No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?
The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.
Let’s keep it simple.
Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?
OK. No FTA then. Oh, I forgot. They need us more than we need them.
Oh, so you are seriously suggesting we literally pay tens of billions for something we are demonstrably not getting. Any other remainers agree?
By the time we No Deal, we could be looking at GATT rules, rather than WTO...
Nigel, can you highlight the differences in less than a page please
Helpfully, someone else has done it for me: https://www.politico.eu/article/wto-gatt-trade-tariffs-dispute-back-to-gatt-law-of-the-jungle-returns-to-tradeland/ The key advantage of the GATT system for big countries was that losing parties in trade rulings could block them. "In both systems, in the GATT and in the situation of Appellate Body limbo, the losing party has the ability to prevent the dispute settlement from having any effect," said Simon Lester, from the Cato Institute....
Basically the bigger your country - or trade block - the better under GATT, as in significant respects it’s the loss of a legal mechanism to solve trade disputes.
Opinium in the Observer (buried at the bottom of their Brexit survey):
Overall the Conservatives have opened up a six-point lead over Labour, gaining one point in two weeks ago to stand on 32%, while Labour is down two points on 26% and the Brexit party unchanged on 16%. The Liberal Democrats are on 15%, the SNP 5%, the Greens on 4%, and Plaid Cymru and Ukip on 1%.
Like the other polls though with methodological differences that we've debated, this shows:
* the Johnson bounce continuing, but at a slower rate * the Brexit Party vote holding up despite zero publicity * Labour ahead of the LibDems
We're all familiar with the various implications: suffice it to say that I don't think an election is without risk for Johnson.
To me this is saying: a chunk of voters will stay BXP until the day we really, really have left, as they don't believe Johnson. And of course if we leave with some kind of deal unacceptable to Farage then a chunk will still stay BXP.
Johnson fawning over trump is sickening congratulating him on his economic policies etc etc
At some point in the future we will get to see Boris doing a Prince Andrew like rebuttal of his relationship with Trump.
Let's not exaggerate. They haven't even held hands yet, and we are a million miles from Blair's impression of a randy miniature poodle trying to hump Bush's leg.
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?
The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.
Let’s keep it simple.
Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?
OK. No FTA then. Oh, I forgot. They need us more than we need them.
Oh, so you are seriously suggesting we literally pay tens of billions for something we are demonstrably not getting. Any other remainers agree?
So what's your alternative ? I thought the raison d'etre of Brexit was about trade deals with ...any country. It takes two to tango. If the EU says we would not even begin negotiate unless you pay your legally binding dues.... what then ? Just sulk ?
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
As has been said before, a good portion of the 39bn (I think about 15bn but I could be misremembering) is to pay for a transition phase. If there's no transitation phase, could you explain why you feel we should pay for one?
As per my exchange with Charles, winning the battle for public opinion in the UK is one thing, but once we have left with No Deal we will be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others to continue to trade internationally on anything resembling the way we do now. If they believe they are owed money that is a problem. This is the reality of giving up control.
Logical. The 5 CHUKs and any rebel Tories would not back one. So what's the point. Let's go for a hard no deal Brexit. Then start campaigning for REJOIN if a Fascist government allows us.
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?
The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.
The same mindset that claimed giving up half the Rebate would get 'goodwill'.
Mr. Royale, I agree that MPs collectively might want to do that but could it be done in the time frame, and are there the Parliamentary mechanisms that permit a disparate group of MPs to propose such binding legislation?
Same way Cooper-Letwin became law, with a sympathetic speaker.
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?
The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.
Let’s keep it simple.
Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?
OK. No FTA then. Oh, I forgot. They need us more than we need them.
Oh, so you are seriously suggesting we literally pay tens of billions for something we are demonstrably not getting. Any other remainers agree?
So what's your alternative ? I thought the raison d'etre of Brexit was about trade deals with ...any country. It takes two to tango. If the EU says we would not even begin negotiate unless you pay your legally binding dues.... what then ? Just sulk ?
As far as I am concerned we must pay our legal liabilities but that cannot in fairness include 30 billion or so for a transition that does not exist. That 30 billion is the sum to negotiate in exchange for a trade deal
And that is not taking sides, it is just common sense
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
As has been said before, a good portion of the 39bn (I think about 15bn but I could be misremembering) is to pay for a transition phase. If there's no transitation phase, could you explain why you feel we should pay for one?
As per my exchange with Charles, winning the battle for public opinion in the UK is one thing, but once we have left with No Deal we will be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others to continue to trade internationally on anything resembling the way we do now. If they believe they are owed money that is a problem. This is the reality of giving up control.
