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.
They’ve acknowledged the split includes 2 years of contributions to the EU budget while we are in transition.
Do you really think they are owed that for nothing?
Maybe it is just me. But I rather suspect that all this talk of a US trade deal is not doing the Conservatives any favours apart from in a tiny % of the voters who are wildly atlantist and like John Redwood's economics.
I think most voters are turned off by the thought of us dealing with Trump.
I think most of us realise the USA is not just Trump
Would Trump even sign any trade deals? Judging by the polling he only has 16 months left in power and 2 of those would be as a lame duck.
Only against Biden do polls clearly show Trump losing, Warren for example polls no better than Hillary did against Trump at best
ABC has it tied, Emerson has it tied and CNN has Trump beating Warren in the popular vote.
Yes and eight other polls have Warren ahead, some by up to seven points. She is also ahead in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, Democrats are going to be motivated to turnout and the economy ia deteriorating due to a trade war associated closely with Trump.
No, Warren is not ahead in Pennstylvania or Michigan, as I posted earlier Trump beats Warren in the latest poll in both those key swing states.
One thing that puzzles me is the fashion for throwing balls in on the bounce. It looks like it was the awkward bounce that caused Lyon to drop the ball with the run out attempt. He probably would have gathered a direct throw.
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.
Why don’t you google and see how the EU has described the payments? Would make life a lot easier for us all!
The question is can we pick anderson for the next test? Because that means a proper batting rabbit added to the lineup.
Well you have to pick Stokes and Archer. So it's two of Broad Woakes and Anderson
Woakes has so far been very poor, but he can bat.
Can he beat when under pressure ?
We know Sam Curran can.
If sam curran was 5mph quicker i would have him in the team straight away. He has balls that lad, but he isnt isnt quick enough bowler for test cricket.
Comments
Do you really think they are owed that for nothing?
Amusing answer Tim Paine or Joel Wilson
That just wasn't cricket.
Or was it?
REJOICE!!!!!
If Australia win the series then today will be forgotten.
We know Sam Curran can.
It was far from the best team performance ever. But that must be one of the greatest ever individual performances in test cricket.
The world needs more of us.
There was, but nothing to see now. Move along.....
And why aren't they remembered ?
Because they won a match not a series.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16057/scorecard/63759/england-vs-australia-6th-test-australia-tour-of-england-and-scotland-1997
Headley 6/60 as England win by 12 runs:
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/15883/scorecard/63817/australia-vs-england-4th-test-england-tour-of-australia-1998-99
Butcher 173no as England chase down 315:
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/15533/scorecard/63939/england-vs-australia-4th-test-australia-tour-of-england-and-ireland-2001