweed suit, anyway.
They are in denial. I was speaking to a German friend the other day who was saying that the UK used to be seen as a beacon of political stability and common sense, and how astonished everyone is in Europe that we are now make Italy look like a paragon of political virtue
Until we leave, the sky doesn't fall in and all this drama turns out to be much ado about nothing.
Oh the sky wont fall in, but there will be huge collateral damage, businesses bust and people losing jobs, people taking their own lives as a consequence. You will be smirking, because your nationalistic anti-philosophy won the day. Shame on your callousness, or idiocy, whichever it is.
@Charles has put the level at which the price for Brexit is too high to pay at 200,000 people out of work.
He has not so far let us know what is an appropriate level of people out of work for it to be the right price.
Perhaps one of the Leaver altruist geniuses on here ("it won't run out there just won't be any of it for some people for a while") could let us know the right level.
Principles don't come with a price.
Perhaps you can tell us what the right level is for you to admit you were wrong since you're expecting others to do the same?
It's difficult to benchmark these things but I'd accept a £/Euro rate of about 1.3 and our credit rating restored to pre-referendum levels. Were this to happen on November 1st I'd be the first on here with a mea culpa.
What would do it for you?
Edit: In fact I'd be happy to give it till Christmas if you like. Reasonable?
Thanks, and I hope you’ll agree I’ve been consistent since the start in arguing for a compromise based on a practical semi-detached status from outside the EU but with close cooperation. Robert Smithson has been the same.
I’ve never been purely solely ideological about it.
Indeed you have been consistent. And had the EU been more willing to engage I think you could have got your wish, but I think people's feelings have been hurt so a march to the extreme was almost inevitable. Cameron's negotiations were a more minor adjustment to confirming our pre-existing semi-detached status, this was never going to realistically be minor.
They are in denial. I was speaking to a German friend the other day who was saying that the UK used to be seen as a beacon of political stability and common sense, and how astonished everyone is in Europe that we are now make Italy look like a paragon of political virtue
Until we leave, the sky doesn't fall in and all this drama turns out to be much ado about nothing.
Oh the sky wont fall in, but there will be huge collateral damage, businesses bust and people losing jobs, people taking their own lives as a consequence. You will be smirking, because your nationalistic anti-philosophy won the day. Shame on your callousness, or idiocy, whichever it is.
@Charles has put the level at which the price for Brexit is too high to pay at 200,000 people out of work.
He has not so far let us know what is an appropriate level of people out of work for it to be the right price.
Perhaps one of the Leaver altruist geniuses on here ("it won't run out there just won't be any of it for some people for a while") could let us know the right level.
Principles don't come with a price.
Perhaps you can tell us what the right level is for you to admit you were wrong since you're expecting others to do the same?
I am not wrong.
So on that basis of your first point, let's say that 2m people lost their jobs as a result of Brexit. Would that be worth it?
I have not much time for Baker and Francois either but the point remains the vast majority of Tory MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 and had Labour backed the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 it would have passed regardless of the DUP and ERG diehards. Labour refused for petty party politics reasons despite the political declaration being non binding and Corbyn Labour will hopefully be crushed at the next general election as a result by Boris, the LDs and SNP
An interesting line to voters: Labour should be crushed for voting against a deal, but the Tories who now run the government should be rewarded for doing the same???
Boris voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 unlike Corbyn even if he is still prepared to deliver Brexit with No Deal
So why isn't Bozo now promoting the deal he voted for?
They are in denial. I was speaking to a German friend the other day who was saying that the UK used to be seen as a beacon of political stability and common sense, and how astonished everyone is in Europe that we are now make Italy look like a paragon of political virtue
Until we leave, the sky doesn't fall in and all this drama turns out to be much ado about nothing.
Oh the sky wont fall in, but there will be huge collateral damage, businesses bust and people losing jobs, people taking their own lives as a consequence. You will be smirking, because your nationalistic anti-philosophy won the day. Shame on your callousness, or idiocy, whichever it is.
@Charles has put the level at which the price for Brexit is too high to pay at 200,000 people out of work.
He has not so far let us know what is an appropriate level of people out of work for it to be the right price.
Perhaps one of the Leaver altruist geniuses on here ("it won't run out there just won't be any of it for some people for a while") could let us know the right level.
Principles don't come with a price.
Perhaps you can tell us what the right level is for you to admit you were wrong since you're expecting others to do the same?
It's difficult to benchmark these things but I'd accept a £/Euro rate of about 1.3 and our credit rating restored to pre-referendum levels. Were this to happen on November 1st I'd be the first on here with a mea culpa.
What would do it for you?
I've said I'm coming from a point of principle now, so there is no price.
However I think what you've said is never going to happen nor should it. Sterling is not a real measure of people's lives - wages, inflation, employment etc those are.
If I was to put a factor on it I'd hope to ensure that wages are growing faster than inflation, employment rate is the same or higher as it was before the 2016 referendum which should be the benchmark and inflation is under control. If all 3 occur its been a massive success.
An economic failure would be the opposite - stagflation, millions unemployed and a depression.
Any cyclical recession should not count. We can benchmark against the globe.
I've also been having a good peruse of the Lib Dems website. It's hard for me to find much on there I passionately disagree with, being a remainer-ish one nation Tory who increasingly thinks Brexit in any form is going to harm Britain and in time destroy the Union, and being only a grudging acquiescent in FPTP which has almost always meant every GE vote I've cast in 25 years feels wasted.
I do also like Boris, who is when all is said and done a fairly liberally minded Tory, and do want him to succeed. I can't support a No Deal Brexit though, or the hardliners in his party.
A fairly liberally minded Tory wouldn't be expected to make a hanger and flogger Home Secretary. It might just be a ruse to attract the extreme right UKIP vote but would someone 'liberally minded' really do that?
TBH, wanting criminal to feel "terror" is one of the most disturbing comments I have every heard from a Home Secretary.
TBF I don't know if that was the Daily Mail paraphrasing, or if she actually said that, but if the latter then she should be ashamed of herself.
Terror is not an emotion that the government should be seeking to elicit.
A reasonable expectation that they will be caught and punished would be more appropriate (although, I concede, a less snappy headline)
I’m not having pious platitudes mouthed by people who played a substantial part in getting the country mired in the current mess by their completely unprincipled support of a vile campaign.
You yourself have often given the impression the impression, since 2016, that you have intense hatred for people who voted Leave.
You revelled in the Leave campaign. You’d do it all again, you said.
At some point Leave advocates will come to realise just how terribly they’ve damaged this country. But not yet, unfortunately.
I have lurked on this board for a number of months now. Sean has always come over as one of the most measured participants while you have been one of the most vitriolic. I say this as a Remainer that wants to rejoin.
Yet @Sean_Fear enthusiastically fell in behind a campaign of xenophobic lies and announced that he would do it all over again.
And I have no axe to grind, other than the deep sadness that whatever happens now, the civic society of the country I once loved is decaying rapidly and inexorably.
Your first sentence belies the second. Simply by supporting Leave means Sean is reprehensible to you. It is this thinking on both sides that is destroying our civic society. Supporting Remain does not make someone complicit in treachery and supporting Leave does not make someone complicit in racism.
No, it is not simply by supporting Leave that Sean is reprehensible to me. As I have twice made clear, huge damage has been done by the Leave advocates and their disgusting and reckless campaigning on xenophobic lies in order to secure Brexit. This is something that Sean himself has announced that he would do all over again.
Leave advocates have followed this up by three years of assaulting every civic institution that appears to offer even a short term impediment to Brexit: the BBC, the courts, the House of Lords, the Bank of England and now the House of Commons and democracy itself.
This is only set to continue and worsen.
And many Remainers can be accused of lies about econimic recession, smears of racism by taking newspaper quotes out of context, and assaulting democracy by rule changes and denying a vote. Everyone needs to get off their high horses and calm the hell down. But you are one of those inciting people the other way. Neither Leavers or Remainers have behaved gracefully and yet everyone recoils in horror at the other side while refusing to examine their own behaviour. It is like everyone has reverted to being five year olds.
They are in denial. I was speaking to a German friend the other day who was saying that the UK used to be seen as a beacon of political stability and common sense, and how astonished everyone is in Europe that we are now make Italy look like a paragon of political virtue
Until we leave, the sky doesn't fall in and all this drama turns out to be much ado about nothing.
Oh the sky wont fall in, but there will be huge collateral damage, businesses bust and people losing jobs, people taking their own lives as a consequence. You will be smirking, because your nationalistic anti-philosophy won the day. Shame on your callousness, or idiocy, whichever it is.
@Charles has put the level at which the price for Brexit is too high to pay at 200,000 people out of work.
He has not so far let us know what is an appropriate level of people out of work for it to be the right price.
Perhaps one of the Leaver altruist geniuses on here ("it won't run out there just won't be any of it for some people for a while") could let us know the right level.
Principles don't come with a price.
Perhaps you can tell us what the right level is for you to admit you were wrong since you're expecting others to do the same?