Leaving aside the deeply erroneous assumption that an FTA with the EU is some kind of glittering gift that we want them to bestow on us, or the assumption that it serves our country well in the long term to be seen to be paying bills we don't owe, you don't seem to grasp negotiation, or more basically the dynamics of human behaviour.
If we're planning on giving that money to the EU, and we want something in return, the last thing we should do is give them the money upfront. Do you give kids sweeties and then expect them to behave well because you've been so generous? The reward is a consequence of the desired behaviour not the precursor of it.
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?
The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.
Let’s keep it simple.
Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?
OK. No FTA then. Oh, I forgot. They need us more than we need them.
Oh, so you are seriously suggesting we literally pay tens of billions for something we are demonstrably not getting. Any other remainers agree?
So what's your alternative ? I thought the raison d'etre of Brexit was about trade deals with ...any country. It takes two to tango. If the EU says we would not even begin negotiate unless you pay your legally binding dues.... what then ? Just sulk ?
Opinium in the Observer (buried at the bottom of their Brexit survey):
Overall the Conservatives have opened up a six-point lead over Labour, gaining one point in two weeks ago to stand on 32%, while Labour is down two points on 26% and the Brexit party unchanged on 16%. The Liberal Democrats are on 15%, the SNP 5%, the Greens on 4%, and Plaid Cymru and Ukip on 1%.
Like the other polls though with methodological differences that we've debated, this shows:
* the Johnson bounce continuing, but at a slower rate * the Brexit Party vote holding up despite zero publicity * Labour ahead of the LibDems
We're all familiar with the various implications: suffice it to say that I don't think an election is without risk for Johnson.
To me this is saying: a chunk of voters will stay BXP until the day we really, really have left, as they don't believe Johnson. And of course if we leave with some kind of deal unacceptable to Farage then a chunk will still stay BXP.
How far can Johnson squeeze them?
I think that's right, but it's 3-dimensional chess:
* Any actual outcome will annoy a chunk of voters who wanted a different sort of unicorn. I doubt if Farage will have difficulty in portraying the situation as a betrayal of some kind. * But if Leave voters think that there is a serious risk of Revoke, they will rally to Johnson. So if LibDems are doing really well and going on Revoke, Johnson may benefit. * But if Johnson is doing well, then anti-Johnson voters will be more minded to vote tactically to stop him. Labour remaining ahead of the LibDems in every poll makes it easier to work out what a sensible tactical vote is, as the landscape is not completely different from usual. * But if Labour distances itself clearly from Revoke, Brexit voters have less reason to rally round Johnson, yet LibDem voters have less reason to vote Labour tactically.
So, a sort of mini backstop, where agricultural rules (for example) stayed aligned in Northern Ireland. But it was all sufficiently opaque that he gets to claim victory. That could work
Any clever scheme to pull the wool over the eyes of those who dont want any backstop fails because they can read the papers
Opinium in the Observer (buried at the bottom of their Brexit survey):
Overall the Conservatives have opened up a six-point lead over Labour, gaining one point in two weeks ago to stand on 32%, while Labour is down two points on 26% and the Brexit party unchanged on 16%. The Liberal Democrats are on 15%, the SNP 5%, the Greens on 4%, and Plaid Cymru and Ukip on 1%.
Like the other polls though with methodological differences that we've debated, this shows:
* the Johnson bounce continuing, but at a slower rate * the Brexit Party vote holding up despite zero publicity * Labour ahead of the LibDems
We're all familiar with the various implications: suffice it to say that I don't think an election is without risk for Johnson.
To me this is saying: a chunk of voters will stay BXP until the day we really, really have left, as they don't believe Johnson. And of course if we leave with some kind of deal unacceptable to Farage then a chunk will still stay BXP.
How far can Johnson squeeze them?
I think that's right, but it's 3-dimensional chess:
* Any actual outcome will annoy a chunk of voters who wanted a different sort of unicorn. I doubt if Farage will have difficulty in portraying the situation as a betrayal of some kind. * But if Leave voters think that there is a serious risk of Revoke, they will rally to Johnson. So if LibDems are doing really well and going on Revoke, Johnson may benefit. * But if Johnson is doing well, then anti-Johnson voters will be more minded to vote tactically to stop him. Labour remaining ahead of the LibDems in every poll makes it easier to work out what a sensible tactical vote is, as the landscape is not completely different from usual. * But if Labour distances itself clearly from Revoke, Brexit voters have less reason to rally round Johnson, yet LibDem voters have less reason to vote Labour tactically.
So, a sort of mini backstop, where agricultural rules (for example) stayed aligned in Northern Ireland. But it was all sufficiently opaque that he gets to claim victory. That could work
Any clever scheme to pull the wool over the eyes of those who dont want any backstop fails because they can read the papers
It's Arlene that proposed something very similar to this. And most Tory MP's voted for the deal with the backstop, I would think this will be enough for most.
