Engaging broken record mode to say once again this goes back to David Cameron's failure to establish (or force the Leavers to establish) the end-goal of Brexit. I do not believe Boris lied about the Irish Sea border, or that he is on yet another holiday as part of a master plan to out-negotiate Brussels. Rather, Boris simply does not have a clue what he wants, let alone how to get it. Boris, who wrote two essays, voted both ways on May, and who resigned over Brexit only after David Davis, is not in command of this process.
The irony is that all the many ways of being a c--t about being in the EU, from Thatcher getting rebates to Major's bustards being bustards to Farage being Farage, depend on being in the EU. If you leave the game any cards you hold, even if you do hold all the aces, become worthless pieces of paper. Your career as a c--t is over.
I am guessing that virtually all at or above median intelligence leavers already realise this. Lots of whistling in the dark and Micawberism in play.
All these undefined discussion subjects; how are people coping?
Relying on the Off Topic button.
They have names on the main site. There is a grammatical horror in this one which I refuse to reproduce, but it should be called "If Leaving the EU were easy."
Mr. JohnL, indeed, it was a very peculiar omission. Not only would it have made Remain's job easier, it would've made things clearer for any negotiating government.
Slightly bizarre decision when you think about it. Born of complacency?
I think a lot of people are forgetting one of the major reasons we voted to Leave was the obstinance of the EU. Events are confirming those fears
You are right, I have absolutely no recollection on "obstinacy" ever being mentioned in 2016. I do remember being told that a free trade deal would be easy, that of course we would retain single market access, and that we hold all the cards. If only Leavers were as talented at formulating a plan or negotiating as they are at rewriting history.
I think a lot of people are forgetting one of the major reasons we voted to Leave was the obstinance of the EU. Events are confirming those fears
Grey morning so far today. Just so long as it doesn't rain at Southampton and the pitch dries out at Arundel.
On topic, Mr C, from where do you get that idea? The EU isn't an unyielding monolith; there were principles behind it's foundation, and there are sound reasons for it's continued existence. It isn't perfect, of course; no human institution is.
Why bother with another article on Brexit? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together has realised by now that it's a fucking disaster, and the rest are congenitally incapable of admitting they were wrong. And it's happening regardless, so the whole debate is pointless really.
Why bother with another article on Brexit? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together has realised by now that it's a fucking disaster, and the rest are congenitally incapable of admitting they were wrong. And it's happening regardless, so the whole debate is pointless really.
Why bother with another article on Brexit? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together has realised by now that it's a fucking disaster, and the rest are congenitally incapable of admitting they were wrong. And it's happening regardless, so the whole debate is pointless really.
Like covid and global warming, there's arguments to be had about the scale of the fucking disaster.
I would make a different but related point. Brexit in my opinion is a big strategic mistake for the United Kingdom for very concrete reasons. A democratic decision was taken to do it, but it doesn't stop being a mistake simply because you plough on regardless, no matter how democratic. Faced with a decision that cannot be reversed but is highly damaging, the sensible approach is to limit that damage. However, this Brexiteer government cannot be sensible because Leavers didn't vote for damage limitation.
Mr. JohnL, indeed, it was a very peculiar omission. Not only would it have made Remain's job easier, it would've made things clearer for any negotiating government.
Slightly bizarre decision when you think about it. Born of complacency?
The irony is that all the many ways of being a c--t about being in the EU, from Thatcher getting rebates to Major's bustards being bustards to Farage being Farage, depend on being in the EU. If you leave the game any cards you hold, even if you do hold all the aces, become worthless pieces of paper. Your career as a c--t is over.
I am guessing that virtually all at or above median intelligence leavers already realise this. Lots of whistling in the dark and Micawberism in play.
Autocorrect left untouched.
So we'll have left, and be left with a lot of purposeless cnuts? Excellent.
Though I see Farage is apparently constructing his next career vehicle with Denis Potter's tumour.