I am not wrong.
So on that basis of your first point, let's say that 2m people lost their jobs as a result of Brexit. Would that be worth it?
Maybe.
3.4m were unemployed in the 80s. Was that worth it?
They are in denial. I was speaking to a German friend the other day who was saying that the UK used to be seen as a beacon of political stability and common sense, and how astonished everyone is in Europe that we are now make Italy look like a paragon of political virtue
Until we leave, the sky doesn't fall in and all this drama turns out to be much ado about nothing.
Oh the sky wont fall in, but there will be huge collateral damage, businesses bust and people losing jobs, people taking their own lives as a consequence. You will be smirking, because your nationalistic anti-philosophy won the day. Shame on your callousness, or idiocy, whichever it is.
@Charles has put the level at which the price for Brexit is too high to pay at 200,000 people out of work.
He has not so far let us know what is an appropriate level of people out of work for it to be the right price.
Perhaps one of the Leaver altruist geniuses on here ("it won't run out there just won't be any of it for some people for a while") could let us know the right level.
Principles don't come with a price.
Perhaps you can tell us what the right level is for you to admit you were wrong since you're expecting others to do the same?
It's difficult to benchmark these things but I'd accept a £/Euro rate of about 1.3 and our credit rating restored to pre-referendum levels. Were this to happen on November 1st I'd be the first on here with a mea culpa.
What would do it for you?
Edit: In fact I'd be happy to give it till Christmas if you like. Reasonable?
Yes if I get that 600 euro pay rise I’ll retire quietly and eat deluxe humble pie.
I feel that I am one of the few people who has not moved substantially on the pro-/anti-EU axis in years. For many years I've felt that the EU is an ungainly lumbering, bureaucratic and corporatist behemoth but that Britain's membership of it is nevertheless on balance better than any alternative course of action that anyone has come up with. I still have no desire to join the Euro, nor have I fallen in love with the EU, which is still an ungainly lumbering, bureaucratic and corporatist behemoth. But after three years of trying no one has come up with an appetising proposition for Brexit.
Meanwhile, there has been a move all around me to both extremes.
I
The Tories did seek to Leave pragmatically with the Withdrawal Agreement but Labour and the LDs rejected it so rather than be killed by the Brexit Party the Tories now have to go for No Deal
The Tories had a majority. The WA was killed by the ERG.
No they did not, the Tories needed the DUP for a majority and the DUP opposed the Withdrawal Agreement because of the backstop.
Thus even if every ERG MP had voted for the Withdrawal Agreement it still would have failed, it needed Labour MPs votes to pass absent a Tory majority
Ah - progress! Yes - the WA needed to be Labour-friendly to pass. But May was too obstinate to bend her red lines to allow this to happen. Instead she kept chasing ERG votes in a strategy that was doomed to fail.
Garbage, the WA was Labour-friendly even including a temporary customs union that could have been made permanent in the future. What part of the WA [not the political declaration] and the transition was not Labour-friendly?
You've given the answer - a permanent CU would have got Labour on board. But May refused. And lost. Three times. And resigned. And went to the cricket.
A permanent anything wasn't on the table. Whatever comes permanently needs to be negotiated in the next phase of negotiations, the EU refused to negotiate our permanent arrangements. All that was negotiated was the temporary arrangements and that was exactly what Labour had asked for.
It wasn't on the table because May wouldn't put it on the table. Starmer would have placed it front and centre.
I've also been having a good peruse of the Lib Dems website. It's hard for me to find much on there I passionately disagree with, being a remainer-ish one nation Tory who increasingly thinks Brexit in any form is going to harm Britain and in time destroy the Union, and being only a grudging acquiescent in FPTP which has almost always meant every GE vote I've cast in 25 years feels wasted.
I do also like Boris, who is when all is said and done a fairly liberally minded Tory, and do want him to succeed. I can't support a No Deal Brexit though, or the hardliners in his party.
A fairly liberally minded Tory wouldn't be expected to make a hanger and flogger Home Secretary. It might just be a ruse to attract the extreme right UKIP vote but would someone 'liberally minded' really do that?
TBH, wanting criminal to feel "terror" is one of the most disturbing comments I have every heard from a Home Secretary.
TBF I don't know if that was the Daily Mail paraphrasing, or if she actually said that, but if the latter then she should be ashamed of herself.
Terror is not an emotion that the government should be seeking to elicit.
A reasonable expectation that they will be caught and punished would be more appropriate (although, I concede, a less snappy headline)
She is Boris worst appointment i think. Although Williamson returning to cabinet shortly after *allegedly* leaking national security is pretty woeful.
The most positive construction that I can put on it is that she is too stupid to understand the meaning of the word "terror" and why it is an inappropriate emotion for a government to elicit
How many Conservative members are leaving quietly - just cancelling or not renewing their direct debits? Did anyone go to Brecon - was there a good turnout of Conservative supporters to leaflet and canvas?
The Conservatives did better than expected in Brecon.
Expected by who? Lib Dems like to pretend we are breathing down the neck of the favourite. Such an approach would not have been believed in Brecon. But the result was an exceptional achievement - 6 months ago we were at 7% nationally.
They are in denial. I was speaking to a German friend the other day who was saying that the UK used to be seen as a beacon of political stability and common sense, and how astonished everyone is in Europe that we are now make Italy look like a paragon of political virtue
Until we leave, the sky doesn't fall in and all this drama turns out to be much ado about nothing.
Oh the sky wont fall in, but there will be huge collateral damage, businesses bust and people losing jobs, people taking their own lives as a consequence. You will be smirking, because your nationalistic anti-philosophy won the day. Shame on your callousness, or idiocy, whichever it is.
@Charles has put the level at which the price for Brexit is too high to pay at 200,000 people out of work.
He has not so far let us know what is an appropriate level of people out of work for it to be the right price.
Perhaps one of the Leaver altruist geniuses on here ("it won't run out there just won't be any of it for some people for a while") could let us know the right level.
Principles don't come with a price.
Perhaps you can tell us what the right level is for you to admit you were wrong since you're expecting others to do the same?
I am not wrong.
So on that basis of your first point, let's say that 2m people lost their jobs as a result of Brexit. Would that be worth it?
Maybe.
3.4m were unemployed in the 80s. Was that worth it?
I just want to get a handle on where you Brexiters think the value is in Brexit. You are at maybe for 2m out of work, while Charles thinks that 200,000 is too high so we are beginning to see a scale emerging.
What's the very top number that you think would be the limit of it being worth it?
They are in denial. I was speaking to a German friend the other day who was saying that the UK used to be seen as a beacon of political stability and common sense, and how astonished everyone is in Europe that we are now make Italy look like a paragon of political virtue
Until we leave, the sky doesn't fall in and all this drama turns out to be much ado about nothing.
Oh the sky wont fall in, but there will be huge collateral damage, businesses bust and people losing jobs, people taking their own lives as a consequence. You will be smirking, because your nationalistic anti-philosophy won the day. Shame on your callousness, or idiocy, whichever it is.
@Charles has put the level at which the price for Brexit is too high to pay at 200,000 people out of work.
He has not so far let us know what is an appropriate level of people out of work for it to be the right price.
Perhaps one of the Leaver altruist geniuses on here ("it won't run out there just won't be any of it for some people for a while") could let us know the right level.
Principles don't come with a price.
Perhaps you can tell us what the right level is for you to admit you were wrong since you're expecting others to do the same?
I am not wrong.
So on that basis of your first point, let's say that 2m people lost their jobs as a result of Brexit. Would that be worth it?
Maybe.
3.4m were unemployed in the 80s. Was that worth it?
I just want to get a handle on where you Brexiters think the value is in Brexit. You are at maybe for 2m out of work, while Charles thinks that 200,000 is too high so we are beginning to see a scale emerging.
What's the very top number that you think would be the limit of it being worth it?
For the third time of posting, I never said that 200,000 was too high.
I said that @HYUFD was unwise to put a number on it
How many Conservative members are leaving quietly - just cancelling or not renewing their direct debits? Did anyone go to Brecon - was there a good turnout of Conservative supporters to leaflet and canvas?
The Conservatives did better than expected in Brecon.
Expected by who? Lib Dems like to pretend we are breathing down the neck of the favourite. Such an approach would not have been believed in Brecon. But the result was an exceptional achievement - 6 months ago we were at 7% nationally.
The Conservatives doing better than expected did not mean the Lib Dems did worse than expected, it was at the expense of The Brexit Party. The Lib Dems did indeed too have an excellent result.
IMO. a Brexit that leaves something on the table for its opponents is more likely to succeed than one that doesn't.
IMO its a binary choice, we should be in, or we should be out.
If we are in we should be in: Schengen, Euro, the works. If we are out we should be out: Trade agreement sure, but no politics at all. No ECJ, no European Parliament laws.
I view us as like Canada to the EU's USA. You don't see Canadians adopting wholesale without any choice laws from the US Congress. You don't see President Trump getting involved with Canadian laws. You don't see SCOTUS adjudicating the laws of Canada.