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
As has been said before, a good portion of the 39bn (I think about 15bn but I could be misremembering) is to pay for a transition phase. If there's no transitation phase, could you explain why you feel we should pay for one?
As per my exchange with Charles, winning the battle for public opinion in the UK is one thing, but once we have left with No Deal we will be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others to continue to trade internationally on anything resembling the way we do now. If they believe they are owed money that is a problem. This is the reality of giving up control.
Leaving aside the deeply erroneous assumption that an FTA with the EU is some kind of glittering gift that we want them to bestow on us, or the assumption that it serves our country well in the long term to be seen to be paying bills we don't owe, you don't seem to grasp negotiation, or more basically the dynamics of human behaviour.
If we're planning on giving that money to the EU, and we want something in return, the last thing we should do is give them the money upfront. Do you give kids sweeties and then expect them to behave well because you've been so generous? The reward is a consequence of the desired behaviour not the precursor of it.
I do not view the EU27 as children. If we do not want a trade agreement with the EU then obviously we do not need to hand over any cash.
Dr. Foxy, I sympathise with the sentiment but there doesn't appear to be a unifying option on the table.
Quite. And yet without intentional irony politician after politician whitters on about needing unity and in the same breath attacks and insults a massive number of people on the other side. Unity is not possible and they know it, but they still use the word.
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
As has been said before, a good portion of the 39bn (I think about 15bn but I could be misremembering) is to pay for a transition phase. If there's no transitation phase, could you explain why you feel we should pay for one?
As per my exchange with Charles, winning the battle for public opinion in the UK is one thing, but once we have left with No Deal we will be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others to continue to trade internationally on anything resembling the way we do now. If they believe they are owed money that is a problem. This is the reality of giving up control.
Leaving aside the deeply erroneous assumption that an FTA with the EU is some kind of glittering gift that we want them to bestow on us, or the assumption that it serves our country well in the long term to be seen to be paying bills we don't owe, you don't seem to grasp negotiation, or more basically the dynamics of human behaviour.
If we're planning on giving that money to the EU, and we want something in return, the last thing we should do is give them the money upfront. Do you give kids sweeties and then expect them to behave well because you've been so generous? The reward is a consequence of the desired behaviour not the precursor of it.
I do not view the EU27 as children. If we do not want a trade agreement with the EU then obviously we do not need to hand over any cash.
Children and sweets was used as a simple analogy. Obviously not simple enough.
I agree with EiT (as usual, I'd vote for him as PM,, he'd do a better job even in Tokyo)
Very kind of you, I'm in Britain for the next week or so then flying back via Amsterdam which isn't too far from Brussels so as long as everybody can get this sorted reasonably soon I can drop the A50 extension request off on my way home. I'd be up for making another trip next month if absolutely necessary but I'd expect parliament to do something in return, like repealing the planning laws.
Dr. Foxy, I sympathise with the sentiment but there doesn't appear to be a unifying option on the table.
Quite. And yet without intentional irony politician after politician whitters on about needing unity and in the same breath attacks and insults a massive number of people on the other side. Unity is not possible and they know it, but they still use the word.
So, a sort of mini backstop, where agricultural rules (for example) stayed aligned in Northern Ireland. But it was all sufficiently opaque that he gets to claim victory. That could work
Any clever scheme to pull the wool over the eyes of those who dont want any backstop fails because they can read the papers
It's Arlene that proposed something very similar to this. And most Tory MP's voted for the deal with the backstop, I would think this will be enough for most.
Youd hope but some of them are downright irrational why theres even some describing the original backstop as an outrageous anti democratic betrayal even though they voted for it, so theres no guarantee they'd vote for a different one even if more acceptable.
Theyd need a new name for it to blunt the inevitable BXP cries if betrayal too.
Johnson fawning over trump is sickening congratulating him on his economic policies etc etc
It is but we know Trump is a manchild who likes his ego flattered. So who knows?
It might yield results.
Let's hope so, the butt kissing should not go to waste.
Well remainers here are a suggesting we just give the EU 30 billion as a birthday present in advance of our FTA negotiations with them. Boris's sweet nothings are cheap by comparison.
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
As has been said before, a good portion of the 39bn (I think about 15bn but I could be misremembering) is to pay for a transition phase. If there's no transitation phase, could you explain why you feel we should pay for one?
As per my exchange with Charles, winning the battle for public opinion in the UK is one thing, but once we have left with No Deal we will be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others to continue to trade internationally on anything resembling the way we do now. If they believe they are owed money that is a problem. This is the reality of giving up control.