Alex Belfield - THE VOICE OF REASON 94.2K subscribers This is incredible! Murdoch is finally investing in a new TV News Channel apparently, it could feature Farage & Neil & others who want fair, balanced & truly impartial real news that affects real people! Exciting.
Mr. JohnL, indeed, it was a very peculiar omission. Not only would it have made Remain's job easier, it would've made things clearer for any negotiating government.
Slightly bizarre decision when you think about it. Born of complacency?
Psychoanalysis of David Cameron is beyond me.
Another who wanted the job for it's own sake, not because he had any vision. Like Johnson.
The Telegraph reports on government plans to fix the BBC.
Speaking to the Telegraph on Saturday, a Government source said: “There is a considerable concern around impartiality and objectivity. It’s not that the BBC is left-wing and Labour supporting, it clearly isn’t.
“But lots of people think its news programmes seem only to be interested in picking holes in the Government or digging up embarrassing quotes.
“They are far less interested in listening to what ministers have to say than trying to trip them up in a way that is not entirely relevant.
Engaging broken record mode to say once again this goes back to David Cameron's failure to establish (or force the Leavers to establish) the end-goal of Brexit.
How?
What mechanism did Cameron have at his disposal to accomplish that?
The Government published their view, largely accurate, dismissed by Brexiteers as Project Fear.
Brexiteers promised sunlit uplands, regardless.
Cameron held a press conference explicitly to call out the lies, but it made no difference.
Caught up on last night. Goodness me it got spicy! While I’m generally of the view the Scots should do what they want and I wish them well either way, there seems to be an awful lot of jilted lover syndrome out there before she’s even decided to pack the suitcase and empty the joint savings account.
And perhaps this is the real lesson of Brexit. Even today yet more bitter posts and name calling about a debate that was supposed to have been resolved 4 years ago.
Can’t we all be a bit more Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow about it all? Won’t someone think of the kids!
And perhaps this is the real lesson of Brexit. Even today yet more bitter posts and name calling about a debate that was supposed to have been resolved 4 years ago.
Can’t we all be a bit more Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow about it all? Won’t someone think of the kids!
Engaging broken record mode to say once again this goes back to David Cameron's failure to establish (or force the Leavers to establish) the end-goal of Brexit.
How?
What mechanism did Cameron have at his disposal to accomplish that?
The Government published their view, largely accurate, dismissed by Brexiteers as Project Fear.
Brexiteers promised sunlit uplands, regardless.
Cameron held a press conference explicitly to call out the lies, but it made no difference.
What else could he have done?
The government controlled the referendum, both its timing and the question. It could have set up a commission and stuffed it with prominent Leavers before the referendum was granted. The point is it would have produced a consensus amongst Leavers by forcing them to engage seriously with the question; as a corollary we'd have a government now which knew in detail what its aims were.
The government controlled the referendum, both its timing and the question. It could have set up a commission and stuffed it with prominent Leavers before the referendum was granted.
Maybe, but prominent Leavers would have refused to join it, and accused the Government of stalling.
Georgia had breached 5000 test confirmed Covid deaths - as ever the real figure will be higher. Will now easily be into a run of days of 50%+ excess deaths from Covid.
Which Georgia? The State of the USA, or the ex-member of the USSR?
Engaging broken record mode to say once again this goes back to David Cameron's failure to establish (or force the Leavers to establish) the end-goal of Brexit.
The Government published their view, largely accurate, dismissed by Brexiteers as Project Fear.
Chuckle. Did you keep a straight face when you typed that?
F1: too short to tempt me (don't have enough money to play with to make it worthwhile) but Hamilton's 1.1 for the title on the Betfair exchange. His Ladbrokes odds are 1.01, which feels closer to the truth, to me.
There are too many “independent” observers of Scexit looking for problems and not proffering solutions. Scotland should just pass an Act of Parliament to rebase all contracts to groats on a 1-1 basis and let the currency slide. A form of sovereign default but get it out the way at the start and go from there, with an independent monetary policy (and printing press), competitive exchange rate and lower debt burden.