What we need is an equivalent of NAFTA, or whatever they're going to call it now.
Rip off the bandage, survey the lay of the land and then get trade agreements sorted. No politics. Or go whole hog in.
I don’t agree with either of those.
There’s in with opt outs (what we had) and out with opt ins (what May was working on).
I think it has to be one of those to reflect social, political, geopolitical and economic realities of the UK and either of the two pure solutions wouldn’t be appropriate and would be hated by many, rather than accepted.
If we wanted in with opt-outs or out with opt-ins we should have remained with Cameron's deal. Its what we already had. The status quo ante was a semi-engaged membership already.
What we didn't have was being properly out or properly in. Properly in wasn't on the ballot paper but out was. If you didn't want real change, I don't see any point in the disruption of leaving Cameron's status quo ante.
The real change for me was represented by services, immigration, CFP/CAP opt outs and political independence from the EU (which could also be viewed as further opt outs).
A good and thoughtful argument from Tom Harris on independence. He has his biases, of course, but I'd urge our Nationalist friends to read it with an open mind. https://labourhame.com/the-judgement-of-solomon/
Hmmm, Apart from fact he is a diehard Tory masquerading as Labour and anti-democratic to boot. The direction of travel has been ever upwards. In a democracy , over 50% is the deciding factor, the people of Scotland will not accept any mandatory minimums put forward by Westminster lackeys.
They are in denial. I was speaking to a German friend the other day who was saying that the UK used to be seen as a beacon of political stability and common sense, and how astonished everyone is in Europe that we are now make Italy look like a paragon of political virtue
Until we leave, the sky doesn't fall in and all this drama turns out to be much ado about nothing.
Oh the sky wont fall in, but there will be huge collateral damage, businesses bust and people losing jobs, people taking their own lives as a consequence. You will be smirking, because your nationalistic anti-philosophy won the day. Shame on your callousness, or idiocy, whichever it is.
@Charles has put the level at which the price for Brexit is too high to pay at 200,000 people out of work.
He has not so far let us know what is an appropriate level of people out of work for it to be the right price.
Perhaps one of the Leaver altruist geniuses on here ("it won't run out there just won't be any of it for some people for a while") could let us know the right level.
Principles don't come with a price.
Perhaps you can tell us what the right level is for you to admit you were wrong since you're expecting others to do the same?
I am not wrong.
So on that basis of your first point, let's say that 2m people lost their jobs as a result of Brexit. Would that be worth it?
Maybe.
3.4m were unemployed in the 80s. Was that worth it?
I just want to get a handle on where you Brexiters think the value is in Brexit. You are at maybe for 2m out of work, while Charles thinks that 200,000 is too high so we are beginning to see a scale emerging.
What's the very top number that you think would be the limit of it being worth it?
For the third time of posting, I never said that 200,000 was too high.
I said that @HYUFD was unwise to put a number on it
Oh sorry. So 200,000 isn't too high? What's your number then?
Just trying to work it all in so I can get a handle on it.
I see Labour is as clear on Indyref 2 as it is on Brexit.
They've realised constructive ambiguity is a vote-winner. It's why they are riding so high in the polls
If as Yougov and Mori suggest Corbyn Labour are heading for fewer seats than Michael Foot and back to just 1 MP in Scotland (ironically Ian Murray) it will be poetic justice
Hopefully that useless twunt will be booted out , he is a disgrace to the human race.
As we map out previously unthinkable scenarios, what about the Scottish Con & Unionist Party formally splitting from the national UK Tories and merging with the Scottish LDs to form the Scottish Liberal Unionists, led by Davidson and pursuing sensible centrist pro Union policies?
Can Ruth as leader of the Scots Tories do that (if her members support her)? Could Boris stop her?
Would mean Davidson and her Scottish Tories could openly campaign for a second referendum given the large Scottish support for Remain - all in the mutual Scottish Tory and Scottish LD interest of preserving the Union and keeping Scotland (and Britain) in the EU?
Surely Scottish Tory and LD MPs would hold their Westminster seats under such an arrangement, as the only mainstream pro Union party, and possibly take some off the SNP or Labour. I can't imagine a rump UK Tory party imposing candidates would do very well, or damage SLUP chances too terribly?
I should say I know v little of the Brexit views of current Scots Tory MPs. I assume the new SoS for Scotland is pro Brexit or he wouldn't be in the govt, but beyond that...
I guess a big question would be with whom they align in Westminster - I guess they could give broad confidence and supply support to whichever of the Tories or Labour wins more seats in Westminster and decide what legislation they would back on a policy by policy basis.
Am I away with the fairies....?
No, indeed I think Ruth Davidson has a very good chance of becoming First Minister in 2021 after 14 years of SNP rule with LD support (the LDs would prop up Davidson at Holyrood even if not Boris at Westminster).
I also think Adam Price could become First Minister of Wales too with Tory and LD support to replace the hapless Mark Drakeford and Welsh Labour (especially as Drakeford seems to be a nationalist anyway but unlike Price a socialist to boot)
Thanks, and I hope you’ll agree I’ve been consistent since the start in arguing for a compromise based on a practical semi-detached status from outside the EU but with close cooperation. Robert Smithson has been the same.
I’ve never been purely solely ideological about it.
Indeed you have been consistent. And had the EU been more willing to engage I think you could have got your wish, but I think people's feelings have been hurt so a march to the extreme was almost inevitable. Cameron's negotiations were a more minor adjustment to confirming our pre-existing semi-detached status, this was never going to realistically be minor.
Thank you.
An interested counterfactual is: what if Cameron had come out all guns blazing for his renegotiation, and sold it heavily as a eurosceptic, and left the pure Remain bits to Jack Straw and the centre-left?
As it was he made such a negligible effort to sell the deal he obtained people assumed the changes must be negligible themselves, with a large delta between that and the rhetoric he’d previously employed.
A good and thoughtful argument from Tom Harris on independence. He has his biases, of course, but I'd urge our Nationalist friends to read it with an open mind. https://labourhame.com/the-judgement-of-solomon/
Pretty much my view.
Confirms my view that he is just another Tory wanting to rig the vote etc, it was absolute bollox unless you are a xenophobic Little Englander.
As we map out previously unthinkable scenarios, what about the Scottish Con & Unionist Party formally splitting from the national UK Tories and merging with the Scottish LDs to form the Scottish Liberal Unionists, led by Davidson and pursuing sensible centrist pro Union policies?
Can Ruth as leader of the Scots Tories do that (if her members support her)? Could Boris stop her?
Would mean Davidson and her Scottish Tories could openly campaign for a second referendum given the large Scottish support for Remain - all in the mutual Scottish Tory and Scottish LD interest of preserving the Union and keeping Scotland (and Britain) in the EU?
Surely Scottish Tory and LD MPs would hold their Westminster seats under such an arrangement, as the only mainstream pro Union party, and possibly take some off the SNP or Labour. I can't imagine a rump UK Tory party imposing candidates would do very well, or damage SLUP chances too terribly?
I should say I know v little of the Brexit views of current Scots Tory MPs. I assume the new SoS for Scotland is pro Brexit or he wouldn't be in the govt, but beyond that...
I guess a big question would be with whom they align in Westminster - I guess they could give broad confidence and supply support to whichever of the Tories or Labour wins more seats in Westminster and decide what legislation they would back on a policy by policy basis.
Am I away with the fairies....?
Yes
And you don't even know that the SOS doesnt have a Scottish seat!
Er, he's MP for Dumfries isn't he?
You been asleep for a month Bob, it has been anglified even more than previous disney version , replaced by real Englishmen
The Sec of State for Scotland has a seat in Scotland. This is a fact.
Alternatively, what part of this am I misunderstanding??
Alister Jack: Jack was born on 7 July 1963 in Dumfries, Scotland to David and Jean Jack. He was raised in Dalbeattie and Kippford. He was educated at Dalbeattie Primary School, at Crawfordton House—a private prep school near Moniaive, Dumfriesshire—and then at Glenalmond College, at that time an all-boys independent boarding school.
Unknown Tory landowner, just happened to be born at one of their estates, sidekicks are English MP's, the laughably named Scottish Office , should be renamed. The clown wants union jacks on everything so we know the value of the union , an arrogant Anglophile hoping to make even more cash out of us.
I've also been having a good peruse of the Lib Dems website. It's hard for me to find much on there I passionately disagree with, being a remainer-ish one nation Tory who increasingly thinks Brexit in any form is going to harm Britain and in time destroy the Union, and being only a grudging acquiescent in FPTP which has almost always meant every GE vote I've cast in 25 years feels wasted.
I do also like Boris, who is when all is said and done a fairly liberally minded Tory, and do want him to succeed. I can't support a No Deal Brexit though, or the hardliners in his party.
A fairly liberally minded Tory wouldn't be expected to make a hanger and flogger Home Secretary. It might just be a ruse to attract the extreme right UKIP vote but would someone 'liberally minded' really do that?