Leaving aside the deeply erroneous assumption that an FTA with the EU is some kind of glittering gift that we want them to bestow on us, or the assumption that it serves our country well in the long term to be seen to be paying bills we don't owe, you don't seem to grasp negotiation, or more basically the dynamics of human behaviour.
If we're planning on giving that money to the EU, and we want something in return, the last thing we should do is give them the money upfront. Do you give kids sweeties and then expect them to behave well because you've been so generous? The reward is a consequence of the desired behaviour not the precursor of it.
I do not view the EU27 as children. If we do not want a trade agreement with the EU then obviously we do not need to hand over any cash.
Children and sweets was used as a simple analogy. Obviously not simple enough.
No, I think it reveals the way you view the EU so was not a simple, random analogy.
Can't remember where Sked resides in the current pantheon of EUrophobic Saints, but isn't the standard patter that it's the EU not Europe that's the problem? Perhaps Skeddy's just being honest.
Can't remember where Sked resides in the current pantheon of EUrophobic Saints, but isn't the standard patter that it's the EU not Europe that's the problem? Perhaps Skeddy's just being honest.
The big question today is how long are England going to bat ?
I have a horrible feeling after all the hard work yesterday, we will be done by lunch.
Depends if they can accept this is test cricket not a slogging match
Usually I'd agree with that, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Treat it as a World Cup match and slog the guts out of it! A draw is no good to us. Go down in style, rather than get all out trying to defend. The current crop know how to win in 50 overs and they should get themselves into that mindset.
Johnson fawning over trump is sickening congratulating him on his economic policies etc etc
It is but we know Trump is a manchild who likes his ego flattered. So who knows?
It might yield results.
Let's hope so, the butt kissing should not go to waste.
Well remainers here are a suggesting we just give the EU 30 billion as a birthday present in advance of our FTA negotiations with them. Boris's sweet nothings are cheap by comparison.
Nope, merely noting the likely consequences of not paying it. I expect the government to refuse to pay. It has no other option politically. The interesting thing is how long that position is sustained.
The big question today is how long are England going to bat ?
I have a horrible feeling after all the hard work yesterday, we will be done by lunch.
Depends if they can accept this is test cricket not a slogging match
Usually I'd agree with that, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Treat it as a World Cup match and slog the guts out of it! A draw is no good to us. Go down in style, rather than get all out trying to defend. The current crop know how to win in 50 overs and they should get themselves into that mindset.
They have all day with weather set. Prudence is the way to win this
The big question today is how long are England going to bat ?
I have a horrible feeling after all the hard work yesterday, we will be done by lunch.
Depends if they can accept this is test cricket not a slogging match
Usually I'd agree with that, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Treat it as a World Cup match and slog the guts out of it! A draw is no good to us. Go down in style, rather than get all out trying to defend. The current crop know how to win in 50 overs and they should get themselves into that mindset.
They have all day with weather set. Prudence is the way to win this
The big question today is how long are England going to bat ?
I have a horrible feeling after all the hard work yesterday, we will be done by lunch.
Depends if they can accept this is test cricket not a slogging match
Usually I'd agree with that, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Treat it as a World Cup match and slog the guts out of it! A draw is no good to us. Go down in style, rather than get all out trying to defend. The current crop know how to win in 50 overs and they should get themselves into that mindset.
They have all day with weather set. Prudence is the way to win this
Not with this team. Far too many one day specialists in it.
OK-, so what's the Transition Deal worth? Trying a Physics-style estimate (hi Dominic!);
UK GDP is about £2 000 billion per year. Over 250 working days, that's £8 billion per day.
So if the transition saves us 4 working days of hassle over the next two years, it's worth it. I can't judge that, but it seems like not buying the transition deal will vebcutting off our nose to apits our face.
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?
The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.
Let’s keep it simple.
Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?
To ensure the goodwill of those we have made ourselves dependent on.
Paying £29bn to neighbouring countries “to ensure goodwill”
That’s a pretty crappy use of taxpayers money
I never thought you'd come round to the remain point of view, but welcome on board!
Can't remember where Sked resides in the current pantheon of EUrophobic Saints, but isn't the standard patter that it's the EU not Europe that's the problem? Perhaps Skeddy's just being honest.
Sked is hated by the UKIP and BXP types because he dared to criticise Saint Nigel. His 'crime' in their eyes is to have wanted a sensible negotiated separation from the EU. So now he is basically hated by both sets of extremists - Kippers and Remoaners.
OK-, so what's the Transition Deal worth? Trying a Physics-style estimate (hi Dominic!);
UK GDP is about £2 000 billion per year. Over 250 working days, that's £8 billion per day.
So if the transition saves us 4 working days of hassle over the next two years, it's worth it. I can't judge that, but it seems like not buying the transition deal will be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Possibly. But the costs of No Deal are very likely not limited to the disruption experienced during the next couple of years.