Everything else risks a bigger crisis or perpetual malaise.
Another arsehole lying through his teeth or unable to read. All options are well known. If that is all the unionists have they are clutching at the last of their straws.
Engaging broken record mode to say once again this goes back to David Cameron's failure to establish (or force the Leavers to establish) the end-goal of Brexit.
How?
What mechanism did Cameron have at his disposal to accomplish that?
The Government published their view, largely accurate, dismissed by Brexiteers as Project Fear.
Brexiteers promised sunlit uplands, regardless.
Cameron held a press conference explicitly to call out the lies, but it made no difference.
What else could he have done?
Cameron was so confident of victory, after all he had never lost anything before. Therefore:-
a) He rejected dropping the voting age (amongst other things) to advantage his campaign, which after all the SNP had already tried at Sindyref,and Cameron by the way was not normally averse to electoral chicanery.
b) He had no plan B in the event of failure because he believed he had not planned to fail.
Mr. G, the currency question is a pretty important one, to be fair.
Mr. Pete, Cameron was right not to lower the voting age, which would've been gerrymandering the electorate to his advantage.
You're right about his complacency, however. Having the official Leave campaign put together a basic prospectus would've been rather sensible, and the absence of it was a bit odd.
And perhaps this is the real lesson of Brexit. Even today yet more bitter posts and name calling about a debate that was supposed to have been resolved 4 years ago.
Can’t we all be a bit more Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow about it all? Won’t someone think of the kids!
This is what Nationalism does...
More like it is what ad losers like you do Scott, bitter and twisted you when you don't get your own way.
An independent Scotland would have it's own currency. It would have the option of following the Estonian model (post independence from the Soviet Union) and tying their currency to the Euro or the Pound. Or they could let it float.
Plenty of countries far smaller than Scotland have their own currencies, and they have survived perfectly well. Norway, for example, has almost exactly the same number of people, and somehow manages to have its own currency.
Mr. G, the currency question is a pretty important one, to be fair.
Mr. Pete, Cameron was right not to lower the voting age, which would've been gerrymandering the electorate to his advantage.
You're right about his complacency, however. Having the official Leave campaign put together a basic prospectus would've been rather sensible, and the absence of it was a bit odd.
The assumption was, I think, and IIRC, that Leave was led by adults who realised that actions have consequences.
There are too many “independent” observers of Scexit looking for problems and not proffering solutions. Scotland should just pass an Act of Parliament to rebase all contracts to groats on a 1-1 basis and let the currency slide. A form of sovereign default but get it out the way at the start and go from there, with an independent monetary policy (and printing press), competitive exchange rate and lower debt burden.
Everything else risks a bigger crisis or perpetual malaise.
Which, by the way, is what every other country becoming independent has done.
An independent Scotland would have it's own currency. It would have the option of following the Estonian model (post independence from the Soviet Union) and tying their currency to the Euro or the Pound. Or they could let it float.
Plenty of countries far smaller than Scotland have their own currencies, and they have survived perfectly well. Norway, for example, has almost exactly the same number of people, and somehow manages to have its own currency.
As ever it’s the transition that’s the tricky bit. I believe someone on here has done a YouTube video on that subject.
Mr. G, the currency question is a pretty important one, to be fair.
Mr. Pete, Cameron was right not to lower the voting age, which would've been gerrymandering the electorate to his advantage.
You're right about his complacency, however. Having the official Leave campaign put together a basic prospectus would've been rather sensible, and the absence of it was a bit odd.
I wouldn't necessarily call reducing the voting age, particularly in this instance, as the decision had a greater bearing on the lives of 16 year olds than it did for my now late father,for example, as gerrymandering.
If gerrymandering remains your term of choice, Cameron had previous form in that area, so why not this time?
There are too many “independent” observers of Scexit looking for problems and not proffering solutions. Scotland should just pass an Act of Parliament to rebase all contracts to groats on a 1-1 basis and let the currency slide. A form of sovereign default but get it out the way at the start and go from there, with an independent monetary policy (and printing press), competitive exchange rate and lower debt burden.