TBH, wanting criminal to feel "terror" is one of the most disturbing comments I have every heard from a Home Secretary.
TBF I don't know if that was the Daily Mail paraphrasing, or if she actually said that, but if the latter then she should be ashamed of herself.
Terror is not an emotion that the government should be seeking to elicit.
A reasonable expectation that they will be caught and punished would be more appropriate (although, I concede, a less snappy headline)
She is Boris worst appointment i think. Although Williamson returning to cabinet shortly after *allegedly* leaking national security is pretty woeful.
I don't see any reason why a civilised society should not be quite comfortable about people who, for example, wish to make themselves available for contract killings, being terrified of the consequences of being sentenced to 30 years plus. Is that not the point of deterrence? It is not a happy thought of course, but neither is the reality of what some people are prepared to do. Protection of the public is duty number one of government; not terrifying criminals isn't so very high up the list.
They are in denial. I was speaking to a German friend the other day who was saying that the UK used to be seen as a beacon of political stability and common sense, and how astonished everyone is in Europe that we are now make Italy look like a paragon of political virtue
Until we leave, the sky doesn't fall in and all this drama turns out to be much ado about nothing.
Oh t is.
@Charles has put the level at which the price for Brexit is too high to pay at 200,000 people out of work.
He has not so far let us know what is an appropriate level of people out of work for it to be the right price.
Perhaps one of the Leaver altruist geniuses on here ("it won't run out there just won't be any of it for some people for a while") could let us know the right level.
Principles don't come with a price.
Perhaps you can tell us what the right level is for you to admit you were wrong since you're expecting others to do the same?
It's difficult to benchmark these things but I'd accept a £/Euro rate of about 1.3 and our credit rating restored to pre-referendum levels. Were this to happen on November 1st I'd be the first on here with a mea culpa.
What would do it for you?
I've said I'm coming from a point of principle now, so there is no price.
However I think what you've said is never going to happen nor should it. Sterling is not a real measure of people's lives - wages, inflation, employment etc those are.
If I was to put a factor on it I'd hope to ensure that wages are growing faster than inflation, employment rate is the same or higher as it was before the 2016 referendum which should be the benchmark and inflation is under control. If all 3 occur its been a massive success.
An economic failure would be the opposite - stagflation, millions unemployed and a depression.
Any cyclical recession should not count. We can benchmark against the globe.
But the £ dropped independently of any cyclical or other normal economic forces, and our credit rating worsened as a direct consequence of you know what.
Should these two reverse immediately or soon after we actually Brexit, I am willing to concede that it may be due the benefits of said departure from the EU. You and the entire band of PB brothers will read my unashamed and sincere mea culpa. In fact I will be delighted to offer it, because what happens to the country and the people I love matters more to me than my silly pride, or being right on a point of principle.
I've just re-read the FT's pro-coalition editorial from 2015. Remarkably prescient:
The second constitutional question turns on Europe. Should the Conservatives win an outright majority, Mr Cameron has pledged to re-negotiate the terms of UK membership and hold an in-out referendum within two years. His move threatens to consume the first two years of a Tory government. It could ultimately push Britain out of the bloc, a seismic change in the country’s relationship with its chief trading partners and for the balance of power in the EU itself. It might also break the Tory party.
A permanent anything wasn't on the table. Whatever comes permanently needs to be negotiated in the next phase of negotiations, the EU refused to negotiate our permanent arrangements. All that was negotiated was the temporary arrangements and that was exactly what Labour had asked for.
It wasn't on the table because May wouldn't put it on the table. Starmer would have placed it front and centre.
No it wasn't on the table because the EU said they were not going to negotiate anything permanent until after we left. So the maximum that was available was a temporary customs union that she achieved.
Starmer could have placed it front and centre, wouldn't have made a damned bit of difference. He would have got a temporary union and been able to make it permanent during transition same as he could have with May's deal. There was no difference between the two.
I have no hate. I've been posting here for 13 years I dare you to say anything I've ever said that was based on "hate and division".
I see more hate from those wishing death upon the elderly.
One of the most inspiring quotes I find is Edith Cavell’s statement before her execution:
Patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness for anyone
After you’ve fallen in enthusiastically behind a campaign of xenophobic lies.
Seek help.
I’m not having pious platitudes mouthed by people who played a substantial part in getting the country mired in the current mess by their completely unprincipled support of a vile campaign.
You yourself have often given the impression the impression, since 2016, that you have intense hatred for people who voted Leave.
You revelled in the Leave campaign. You’d do it all again, you said.
At some point Leave advocates will come to realise just how terribly they’ve damaged this country. But not yet, unfortunately.
I have lurked on this board for a number of months now. Sean has always come over as one of the most measured participants while you have been one of the most vitriolic. I say this as a Remainer that wants to rejoin.
Alistair was on the receiving end of months and months of vitriol. "Traitor" and "quisling" were rolled out regularly. I'd have retained some animosity, too, were I in his shoes.
I find Sean F’s posts to be driven by strange and petty grievances.
Not vitriolic, sure, perhaps passive aggressive is the better term.
Without wishing to name names several of the leavers appear to have something of a chip on their shoulders.
I feel that I am one of the few people who has not moved substantially on the pro-/anti-EU axis in years. Meanwhile, there has been a move all around me to both extremes.
I am pretty much with you. I always saw Brexit visaged the three year descent into loondom we have seen.
The Tories did by the Brexit Party the Tories now have to go for No Deal
The Tories had a majority. The WA was killed by the ERG.
No they did not, the Tories needed the DUP for a majority ty
And how many Labour MPs did vote for it? More than there were DUP MPs.
No even at MV3 fewer Labour MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement than DUP MPs
You need to improve your grammar here. More Labour MPs voted for for the WA than DUP MPs.
I think you mean fewer Labour MPs voted for the WA than DUP MPs voted against it.
Yes I did, apologies
MV3: For, 286; Against, 344 (inc. 34 Tories)
If the Tories had all voted for the WA, it would have passed (For 320, Against 310)
That was mainly independent MPs like Frank Field not official Labour MPs
My point still stands. The Tories, as the largest party, could have passed the WA with support from others.
I have not much time for Baker and Francois either but the point remains the vast majority of Tory MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 and had Labour backed the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 it would have passed regardless of the DUP and ERG diehards. Labour refused for petty party politics reasons despite the political declaration being non binding and Corbyn Labour will hopefully be crushed at the next general election as a result by Boris, the LDs and SNP
I am not a Labour Party member but I think if I were I would have issues with electing an MP who turns around and gets the Tories out of a jam in return for nothing. Had May made some concessions to the Labour Party's position it would be a very different story.
But the £ dropped independently of any cyclical or other normal economic forces, and our credit rating worsened as a direct consequence of you know what.
Should these two reverse immediately or soon after we actually Brexit, I am willing to concede that it may be due the benefits of said departure from the EU. You and the entire band of PB brothers will read my unashamed and sincere mea culpa. In fact I will be delighted to offer it, because what happens to the country and the people I love matters more to me than my silly pride, or being right on a point of principle.
But it ain't gonna happen, is it?
And you know why.
It isn't going to happen because sterling isn't a measure of strength and is a natural shock absorber. It falling is it doing its job as we adjust to a transition.
Why the obsession on sterling rather than wages, inflation or employment which is what actually effects people?
How many Conservative members are leaving quietly - just cancelling or not renewing their direct debits? Did anyone go to Brecon - was there a good turnout of Conservative supporters to leaflet and canvas?
The Conservatives did better than expected in Brecon.
Expected by who? Lib Dems like to pretend we are breathing down the neck of the favourite. Such an approach would not have been believed in Brecon. But the result was an exceptional achievement - 6 months ago we were at 7% nationally.
The Conservatives doing better than expected did not mean the Lib Dems did worse than expected, it was at the expense of The Brexit Party. The Lib Dems did indeed too have an excellent result.
I feel that I am one of the few people who has not moved substantially on the pro-/anti-EU axis in years. Meanwhile, there has been a move all around me to both extremes.
I am pretty much with you. I always saw Brexit visaged the three year descent into loondom we have seen.
The Tories did by the Brexit Party the Tories now have to go for No Deal
The Tories had a majority. The WA was killed by the ERG.
No they did not, the Tories needed the DUP for a majority ty
And how many Labour MPs did vote for it? More than there were DUP MPs.
No even at MV3 fewer Labour MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement than DUP MPs
You need to improve your grammar here. More Labour MPs voted for for the WA than DUP MPs.
I think you mean fewer Labour MPs voted for the WA than DUP MPs voted against it.
Yes I did, apologies
MV3: For, 286; Against, 344 (inc. 34 Tories)
If the Tories had all voted for the WA, it would have passed (For 320, Against 310)
That was mainly independent MPs like Frank Field not official Labour MPs
My point still stands. The Tories, as the largest party, could have passed the WA with support from others.