A Clarke-led minority government is a unicorn. As DH says, there is the question of who would actually be in the government, and as Clarke himself has suggested this would be to renegotiate Brexit, this would matter because it would inevitably take time. Secondly, it would split the Conservative Party for a generation. Thirdly, it would mean Boris resigning as leader just a few weeks after his landslide election.
Corbyn and a splash-and-dash, extension and election government, with acceptance of purdah to rule out action in other areas, remains the only viable chance to stop Brexit. Ironically, it would then not matter very much who was in the Cabinet as purdah and time would preclude new legislation.
The only viable route to a Clarke premiership is as leader of a Conservative government if Boris falls under a bus.
Clarke has no chance being leader of a Tory government and extending again to stop No Deal Brexit, his only chance would be getting most Labour MPs to ignore Corbyn and vote to make him PM, joined by the LDs and SNP and about 50 anti No Deal Tory rebels. Corbyn will never accept anyone else being PM but him.
Boris of course would not resign but stay Tory leader and replace Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition with the vast majority of Tory MPs and the DUP behind him as well as a few Labour rebels.
With Clarke PM on an anti No Deal ticket and Boris Leader of the Opposition on a pro No Deal Brexit ticket, Corbyn would be left in no man's land having lost control of the vast majority of his MPs who would be backing a Clarke premiership
This is how I see it. Corbyn and his cult sat next to Boris and his cult both voting alongside each other against the government. Note the irony that as Corbyn sits and votes alongside the ERG his death cult will be screeching that the people NOT doing so because they're in the TANDA government are in fact Tories
You could get Corbynistas calling Labour MPs backing a Clarke premiership Tories and the ERG calling Tory MPs backing a Clarke premiership LDs
So EUref2 and revoke and then No Deal are the 2 most popular single Brexit options but the first has not much more than a third of voters supporting it and the second not much more than a quarter of voters backing it.
However 50% of voters back either No Deal, a similar deal to May's Deal or Brexit but stay in the Single Market and Customs Union but none of the compromise Deal options has even 20% support
So EUref2 and revoke and then No Deal are the 2 most popular single Brexit options but the first has not much more than a third of voters supporting it and the second not much more than a quarter of voters backing it.
However 50% of voters back either No Deal, a similar deal to May's Deal or Brexit but stay in the Single Market and Customs Union but none of the compromise Deal options has even 20% support
Opinium in the Observer (buried at the bottom of their Brexit survey):
Overall the Conservatives have opened up a six-point lead over Labour, gaining one point in two weeks ago to stand on 32%, while Labour is down two points on 26% and the Brexit party unchanged on 16%. The Liberal Democrats are on 15%, the SNP 5%, the Greens on 4%, and Plaid Cymru and Ukip on 1%.
Like the other polls though with methodological differences that we've debated, this shows:
* the Johnson bounce continuing, but at a slower rate * the Brexit Party vote holding up despite zero publicity * Labour ahead of the LibDems
We're all familiar with the various implications: suffice it to say that I don't think an election is without risk for Johnson.
Electoral Calculus gives a Tory majority of 30 on those Opinium numbers, Tories 340, Labour 222, LDs 30
So EUref2 and revoke and then No Deal are the 2 most popular single Brexit options but the first has not much more than a third of voters supporting it and the second not much more than a quarter of voters backing it.
However 50% of voters back either No Deal, a similar deal to May's Deal or Brexit but stay in the Single Market and Customs Union but none of the compromise Deal options has even 20% support
Alternatively, remain plus soft Brexit have 52%.
But diehard Remainers still consider even soft Brexit a Brexit to be opposed with revoke preferred while most Leavers do not really consider a soft Brexit keeping us in the Single Market and Customs Union to be Brexit at all as we would still have free movement from the EU and still be unable to do our own trade deals and still be subject to European courts
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?
The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.
Let’s keep it simple.
Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?
To ensure the goodwill of those we have made ourselves dependent on.
Paying £29bn to neighbouring countries “to ensure goodwill”
That’s a pretty crappy use of taxpayers money
That depends on the alternatives, Charles. When you give up control, these are the issues you have to grapple with. In the short term, the UK will clearly withhold the cash. Longer term, we’ll see. At some point the hedge funds that own the government will want to realise their No Deal profits - and that will mean a deal will be necessary.
Can you give me any example of a FTA which has involved a substantial upfront cash payment?
Can you give me an example of an FTA that has involved a country negotiating a worse trade deal than it currently has with the parties on the other side of the table? Every FTA is different, Charles. We will be negotiating our ones from a position of considerable weakness.
I disagree. But I do think that your suggestion we will have to pay Danegeld is frankly ridiculous.