Everything else risks a bigger crisis or perpetual malaise.
Which, by the way, is what every other country becoming independent has done.
It's a tonne of hassle. But it's not terminal.
I don't think the sensible argument against separation lies in the fact that it's impossible - clearly it's not. More that it's a very rocky road to go down, for the sake of reheated resentment. Divorces are a costly business. Perhaps mediation might be worth a try before we go full Donald and Ivana.
Leaving aside blame for the deal.or lack of that is eventually reached, the government is going to have to make some number of internal, unilateral crisis management decisions over how to organise contingency on this side of the channel. The EU may be blamable at the top level for many, but organising the queue at Dover or Stranraer badly, not getting medicines through etc etc, when alternative / seemingly better crisis management options for doing so can readily be explained, might not be so easy for HMG.
Happening on the right option after a month or two, a la COVID, may not be good enough.
It is bizarre that there is a tone of mockery from England about the idea of Scotland going it alone and creating a currency. That England has gone batshit and is about to hurl itself from the White Cliffs in the sure and certain faith that there is no cliff is just funny.
If the UK was facing a glorious properous future and Scotland was threatening to jump into the unknown then I can see the argument. However, it is the UK about to jump and Scotland trying to stay behind in sanity land.
The SNP will win the election next year promising a referendum vote. The UK will try and refuse. Scotland will hold it anyway. It won't be close. Westminster will accept the inevitable. Scotland leaves the UK and joins the EU. England mocks, abuses, insults. And then the newspaper reports of how Scotland is fairing better than rUK...
Mr. G, the currency question is a pretty important one, to be fair.
Mr. Pete, Cameron was right not to lower the voting age, which would've been gerrymandering the electorate to his advantage.
You're right about his complacency, however. Having the official Leave campaign put together a basic prospectus would've been rather sensible, and the absence of it was a bit odd.
Yes MD it is but it is very simple as well as has been explained many times, they either peg to Euro ( given rUK will supposedly be hostile according to experts on here) for a spell or just start their own currency, just as every other country in the world does. It is not rocket science.
Mr. G, the currency question is a pretty important one, to be fair.
Mr. Pete, Cameron was right not to lower the voting age, which would've been gerrymandering the electorate to his advantage.
You're right about his complacency, however. Having the official Leave campaign put together a basic prospectus would've been rather sensible, and the absence of it was a bit odd.
Yes MD it is but it is very simple as well as has been explained many times, they either peg to Euro ( given rUK will supposedly be hostile according to experts on here) for a spell or just start their own currency, just as every other country in the world does. It is not rocket science.
Indeed it’s not. The process will be a bit uncomfortable and messy, though.
Leaving aside blame for the deal.or lack of that is eventually reached, the government is going to have to make some number of internal, unilateral crisis management decisions over how to organise contingency on this side of the channel. The EU may be blamable at the top level for many, but organising the queue at Dover or Stranraer badly, not getting medicines through etc etc, when alternative / seemingly better crisis management options for doing so can readily be explained, might not be so easy for HMG.
Happening on the right option after a month or two, a la COVID, may not be good enough.
There's an old joke about astrology. To believe in it, you don't only have to think that the complex motion of distant stars controls our destiny, you also have to trust that the best person to interpret those complexities is Russell Grant.
Similarly, for the next 12 months to go well, you don't only have to believe in the bin of Brexit, you have to be confident that Johnson, Gove and Cummings are up to the job of managing the inevitable choppy waters of change.
Food shortages, water outages, power cuts, social disorder, military airdrops to the islands; that all sounds very jolly. I wonder what the unreasonable worst case scenario looks like?
It is bizarre that there is a tone of mockery from England about the idea of Scotland going it alone and creating a currency. That England has gone batshit and is about to hurl itself from the White Cliffs in the sure and certain faith that there is no cliff is just funny.