I have not much time for Baker and Francois either but the point remains the vast majority of Tory MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 and had Labour backed the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 it would have passed regardless of the DUP and ERG diehards. Labour refused for petty party politics reasons despite the political declaration being non binding and Corbyn Labour will hopefully be crushed at the next general election as a result by Boris, the LDs and SNP
I am not a Labour Party member but I think if I were I would have issues with electing an MP who turns around and gets the Tories out of a jam in return for nothing. Had May made some concessions to the Labour Party's position it would be a very different story.
Taking the possibility of "No deal" completely out of the equation is not 'nothing'.
And had the EU been more willing to engage I think you could have got your wish, but I think people's feelings have been hurt so a march to the extreme was almost inevitable. Cameron's negotiations were a more minor adjustment to confirming our pre-existing semi-detached status, this was never going to realistically be minor.
I'd agree that Cameron's negotiations must be regarded as unsuccessful - otherwise they'd have been put at the heart of the referendum campaign, but they were barely mentioned. They might also be regarded as unambitious - if he had managed to carve out some kind of "associate membership" of the EU with stronger long-term protections of opt-out states from the coalescing interests of the EU's more rapidly-integrating core, then he'd likely have won the referendum for remain. Or outside the highfalutin' stuff, he might also have passed the electoral test if he'd secured greater immigration restrictions, though breaking the four freedoms would have been a hard sell to the EU.
In terms of where the British public placed themselves in terms of Europe in 2015 when the renegotiation began, I think the broad consensus was "we like trade with Europe, we like having a close relationship with Europe, we do not like the idea of a federal Europe or being 'run by Europe'." Given the way the rest of the EU was travelling then a significantly looser form of membership would have been a reasonable negotiating objective - perhaps for that the exercise was mistimed and it would have been better to wait until the EU as a whole was undertaking one of its periodic "big picture" structural rethinks.
Despite the electoral polarisation and heated rhetoric, I think "in Europe but not run by Europe" is still broadly where people are at. Few remainers have discovered sudden enthusiasm for joining the euro. Sticking my neck out (and possibly imposing my own slant on the numbers because this is what I want them to mean, but this is the sense I get from talking to people) I don't even think the polling popularity of "no deal" among leavers is because they want an end-state of glorious isolation, so much as they are deeply frustrated. They're fed up with endless delay and what they see as EU intransigence and 'anti-democratic' pro-remain politicians - and they wouldn't even be objectively wrong to see any further extension as, in part, a tactical effort by remainers to prevent Britain leaving.
In the long run Britain's (or England's) natural place in Europe seems either in but half-out, or out but half-in. But I can't envisage a smooth path towards either from this point. Perhaps May or Cameron's alternative hypothetical Tory successor could have loosened up on their red lines (tricky getting the results through parliament without a stonking government majority though), perhaps Labour might have cobbled something together if they'd won in 2017, but those paths are closed.
How many Conservative members are leaving quietly - just cancelling or not renewing their direct debits? Did anyone go to Brecon - was there a good turnout of Conservative supporters to leaflet and canvas?
The Conservatives did better than expected in Brecon.
Expected by who? Lib Dems like to pretend we are breathing down the neck of the favourite. Such an approach would not have been believed in Brecon. But the result was an exceptional achievement - 6 months ago we were at 7% nationally.
The Conservatives doing better than expected did not mean the Lib Dems did worse than expected, it was at the expense of The Brexit Party. The Lib Dems did indeed too have an excellent result.
A 12% swing is never to be sniffed at.
It's not, no but only hints at 15-20 Tory gains in any GE which the Tories can replace with a ~ 1% Lab -> Con swing.
I've just re-read the FT's pro-coalition editorial from 2015. Remarkably prescient:
The second constitutional question turns on Europe. Should the Conservatives win an outright majority, Mr Cameron has pledged to re-negotiate the terms of UK membership and hold an in-out referendum within two years. His move threatens to consume the first two years of a Tory government. It could ultimately push Britain out of the bloc, a seismic change in the country’s relationship with its chief trading partners and for the balance of power in the EU itself. It might also break the Tory party.
But the £ dropped independently of any cyclical or other normal economic forces, and our credit rating worsened as a direct consequence of you know what.
Should these two reverse immediately or soon after we actually Brexit, I am willing to concede that it may be due the benefits of said departure from the EU. You and the entire band of PB brothers will read my unashamed and sincere mea culpa. In fact I will be delighted to offer it, because what happens to the country and the people I love matters more to me than my silly pride, or being right on a point of principle.
But it ain't gonna happen, is it?
And you know why.
It isn't going to happen because sterling isn't a measure of strength and is a natural shock absorber. It falling is it doing its job as we adjust to a transition.
Why the obsession on sterling rather than wages, inflation or employment which is what actually effects people?
It is falling, because there is less demand for it. Now why is there less demand for it? Put your hand up when you think you have an answer.
Then you can move onto the credit rating question with the rest of the class.
Why does British Airways seem to have so many problems these days?
Privatisation.
That was a while ago, but a more imaginative answer than "Brexit"
More prosaically, this is what happens when you put a low-cost airline manager in charge of a premium business: underinvestment in IT and other boring background systems but ending up with reduced resilience and disaffected customers
I've just re-read the FT's pro-coalition editorial from 2015. Remarkably prescient:
The second constitutional question turns on Europe. Should the Conservatives win an outright majority, Mr Cameron has pledged to re-negotiate the terms of UK membership and hold an in-out referendum within two years. His move threatens to consume the first two years of a Tory government. It could ultimately push Britain out of the bloc, a seismic change in the country’s relationship with its chief trading partners and for the balance of power in the EU itself. It might also break the Tory party.
But the £ dropped independently of any cyclical or other normal economic forces, and our credit rating worsened as a direct consequence of you know what.
Should these two reverse immediately or soon after we actually Brexit, I am willing to concede that it may be due the benefits of said departure from the EU. You and the entire band of PB brothers will read my unashamed and sincere mea culpa. In fact I will be delighted to offer it, because what happens to the country and the people I love matters more to me than my silly pride, or being right on a point of principle.
But it ain't gonna happen, is it?
And you know why.
It isn't going to happen because sterling isn't a measure of strength and is a natural shock absorber. It falling is it doing its job as we adjust to a transition.
Why the obsession on sterling rather than wages, inflation or employment which is what actually effects people?
I can't help wondering about the personal circumstances of the people who are here day in, day out, posting a comment every five minutes or so.
If the No Deal posturing continues through August, then a VONC must be odds on early September.
I can see Field and Ephicke voting for the government, but not sure about anyone else on the Opposition benches. Tory defectors will push this through. I don’t think Hammond made his threats lightly.
But the £ dropped independently of any cyclical or other normal economic forces, and our credit rating worsened as a direct consequence of you know what.
Should these two reverse immediately or soon after we actually Brexit, I am willing to concede that it may be due the benefits of said departure from the EU. You and the entire band of PB brothers will read my unashamed and sincere mea culpa. In fact I will be delighted to offer it, because what happens to the country and the people I love matters more to me than my silly pride, or being right on a point of principle.
But it ain't gonna happen, is it?
And you know why.
It isn't going to happen because sterling isn't a measure of strength and is a natural shock absorber. It falling is it doing its job as we adjust to a transition.
Why the obsession on sterling rather than wages, inflation or employment which is what actually effects people?
Mark Carney reduced the rate by 0.25% in Aug 2016 as a direct result of the referendum result.
I have some sympathy for David but I can't agree with his assertion that the Conservatives have always been cautious and pragmatic.
As I see it, we tend to alternate between periods of stability and periods of crisis and the Conservatives have survived and thrived by knowing how to respond to each one.
In the 30s, there was a consensus for appeasement. Churchill not only had to win the war but he had to see off those in his party who wanted to sue for peace.
Following the war we had the post-war consensus. By the 70s this was breaking down due to increased industrial action and Thatcher swept it away.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall a new consensus has built up around open borders, free markets and global institutions. This has is now breaking down, not just in the UK but across the West.
The Conservatives made the right choice in picking Boris as they need to ride the wave of change or they will be swept away. If Boris fails, then a Corbyn or Farage will replace him.
The centrists will have their time in the sun again but they need to realise that the status quo is not sustainable. They also need to try to understand the motivations of leave voters and those voting for change:
Security:
- Giving people on ordinary incomes the chance to own their own home - Having secure employment and not needing to claim benefits
Fairness:
- Not allowing asylum seekers to jump the queue when there is a massive housing waiting list - Not allowing health tourists to use our NHS for free - Not allowing people to claim child benefit for children who don't live here
Sovereignty
- Not allowing increasing numbers of decisions to be taken by unelected bureaucrats in global institutions.
None of which is delivered by leaving the EU
The child benefit point would be. Nevertheless I absolutely agree that Brexit has to be part of a wider package of reforms.
I've also been having a good peruse of the Lib Dems website. It's hard for me to find much on there I passionately disagree with, being a remainer-ish one nation Tory who increasingly thinks Brexit in any form is going to harm Britain and in time destroy the Union, and being only a grudging acquiescent in FPTP which has almost always meant every GE vote I've cast in 25 years feels wasted.