Of course we will settle our liabilities. But a payment for the right to negotiate a deal is frankly daft.
Logical. The 5 CHUKs and any rebel Tories would not back one. So what's the point. Let's go for a hard no deal Brexit. Then start campaigning for REJOIN if a Fascist government allows us.
You think the next Italian government won't want us to rejoin?
Can't remember where Sked resides in the current pantheon of EUrophobic Saints, but isn't the standard patter that it's the EU not Europe that's the problem? Perhaps Skeddy's just being honest.
Sked is hated by the UKIP and BXP types because he dared to criticise Saint Nigel. His 'crime' in their eyes is to have wanted a sensible negotiated separation from the EU. So now he is basically hated by both sets of extremists - Kippers and Remoaners.
Sked is a good marker for how far Euroscepticism has mutated.
Opinium in the Observer (buried at the bottom of their Brexit survey):
Overall the Conservatives have opened up a six-point lead over Labour, gaining one point in two weeks ago to stand on 32%, while Labour is down two points on 26% and the Brexit party unchanged on 16%. The Liberal Democrats are on 15%, the SNP 5%, the Greens on 4%, and Plaid Cymru and Ukip on 1%.
Like the other polls though with methodological differences that we've debated, this shows:
* the Johnson bounce continuing, but at a slower rate * the Brexit Party vote holding up despite zero publicity * Labour ahead of the LibDems
We're all familiar with the various implications: suffice it to say that I don't think an election is without risk for Johnson.
Electoral Calculus gives a Tory majority of 30 on those Opinium numbers, Tories 340, Labour 222, LDs 30
Not on the basis of UNS.Opinium shows a pro-Tory swing of 1.75% which would lead to 19 gains from Labour before taking account of first term incumbency - a factor relevant in 13 of the seats concerned.Such gains would be offset by 12 Tory losses to the LDs resulting from a swing of circa 9.5% from the Tories. There would also be likely losses to the SNP.
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?
The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.
Let’s keep it simple.
Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?
To ensure the goodwill of those we have made ourselves dependent on.
Paying £29bn to neighbouring countries “to ensure goodwill”
That’s a pretty crappy use of taxpayers money
That depends on the alternatives, Charles. Whenmean a deal will be necessary.
Can you give me any example of a FTA which has involved a substantial upfront cash payment?
Can you give me an example of an FTA that has involved a country negotiating a worse trade deal than it currently has with the parties on the other side of the table? Every FTA is different, Charles. We will be negotiating our ones from a position of considerable weakness.
I disagree. But I do think that your suggestion we will have to pay Danegeld is frankly ridiculous.
Of course we will settle our liabilities. But a payment for the right to negotiate a deal is frankly daft.
A lot of people on here thought my pre-referendum claim that the Northern Ireland border would be a major Brexit problem was daft. Now look where we are.
If the EU believes that the money in dispute is a liability that is not just an FTA issue, it is a challenge from 1st November. We need their goodwill if No Deal has any hope of being manageable.
Opinium in the Observer (buried at the bottom of their Brexit survey):
Overall the Conservatives have opened up a six-point lead over Labour, gaining one point in two weeks ago to stand on 32%, while Labour is down two points on 26% and the Brexit party unchanged on 16%. The Liberal Democrats are on 15%, the SNP 5%, the Greens on 4%, and Plaid Cymru and Ukip on 1%.
Like the other polls though with methodological differences that we've debated, this shows:
* the Johnson bounce continuing, but at a slower rate * the Brexit Party vote holding up despite zero publicity * Labour ahead of the LibDems
We're all familiar with the various implications: suffice it to say that I don't think an election is without risk for Johnson.
Electoral Calculus gives a Tory majority of 30 on those Opinium numbers, Tories 340, Labour 222, LDs 30
Not on the basis of UNS.Opinium shows a pro-Tory swing of 1.75% which would lead to 19 gains from Labour before taking account of first term incumbency - a factor relevant in 13 of the seats concerned.Such gains would be offset by 12 Tory losses to the LDs resulting from a swing of circa 9.5% from the Tories. There would also be likely losses to the SNP.
If some Labour MPs benefit from first term incumbency so likely would some Tory MPs in Scotland also first elected in 2017
Come off it. Trudeau is just saying what he is expected to say. The two of them have nowt in common.
On somethings they do do even if Boris is closer to Canadian Tory leader Andrew Scheer who is tied with Trudeau's Liberals in current Canadian polls ahead of October's Canadian election
Opinium in the Observer (buried at the bottom of their Brexit survey):
Overall the Conservatives have opened up a six-point lead over Labour, gaining one point in two weeks ago to stand on 32%, while Labour is down two points on 26% and the Brexit party unchanged on 16%. The Liberal Democrats are on 15%, the SNP 5%, the Greens on 4%, and Plaid Cymru and Ukip on 1%.