If the UK was facing a glorious properous future and Scotland was threatening to jump into the unknown then I can see the argument. However, it is the UK about to jump and Scotland trying to stay behind in sanity land.
The SNP will win the election next year promising a referendum vote. The UK will try and refuse. Scotland will hold it anyway. It won't be close. Westminster will accept the inevitable. Scotland leaves the UK and joins the EU. England mocks, abuses, insults. And then the newspaper reports of how Scotland is fairing better than rUK...
And down Edinburgh's Royal Mile, there's a triumphant, joyous celebration of civic, European, Scotland's victory against lumpen, bigoted Leaver England. Michel Barnier is guest of honour as he embraces Nicola Sturgeon for the typical gallic kiss on both cheeks. The bells of St Giles ring out - ring- -ring- they seem to get louder and more insistent with each peal - RING- - RING-
Mr. G, the currency question is a pretty important one, to be fair.
Mr. Pete, Cameron was right not to lower the voting age, which would've been gerrymandering the electorate to his advantage.
You're right about his complacency, however. Having the official Leave campaign put together a basic prospectus would've been rather sensible, and the absence of it was a bit odd.
On your final point. That was less straightforward than it looked. "Leaving" meant all things to all men (and women) finding an agreement to move forward would not have been easy.
Anyway Cameron tried to hand the baton to Johnson who presumably had a post-victory plan, however Johnson with Gove's intervention fumbled the handover.
An independent Scotland would have it's own currency. It would have the option of following the Estonian model (post independence from the Soviet Union) and tying their currency to the Euro or the Pound. Or they could let it float.
Plenty of countries far smaller than Scotland have their own currencies, and they have survived perfectly well. Norway, for example, has almost exactly the same number of people, and somehow manages to have its own currency.
That's true but Scotland also has pretensions of keeping its rather outsized financial sector after independence. I don't see how that's possible, it would be another Iceland situation. Most of the industry (and tax base) would move south of the border. With the loss of those tax revenues and the loss of the Union subsidy, it does leave iScot in a pretty tough spot.
As I said before the easiest option would be to beg Westminster for a currency union, but that strikes me as very unlikely as the government would insist on having full oversight of the budget and final approval. Neither side would we that as a favourable outcome, and if anything it would leave iScot less independent than now.
The other option is the eurozone, which is also a good outcome, but the issue is surely the 7-10 years between independence and joining the EMU.
Currency, IMO, is still the toughest question to answer. There doesn't seem to be a way out of it that keeps the tax base in tact, but also gives monetary and fiscal autonomy as one would expect of an independent nation. I remember doing some modelling way back in 2014 and iScot with its own currency had an annual deficit of close to 18% on day one and was unable to borrow in its own currency because debt servicing/repayments to Westminster are in sterling. So on the one hand you have a collapsing economy and currency and on the other you have debt obligations in a currency you can't print and isn't collapsing. It's a seriously bad pincer.
It is bizarre that there is a tone of mockery from England about the idea of Scotland going it alone and creating a currency. That England has gone batshit and is about to hurl itself from the White Cliffs in the sure and certain faith that there is no cliff is just funny.
If the UK was facing a glorious properous future and Scotland was threatening to jump into the unknown then I can see the argument. However, it is the UK about to jump and Scotland trying to stay behind in sanity land.
The SNP will win the election next year promising a referendum vote. The UK will try and refuse. Scotland will hold it anyway. It won't be close. Westminster will accept the inevitable. Scotland leaves the UK and joins the EU. England mocks, abuses, insults. And then the newspaper reports of how Scotland is fairing better than rUK...
And down Edinburgh's Royal Mile, there's a triumphant, joyous celebration of civic, European, Scotland's victory against lumpen, bigoted Leaver England. Michel Barnier is guest of honour as he embraces Nicola Sturgeon for the typical gallic kiss on both cheeks. The bells of St Giles ring out - ring- -ring- they seem to get louder and more insistent with each peal - RING- - RING-
RP wakes up and realises it's his alarm.