I do also like Boris, who is when all is said and done a fairly liberally minded Tory, and do want him to succeed. I can't support a No Deal Brexit though, or the hardliners in his party.
A fairly liberally minded Tory wouldn't be expected to make a hanger and flogger Home Secretary. It might just be a ruse to attract the extreme right UKIP vote but would someone 'liberally minded' really do that?
TBH, wanting criminal to feel "terror" is one of the most disturbing comments I have every heard from a Home Secretary.
TBF I don't know if that was the Daily Mail paraphrasing, or if she actually said that, but if the latter then she should be ashamed of herself.
Terror is not an emotion that the government should be seeking to elicit.
A reasonable expectation that they will be caught and punished would be more appropriate (although, I concede, a less snappy headline)
She is Boris worst appointment i think. Although Williamson returning to cabinet shortly after *allegedly* leaking national security is pretty woeful.
I don't see any reason why a civilised society should not be quite comfortable about people who, for example, wish to make themselves available for contract killings, being terrified of the consequences of being sentenced to 30 years plus. Is that not the point of deterrence? It is not a happy thought of course, but neither is the reality of what some people are prepared to do. Protection of the public is duty number one of government; not terrifying criminals isn't so very high up the list.
It’s the language. A government shouldn’t terrorise any of its citizens, criminal or not.
But the £ dropped independently of any cyclical or other normal economic forces, and our credit rating worsened as a direct consequence of you know what.
Should these two reverse immediately or soon after we actually Brexit, I am willing to concede that it may be due the benefits of said departure from the EU. You and the entire band of PB brothers will read my unashamed and sincere mea culpa. In fact I will be delighted to offer it, because what happens to the country and the people I love matters more to me than my silly pride, or being right on a point of principle.
But it ain't gonna happen, is it?
And you know why.
It isn't going to happen because sterling isn't a measure of strength and is a natural shock absorber. It falling is it doing its job as we adjust to a transition.
Why the obsession on sterling rather than wages, inflation or employment which is what actually effects people?
I can't help wondering about the personal circumstances of the people who are here day in, day out, posting a comment every five minutes or so.
Would it be rude to ask?
65 retired living in Spain so apart from when I’m looking after my wife which is not too arduous I’ve not a lot better to do although I like my late afternoon beers
But the £ dropped independently of any cyclical or other normal economic forces, and our credit rating worsened as a direct consequence of you know what.
Should these two reverse immediately or soon after we actually Brexit, I am willing to concede that it may be due the benefits of said departure from the EU. You and the entire band of PB brothers will read my unashamed and sincere mea culpa. In fact I will be delighted to offer it, because what happens to the country and the people I love matters more to me than my silly pride, or being right on a point of principle.
But it ain't gonna happen, is it?
And you know why.
It isn't going to happen because sterling isn't a measure of strength and is a natural shock absorber. It falling is it doing its job as we adjust to a transition.
Why the obsession on sterling rather than wages, inflation or employment which is what actually effects people?
I can't help wondering about the personal circumstances of the people who are here day in, day out, posting a comment every five minutes or so.
Would it be rude to ask?
I'm on Benefits Street but I try not to post every 5 mins or so.
Giving the high-roller nature of the site I presume they're just skiving in cushy office jobs
But the £ dropped independently of any cyclical or other normal economic forces, and our credit rating worsened as a direct consequence of you know what.
Should these two reverse immediately or soon after we actually Brexit, I am willing to concede that it may be due the benefits of said departure from the EU. You and the entire band of PB brothers will read my unashamed and sincere mea culpa. In fact I will be delighted to offer it, because what happens to the country and the people I love matters more to me than my silly pride, or being right on a point of principle.
But it ain't gonna happen, is it?
And you know why.
It isn't going to happen because sterling isn't a measure of strength and is a natural shock absorber. It falling is it doing its job as we adjust to a transition.
Why the obsession on sterling rather than wages, inflation or employment which is what actually effects people?
I can't help wondering about the personal circumstances of the people who are here day in, day out, posting a comment every five minutes or so.
But the £ dropped independently of any cyclical or other normal economic forces, and our credit rating worsened as a direct consequence of you know what.
Should these two reverse immediately or soon after we actually Brexit, I am willing to concede that it may be due the benefits of said departure from the EU. You and the entire band of PB brothers will read my unashamed and sincere mea culpa. In fact I will be delighted to offer it, because what happens to the country and the people I love matters more to me than my silly pride, or being right on a point of principle.
But it ain't gonna happen, is it?
And you know why.
It isn't going to happen because sterling isn't a measure of strength and is a natural shock absorber. It falling is it doing its job as we adjust to a transition.
Why the obsession on sterling rather than wages, inflation or employment which is what actually effects people?
I can't help wondering about the personal circumstances of the people who are here day in, day out, posting a comment every five minutes or so.
Would it be rude to ask?
It's a better conversation than Twitter, and a home for plenty of slightly underemployed lawyers I'm here for the tips, and the bants - glass houses everywhere on this particular question though.
I have no hate. I've been posting here for 13 years I dare you to say anything I've ever said that was based on "hate and division".
I see more hate from those wishing death upon the elderly.
One of the most inspiring quotes I find is Edith Cavell’s statement before her execution:
Patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness for anyone
After you’ve fallen in enthusiastically behind a campaign of xenophobic lies.
Seek help.
I’m not having pious platitudes mouthed by people who played a substantial part in getting the country mired in the current mess by their completely unprincipled support of a vile campaign.
You yourself have often given the impression the impression, since 2016, that you have intense hatred for people who voted Leave.
You revelled in the Leave campaign. You’d do it all again, you said.
At some point Leave advocates will come to realise just how terribly they’ve damaged this country. But not yet, unfortunately.
I have lurked on this board for a number of months now. Sean has always come over as one of the most measured participants while you have been one of the most vitriolic. I say this as a Remainer that wants to rejoin.
Alistair was on the receiving end of months and months of vitriol. "Traitor" and "quisling" were rolled out regularly. I'd have retained some animosity, too, were I in his shoes.
I find Sean F’s posts to be driven by strange and petty grievances.
Not vitriolic, sure, perhaps passive aggressive is the better term.
Without wishing to name names several of the leavers appear to have something of a chip on their shoulders.
I have some sympathy for David but I can't agree with his assertion that the Conservatives have always been cautious and pragmatic.
As I see it, we tend to alternate between periods of stability and periods of crisis and the Conservatives have survived and thrived by knowing how to respond to each one.
In the 30s, there was a consensus for appeasement. Churchill not only had to win the war but he had to see off those in his party who wanted to sue for peace.
Following the war we had the post-war consensus. By the 70s this was breaking down due to increased industrial action and Thatcher swept it away.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall a new consensus has built up around open borders, free markets and global institutions. This has is now breaking down, not just in the UK but across the West.
The Conservatives made the right choice in picking Boris as they need to ride the wave of change or they will be swept away. If Boris fails, then a Corbyn or Farage will replace him.
The centrists will have their time in the sun again but they need to realise that the status quo is not sustainable. They also need to try to understand the motivations of leave voters and those voting for change:
Security:
- Giving people on ordinary incomes the chance to own their own home - Having secure employment and not needing to claim benefits
Fairness:
- Not allowing asylum seekers to jump the queue when there is a massive housing waiting list - Not allowing health tourists to use our NHS for free - Not allowing people to claim child benefit for children who don't live here
Sovereignty
- Not allowing increasing numbers of decisions to be taken by unelected bureaucrats in global institutions.
None of which is delivered by leaving the EU
The child benefit point would be. Nevertheless I absolutely agree that Brexit has to be part of a wider package of reforms.
I realized that 15 mins later when I reread it so apologies
But the £ dropped independently of any cyclical or other normal economic forces, and our credit rating worsened as a direct consequence of you know what.
Should these two reverse immediately or soon after we actually Brexit, I am willing to concede that it may be due the benefits of said departure from the EU. You and the entire band of PB brothers will read my unashamed and sincere mea culpa. In fact I will be delighted to offer it, because what happens to the country and the people I love matters more to me than my silly pride, or being right on a point of principle.
But it ain't gonna happen, is it?
And you know why.
It isn't going to happen because sterling isn't a measure of strength and is a natural shock absorber. It falling is it doing its job as we adjust to a transition.
Why the obsession on sterling rather than wages, inflation or employment which is what actually effects people?
I can't help wondering about the personal circumstances of the people who are here day in, day out, posting a comment every five minutes or so.
Would it be rude to ask?
It's a better conversation than Twitter, and a home for plenty of slightly underemployed lawyers I'm here for the tips, and the bants - glass houses everywhere on this particular question though.
Thanks for the comments. Though so far they haven't covered the people I was most curious about (with one possible exception).
I have no hate. I've been posting here for 13 years I dare you to say anything I've ever said that was based on "hate and division".