Like the other polls though with methodological differences that we've debated, this shows:
* the Johnson bounce continuing, but at a slower rate * the Brexit Party vote holding up despite zero publicity * Labour ahead of the LibDems
We're all familiar with the various implications: suffice it to say that I don't think an election is without risk for Johnson.
Electoral Calculus gives a Tory majority of 30 on those Opinium numbers, Tories 340, Labour 222, LDs 30
Not on the basis of UNS.Opinium shows a pro-Tory swing of 1.75% which would lead to 19 gains from Labour before taking account of first term incumbency - a factor relevant in 13 of the seats concerned.Such gains would be offset by 12 Tory losses to the LDs resulting from a swing of circa 9.5% from the Tories. There would also be likely losses to the SNP.
If some Labour MPs benefit from first term incumbency so likely would some Tory MPs in Scotland also first elected in 2017
I do not dispute that at all. However, first term incumbency only tends to be relevant when the swing involved is fairly modest .It would be likely to be overridden by an adverse swing in excess of - say- circa 4%. There have been no Scotland Voting Intention polls for a while so it's not clear where things stand there..
OK-, so what's the Transition Deal worth? Trying a Physics-style estimate (hi Dominic!);
UK GDP is about £2 000 billion per year. Over 250 working days, that's £8 billion per day.
So if the transition saves us 4 working days of hassle over the next two years, it's worth it. I can't judge that, but it seems like not buying the transition deal will be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Possibly. But the costs of No Deal are very likely not limited to the disruption experienced during the next couple of years.
That's physicists for you. The thing is, even if the value of not looking like a bunch of cheap chiselerz isczeroi the transition still makes sense.
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?
The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.
Let’s keep it simple.
Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?
Depends how ready the UK as a whole is for No Deal at the end of October. Would two years to sort out new trading relationships and get the systems in place save the country more than 30 billion pounds? I don't know. But the value of that is non-zero.
I have no problem paying £30bn for two years transition (assuming it’s worth it).
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?
The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.
Let’s keep it simple.
Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?
Depends how ready the UK as a whole is for No Deal at the end of October. Would two years to sort out new trading relationships and get the systems in place save the country more than 30 billion pounds? I don't know. But the value of that is non-zero.
I have no problem paying £30bn for two years transition (assuming it’s worth it).
But that’s not what SO was suggesting
I am not suggesting anything. I am observing. If the EU27 view the £39bn as money the UK is liable to pay, then not paying it becomes a problem when we need their goodwill following a No Deal Brexit. Clearly, the Johnson government believes it can be managed. We shall see.
Can't remember where Sked resides in the current pantheon of EUrophobic Saints, but isn't the standard patter that it's the EU not Europe that's the problem? Perhaps Skeddy's just being honest.
Both those for and against the EU frequently conflate the terms EU and Europe as convenient.
It is convenient shorthand. On 1 November the only countries in Europe not in the EU, or applying for membership, or in the Single Market via EEA are UK, Belarus and Russia.
No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?
The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.
Let’s keep it simple.
Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?
Depends how ready the UK as a whole is for No Deal at the end of October. Would two years to sort out new trading relationships and get the systems in place save the country more than 30 billion pounds? I don't know. But the value of that is non-zero.
I have no problem paying £30bn for two years transition (assuming it’s worth it).
But that’s not what SO was suggesting
I am not suggesting anything. I am observing. If the EU27 view the £39bn as money the UK is liable to pay, then not paying it becomes a problem when we need their goodwill following a No Deal Brexit. Clearly, the Johnson government believes it can be managed. We shall see.
With no transition period, 18 months of subs would not be owed.
Can't remember where Sked resides in the current pantheon of EUrophobic Saints, but isn't the standard patter that it's the EU not Europe that's the problem? Perhaps Skeddy's just being honest.
Both those for and against the EU frequently conflate the terms EU and Europe as convenient.
It is convenient shorthand. On 1 November the only countries in Europe not in the EU, or applying for membership, or in the Single Market via EEA are UK, Belarus and Russia.
Yet the UK and Russia are both big powers in or just outside the top 10 world economies, both in the G20 and both permanent members of the U.N. security council.
Neither need the EU as much as smaller European nations or even the EEA, especially as both now export more outside the EU than to the EU
Opinium in the Observer (buried at the bottom of their Brexit survey):
Overall the Conservatives have opened up a six-point lead over Labour, gaining one point in two weeks ago to stand on 32%, while Labour is down two points on 26% and the Brexit party unchanged on 16%. The Liberal Democrats are on 15%, the SNP 5%, the Greens on 4%, and Plaid Cymru and Ukip on 1%.
Like the other polls though with methodological differences that we've debated, this shows:
* the Johnson bounce continuing, but at a slower rate * the Brexit Party vote holding up despite zero publicity * Labour ahead of the LibDems
We're all familiar with the various implications: suffice it to say that I don't think an election is without risk for Johnson.
Electoral Calculus gives a Tory majority of 30 on those Opinium numbers, Tories 340, Labour 222, LDs 30
Not on the basis of UNS.Opinium shows a pro-Tory swing of 1.75% which would lead to 19 gains from Labour before taking account of first term incumbency - a factor relevant in 13 of the seats concerned.Such gains would be offset by 12 Tory losses to the LDs resulting from a swing of circa 9.5% from the Tories. There would also be likely losses to the SNP.
If some Labour MPs benefit from first term incumbency so likely would some Tory MPs in Scotland also first elected in 2017
I do not dispute that at all. However, first term incumbency only tends to be relevant when the swing involved is fairly modest .It would be likely to be overridden by an adverse swing in excess of - say- circa 4%. There have been no Scotland Voting Intention polls for a while so it's not clear where things stand there..
In more rural Scottish seats with bigger Tory majorities over the SNP it could still be relevant
So when all these pensioners show up are they going to be hopping mad at the lying brexiters who messed up their lives, or are they going to boost Con and BXP because people old people gonna old person
Comments
https://www.politico.eu/article/wto-gatt-trade-tariffs-dispute-back-to-gatt-law-of-the-jungle-returns-to-tradeland/
The key advantage of the GATT system for big countries was that losing parties in trade rulings could block them. "In both systems, in the GATT and in the situation of Appellate Body limbo, the losing party has the ability to prevent the dispute settlement from having any effect," said Simon Lester, from the Cato Institute....
Basically the bigger your country - or trade block - the better under GATT, as in significant respects it’s the loss of a legal mechanism to solve trade disputes.
How far can Johnson squeeze them?
Let's go for a hard no deal Brexit. Then start campaigning for REJOIN if a Fascist government allows us.
Never learn and never change.
It might yield results.
And that is not taking sides, it is just common sense
If we're planning on giving that money to the EU, and we want something in return, the last thing we should do is give them the money upfront. Do you give kids sweeties and then expect them to behave well because you've been so generous? The reward is a consequence of the desired behaviour not the precursor of it.
* Any actual outcome will annoy a chunk of voters who wanted a different sort of unicorn. I doubt if Farage will have difficulty in portraying the situation as a betrayal of some kind.
* But if Leave voters think that there is a serious risk of Revoke, they will rally to Johnson. So if LibDems are doing really well and going on Revoke, Johnson may benefit.
* But if Johnson is doing well, then anti-Johnson voters will be more minded to vote tactically to stop him. Labour remaining ahead of the LibDems in every poll makes it easier to work out what a sensible tactical vote is, as the landscape is not completely different from usual.
* But if Labour distances itself clearly from Revoke, Brexit voters have less reason to rally round Johnson, yet LibDem voters have less reason to vote Labour tactically.
And so on. Who the hell knows?
Theyd need a new name for it to blunt the inevitable BXP cries if betrayal too.
https://twitter.com/profsked/status/1164574612488937478?s=20
Scoring at just over 1 an over will do it.
We’ll find out pretty quickly.
UK GDP is about £2 000 billion per year.
Over 250 working days, that's £8 billion per day.
So if the transition saves us 4 working days of hassle over the next two years, it's worth it.
I can't judge that, but it seems like not buying the transition deal will vebcutting off our nose to apits our face.
But the costs of No Deal are very likely not limited to the disruption experienced during the next couple of years.
Then we meekly lose the next two tests.
However 50% of voters back either No Deal, a similar deal to May's Deal or Brexit but stay in the Single Market and Customs Union but none of the compromise Deal options has even 20% support
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=32&LAB=26&LIB=15&Brexit=16&Green=4&UKIP=1&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1165336608138301440?s=20
Of course we will settle our liabilities. But a payment for the right to negotiate a deal is frankly daft.
My MP
If the EU believes that the money in dispute is a liability that is not just an FTA issue, it is a challenge from 1st November. We need their goodwill if No Deal has any hope of being manageable.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1165577129804926981?s=21
But that’s not what SO was suggesting
Could’ve fooled me. To the extent Corbyn has a plan, it’s to allow Brexit to happen. A VoNC risks that and he will never table one.
Neither need the EU as much as smaller European nations or even the EEA, especially as both now export more outside the EU than to the EU
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pensioners-set-to-swamp-nhs-after-no-deal-brexit-as-260-000-expats-return-from-europe-for-healthcare-h3qhfx0nl?shareToken=aad3d4e65418349062daac792bd2c2a0