I see more hate from those wishing death upon the elderly.
One of the most inspiring quotes I find is Edith Cavell’s statement before her execution:
Patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness for anyone
After you’ve fallen in enthusiastically behind a campaign of xenophobic lies.
Seek help.
I’m not having pious platitudes mouthed by people who played a substantial part in getting the country mired in the current mess by their completely unprincipled support of a vile campaign.
You yourself have often given the impression the impression, since 2016, that you have intense hatred for people who voted Leave.
You revelled in the Leave campaign. You’d do it all again, you said.
At some point Leave advocates will come to realise just how terribly they’ve damaged this country. But not yet, unfortunately.
I have lurked on this board for a number of months now. Sean has always come over as one of the most measured participants while you have been one of the most vitriolic. I say this as a Remainer that wants to rejoin.
Alistair was on the receiving end of months and months of vitriol. "Traitor" and "quisling" were rolled out regularly. I'd have retained some animosity, too, were I in his shoes.
I find Sean F’s posts to be driven by strange and petty grievances.
Not vitriolic, sure, perhaps passive aggressive is the better term.
Without wishing to name names several of the leavers appear to have something of a chip on their shoulders.
Come on Olly , spill the beans
That chippy-poster-in-chief position looking a bit precarious?
Lots of people have suggested the answer to our economic woes is to be at the heart of the EU and to join the Euro.
It's the answer to our political woes. Our economic woes have more to do with governments that were guilty of Charles' complaint about putting low-cost managers in charge of premium businesses.
Lots of people have suggested the answer to our economic woes is to be at the heart of the EU and to join the Euro.
It's the answer to our political woes. Our economic woes have more to do with governments that were guilty of Charles' complaint about putting low-cost managers in charge of premium businesses.
Joining the Euro is the one thing that would definitely put me off Rejoin.
Why does British Airways seem to have so many problems these days?
Privatisation.
That was a while ago, but a more imaginative answer than "Brexit"
More prosaically, this is what happens when you put a low-cost airline manager in charge of a premium business: underinvestment in IT and other boring background systems but ending up with reduced resilience and disaffected customers
Not just underinvested but outsourced. BA's IT used to be based in Newcastle - I haven't a clue where it's now based.
But the £ dropped independently of any cyclical or other normal economic forces, and our credit rating worsened as a direct consequence of you know what.
Should these two reverse immediately or soon after we actually Brexit, I am willing to concede that it may be due the benefits of said departure from the EU. You and the entire band of PB brothers will read my unashamed and sincere mea culpa. In fact I will be delighted to offer it, because what happens to the country and the people I love matters more to me than my silly pride, or being right on a point of principle.
But it ain't gonna happen, is it?
And you know why.
It isn't going to happen because sterling isn't a measure of strength and is a natural shock absorber. It falling is it doing its job as we adjust to a transition.
Why the obsession on sterling rather than wages, inflation or employment which is what actually effects people?
I can't help wondering about the personal circumstances of the people who are here day in, day out, posting a comment every five minutes or so.
Would it be rude to ask?
Shift worker, but currently taking a month off to look after my wife. That seems to mostly involve her giving me a list of DIY jobs to do, pointing at stuff, then me spending time and money at various building merchants and DIY stores.
Lots of people have suggested the answer to our economic woes is to be at the heart of the EU and to join the Euro.
It's the answer to our political woes. Our economic woes have more to do with governments that were guilty of Charles' complaint about putting low-cost managers in charge of premium businesses.
Joining the Euro is the one thing that would definitely put me off Rejoin.
Get back to us when we've had a few years of the pound being buffeted by the vagaries of the currency markets while the Euro continues to establish itself as the alternative to the dollar.
On the subject of economics, and as I have a cup of tea to drink before doing some exercise, pretty much every major economy is flirting with recession right now.
Markit PMIs, or Purchasing Manager Indices, are some of the best forward looking indicators. They contact tens of thousands of firms every month with a survey and ask about stocks, backlogs, orders, exports, employment, etc. There is no reward for filling this in other than getting some nice reports on the economy (although it is a fairly trivial process), but in this way Markit gets an excellent idea of how manufacturing industries are trending around the world. (Markit has recently started doing services, retail, and construction as well, but the coverage these surveys get is still really low, so they are of varying usefulness.)
A PMI number of 50 indicates that half of firms are seeing improving conditions, and half are seeing deteriorating. They have been excellent barometers of growth, albeit sometimes overly sensitive.
Right now, the PMIs are below 50 and indicate recessions are incoming in the following countries:
Ireland UK South Korea Japan Taiwan Russia Poland Spain Italy Germany
And the following countries have PMIs of almost exactly 50 (which is not a good sign)...
Does the German chart mean the ECB will probably hold rates near zero for the forseeable future ?
Deposit rates with the ECB have been negative for some time. Lending rates are currently at record lows of 1.95% and heading lower. Despite the fact that you are having to pay Germany to look after your money their Target balances within the EZ are moving inexorably to 1trn Euros: http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/reports.do?node=1000004859
The only thing that can save the EZ from yet another recession is a major increase in public spending combined with tax cuts in Germany to boost demand. And I don't see that happening whilst Merkel is there.
They are in denial. I was speaking to a German friend the other day who was saying that the UK used to be seen as a beacon of political stability and common sense, and how astonished everyone is in Europe that we are now make Italy look like a paragon of political virtue
Until we leave, the sky doesn't fall in and all this drama turns out to be much ado about nothing.
Oh the sky wont fall in, but there will be huge collateral damage, businesses bust and people losing jobs, people taking their own lives as a consequence. You will be smirking, because your nationalistic anti-philosophy won the day. Shame on your callousness, or idiocy, whichever it is.
@Charles has put the level at which the price for Brexit is too high to pay at 200,000 people out of work.
He has not so far let us know what is an appropriate level of people out of work for it to be the right price.
Perhaps one of the Leaver altruist geniuses on here ("it won't run out there just won't be any of it for some people for a while") could let us know the right level.
Principles don't come with a price.
Perhaps you can tell us what the right level is for you to admit you were wrong since you're expecting others to do the same?
I am not wrong.
So on that basis of your first point, let's say that 2m people lost their jobs as a result of Brexit. Would that be worth it?
Maybe.
3.4m were unemployed in the 80s. Was that worth it?
I just want to get a handle on where you Brexiters think the value is in Brexit. You are at maybe for 2m out of work, while Charles thinks that 200,000 is too high so we are beginning to see a scale emerging.
What's the very top number that you think would be the limit of it being worth it?
For the third time of posting, I never said that 200,000 was too high.
I said that @HYUFD was unwise to put a number on it
Oh sorry. So 200,000 isn't too high? What's your number then?
Just trying to work it all in so I can get a handle on it.
For the fourth time of posting, I don't have a number.
But the £ dropped independently of any cyclical or other normal economic forces, and our credit rating worsened as a direct consequence of you know what.
Should these two reverse immediately or soon after we actually Brexit, I am willing to concede that it may be due the benefits of said departure from the EU. You and the entire band of PB brothers will read my unashamed and sincere mea culpa. In fact I will be delighted to offer it, because what happens to the country and the people I love matters more to me than my silly pride, or being right on a point of principle.
But it ain't gonna happen, is it?
And you know why.
It isn't going to happen because sterling isn't a measure of strength and is a natural shock absorber. It falling is it doing its job as we adjust to a transition.
Why the obsession on sterling rather than wages, inflation or employment which is what actually effects people?
I can't help wondering about the personal circumstances of the people who are here day in, day out, posting a comment every five minutes or so.
Would it be rude to ask?
Don't fit the criteria exactly and do worry when I spend too much time here but:
They are in denial. I was speaking to a German friend the other day who was saying that the UK used to be seen as a beacon of political stability and common sense, and how astonished everyone is in Europe that we are now make Italy look like a paragon of political virtue
Until we leave, the sky doesn't fall in and all this drama turns out to be much ado about nothing.
Oh the sky wont fall in, but there will be huge collateral damage, businesses bust and people losing jobs, people taking their own lives as a consequence. You will be smirking, because your nationalistic anti-philosophy won the day. Shame on your callousness, or idiocy, whichever it is.
@Charles has put the level at which the price for Brexit is too high to pay at 200,000 people out of work.
He has not so far let us know what is an appropriate level of people out of work for it to be the right price.
Perhaps one of the Leaver altruist geniuses on here ("it won't run out there just won't be any of it for some people for a while") could let us know the right level.
Principles don't come with a price.
Perhaps you can tell us what the right level is for you to admit you were wrong since you're expecting others to do the same?
I am not wrong.
So on that basis of your first point, let's say that 2m people lost their jobs as a result of Brexit. Would that be worth it?
Maybe.
3.4m were unemployed in the 80s. Was that worth it?
I just want to get a handle on where you Brexiters think the value is in Brexit. You are at maybe for 2m out of work, while Charles thinks that 200,000 is too high so we are beginning to see a scale emerging.
What's the very top number that you think would be the limit of it being worth it?
For the third time of posting, I never said that 200,000 was too high.
I said that @HYUFD was unwise to put a number on it
Oh sorry. So 200,000 isn't too high? What's your number then?
Just trying to work it all in so I can get a handle on it.
For the fourth time of posting, I don't have a number.
But the £ dropped independently of any cyclical or other normal economic forces, and our credit rating worsened as a direct consequence of you know what.
Should these two reverse immediately or soon after we actually Brexit, I am willing to concede that it may be due the benefits of said departure from the EU. You and the entire band of PB brothers will read my unashamed and sincere mea culpa. In fact I will be delighted to offer it, because what happens to the country and the people I love matters more to me than my silly pride, or being right on a point of principle.
But it ain't gonna happen, is it?
And you know why.
It isn't going to happen because sterling isn't a measure of strength and is a natural shock absorber. It falling is it doing its job as we adjust to a transition.
Why the obsession on sterling rather than wages, inflation or employment which is what actually effects people?
It is falling, because there is less demand for it. Now why is there less demand for it? Put your hand up when you think you have an answer.
Then you can move onto the credit rating question with the rest of the class.
*Raises hand*
There is less demand because markets like guaranteed safe havens more than uncertainty. Even if things are going well. Which is why it is a meaningless metric.
Just as credit rating is a meaningless metric too. It is a subjective measurement.
What is real rather than subjective is actual economic indicators. Inflation, wages, employment for people.
A better indication than credit rating is looking at gilt yields. UK 10 year gilt yield is currently a record low below 0.5% which shows remarkable confidence that the gilts are still a safe haven not a concern. It isn't as extreme as the negative yield of German gilts but it is still safe.
Comments
What we didn't have was being properly out or properly in. Properly in wasn't on the ballot paper but out was. If you didn't want real change, I don't see any point in the disruption of leaving Cameron's status quo ante.
I was gently pointing out to @HYUFD that some of his comments (e.g. X unemployed people is a price worth paying for Y) are foolish for an aspiring politician to make.
I don't have a view myself because I think its a flawed analytical approach.
What would do it for you?
Edit: In fact I'd be happy to give it till Christmas if you like. Reasonable?
So on that basis of your first point, let's say that 2m people lost their jobs as a result of Brexit. Would that be worth it?
However I think what you've said is never going to happen nor should it. Sterling is not a real measure of people's lives - wages, inflation, employment etc those are.
If I was to put a factor on it I'd hope to ensure that wages are growing faster than inflation, employment rate is the same or higher as it was before the 2016 referendum which should be the benchmark and inflation is under control. If all 3 occur its been a massive success.
An economic failure would be the opposite - stagflation, millions unemployed and a depression.
Any cyclical recession should not count. We can benchmark against the globe.
"Quite frankly, with more police officers out there and greater police presence, I want [criminals] to literally feel terror at the thought of committing offences."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/priti-patel-denies-backing-death-penalty-but-says-criminals-should-feel-terror-11776288
She is Boris worst appointment i think. Although Williamson returning to cabinet shortly after *allegedly* leaking national security is pretty woeful.
3.4m were unemployed in the 80s. Was that worth it?
What's the very top number that you think would be the limit of it being worth it?
I said that @HYUFD was unwise to put a number on it
I see it as a graded scale, not in absolutes.
Hmmm, Apart from fact he is a diehard Tory masquerading as Labour and anti-democratic to boot.
The direction of travel has been ever upwards. In a democracy , over 50% is the deciding factor, the people of Scotland will not accept any mandatory minimums put forward by Westminster lackeys.
Just trying to work it all in so I can get a handle on it.
Can Boris complete the Treble?
An interested counterfactual is: what if Cameron had come out all guns blazing for his renegotiation, and sold it heavily as a eurosceptic, and left the pure Remain bits to Jack Straw and the centre-left?
As it was he made such a negligible effort to sell the deal he obtained people assumed the changes must be negligible themselves, with a large delta between that and the rhetoric he’d previously employed.
Oh, wait a minute.
And have therefore lost my GE vote.
I'll probably vote tory or LD now then. Coalitionistas FTW
Should these two reverse immediately or soon after we actually Brexit, I am willing to concede that it may be due the benefits of said departure from the EU. You and the entire band of PB brothers will read my unashamed and sincere mea culpa. In fact I will be delighted to offer it, because what happens to the country and the people I love matters more to me than my silly pride, or being right on a point of principle.
But it ain't gonna happen, is it?
And you know why.
The second constitutional question turns on Europe. Should the Conservatives win an outright majority, Mr Cameron has pledged to re-negotiate the terms of UK membership and hold an in-out referendum within two years. His move threatens to consume the first two years of a Tory government. It could ultimately push Britain out of the bloc, a seismic change in the country’s relationship with its chief trading partners and for the balance of power in the EU itself. It might also break the Tory party.
https://www.ft.com/content/e61ce174-ea94-11e4-96ec-00144feab7de
Starmer could have placed it front and centre, wouldn't have made a damned bit of difference. He would have got a temporary union and been able to make it permanent during transition same as he could have with May's deal. There was no difference between the two.
In fact we'll be enjoying the sunlit uplands of freedom and sovereignity.
That's right, isn't it, Robert?
Please tell us it is.
Why the obsession on sterling rather than wages, inflation or employment which is what actually effects people?
In terms of where the British public placed themselves in terms of Europe in 2015 when the renegotiation began, I think the broad consensus was "we like trade with Europe, we like having a close relationship with Europe, we do not like the idea of a federal Europe or being 'run by Europe'." Given the way the rest of the EU was travelling then a significantly looser form of membership would have been a reasonable negotiating objective - perhaps for that the exercise was mistimed and it would have been better to wait until the EU as a whole was undertaking one of its periodic "big picture" structural rethinks.
Despite the electoral polarisation and heated rhetoric, I think "in Europe but not run by Europe" is still broadly where people are at. Few remainers have discovered sudden enthusiasm for joining the euro. Sticking my neck out (and possibly imposing my own slant on the numbers because this is what I want them to mean, but this is the sense I get from talking to people) I don't even think the polling popularity of "no deal" among leavers is because they want an end-state of glorious isolation, so much as they are deeply frustrated. They're fed up with endless delay and what they see as EU intransigence and 'anti-democratic' pro-remain politicians - and they wouldn't even be objectively wrong to see any further extension as, in part, a tactical effort by remainers to prevent Britain leaving.
In the long run Britain's (or England's) natural place in Europe seems either in but half-out, or out but half-in. But I can't envisage a smooth path towards either from this point. Perhaps May or Cameron's alternative hypothetical Tory successor could have loosened up on their red lines (tricky getting the results through parliament without a stonking government majority though), perhaps Labour might have cobbled something together if they'd won in 2017, but those paths are closed.
Then you can move onto the credit rating question with the rest of the class.
More prosaically, this is what happens when you put a low-cost airline manager in charge of a premium business: underinvestment in IT and other boring background systems but ending up with reduced resilience and disaffected customers
Would it be rude to ask?
Giving the high-roller nature of the site I presume they're just skiving in cushy office jobs
I'm here for the tips, and the bants - glass houses everywhere on this particular question though.
Oh, wait a minute. Lots of people have suggested the answer to our economic woes is to be at the heart of the EU and to join the Euro.
NEW THREAD
Markit PMIs, or Purchasing Manager Indices, are some of the best forward looking indicators. They contact tens of thousands of firms every month with a survey and ask about stocks, backlogs, orders, exports, employment, etc. There is no reward for filling this in other than getting some nice reports on the economy (although it is a fairly trivial process), but in this way Markit gets an excellent idea of how manufacturing industries are trending around the world. (Markit has recently started doing services, retail, and construction as well, but the coverage these surveys get is still really low, so they are of varying usefulness.)
A PMI number of 50 indicates that half of firms are seeing improving conditions, and half are seeing deteriorating. They have been excellent barometers of growth, albeit sometimes overly sensitive.
Right now, the PMIs are below 50 and indicate recessions are incoming in the following countries:
Ireland
UK
South Korea
Japan
Taiwan
Russia
Poland
Spain
Italy
Germany
And the following countries have PMIs of almost exactly 50 (which is not a good sign)...
US
China
France
Brazil
Canada
Still growing are...
India
The Netherlands
The only thing that can save the EZ from yet another recession is a major increase in public spending combined with tax cuts in Germany to boost demand. And I don't see that happening whilst Merkel is there.
Retired.
There is less demand because markets like guaranteed safe havens more than uncertainty. Even if things are going well. Which is why it is a meaningless metric.
Just as credit rating is a meaningless metric too. It is a subjective measurement.
What is real rather than subjective is actual economic indicators. Inflation, wages, employment for people.
A better indication than credit rating is looking at gilt yields. UK 10 year gilt yield is currently a record low below 0.5% which shows remarkable confidence that the gilts are still a safe haven not a concern. It isn't as extreme as the negative yield of German gilts but it is still safe.