Can I refer you to mockery? Of my comments: 1. The UK is throwing itself off the cliff 2. The SNP will win the 2021 Holyrood election with a mandate for a referendum 3. The referendum will be held
Those three are reality. Beyond that?
4. Leave will win 60:40 - a projection but based on hardening of the mood tracked by polling 5. Scotland will join the EU. Both sides are up for this, it allows Brussels to flick the Vs at London, Edinburgh gets financial backing 6. rUK will watch in wonder. I don't think no dealers comprehend just how rough this is going to be...
There are too many “independent” observers of Scexit looking for problems and not proffering solutions. Scotland should just pass an Act of Parliament to rebase all contracts to groats on a 1-1 basis and let the currency slide. A form of sovereign default but get it out the way at the start and go from there, with an independent monetary policy (and printing press), competitive exchange rate and lower debt burden.
Everything else risks a bigger crisis or perpetual malaise.
Which, by the way, is what every other country becoming independent has done.
It's a tonne of hassle. But it's not terminal.
I don't think the sensible argument against separation lies in the fact that it's impossible - clearly it's not. More that it's a very rocky road to go down, for the sake of reheated resentment. Divorces are a costly business. Perhaps mediation might be worth a try before we go full Donald and Ivana.
The bit I can’t so easily wrap my head around is a lot of scots nationalists desire to jump straight into a binding relationship with the EU, having only just gained independence from the English after 300 years.
Far better to get the divorce out the way first surely, bed in running your own affairs, having your own currency, your own migration, trade, tax and fisheries policies. And then if after 5 years or so there’s a case to join the European project in full then go for it. I rather suspect Scotland would do best going no further than EFTA and possibly not even that far but we’re all only guessing.
It’s also politically a bit deaf. The nationalist europhiles will still vote Yes, even if you promise to go slow on European affairs. The Brexity nationalists will likely vote No if the cunning plan is to seek full EU and Euro membership from the very beginning.
The government controlled the referendum, both its timing and the question. It could have set up a commission and stuffed it with prominent Leavers before the referendum was granted.
Maybe, but prominent Leavers would have refused to join it, and accused the Government of stalling.
Some, no doubt, but others would have served in their places, and perhaps now be donning ermine and claiming £300 a day, if not serving in the Cabinet. Bear in mind that most Leavers really were just that, and would have welcomed the chance to influence its direction. Admittedly there were a few chancers on the fringes, former journalists perhaps, but for the most part these were serious people.
Mr. G, the currency question is a pretty important one, to be fair.
Mr. Pete, Cameron was right not to lower the voting age, which would've been gerrymandering the electorate to his advantage.
You're right about his complacency, however. Having the official Leave campaign put together a basic prospectus would've been rather sensible, and the absence of it was a bit odd.
On your final point. That was less straightforward than it looked. "Leaving" meant all things to all men (and women) finding an agreement to move forward would not have been easy.
Anyway Cameron tried to hand the baton to Johnson who presumably had a post-victory plan, however Johnson with Gove's intervention fumbled the handover.
Fairly easy for Vote Leave to swerve. Put up a have cake and eat it nonsense. The EU will say "you're joking", VL will say "of course they're saying that now, it proves how unreasonable they are".
Bottom line, you either acknowledge that the UK's agenda-setting ability wrt the EU is limited (we can be sovereign, but numerically we aren't remotely equal) , or you don't.
Mr. Pete, by that rationale 10 year olds should also have the vote. And 3 year olds.
How did Cameron previously gerrymander an electorate?
You are being silly re: ten year olds. A voting age of 16 has a respectable track record, not least in Sindyref.
Cameron and Osborne, so insensed at Blair's 2005 victory on 36% that they embarked (not unreasonably) on levelling the playing field. However, Cameron used unusual voter population metrics to set his boundaries. The reduction of the HoC to 600 seats was also proposed to advantage Cameron. As it turned out none of it mattered., Cameron realised it was all to no avail as he withdrew Johnson's knife from his back.
It is bizarre that there is a tone of mockery from England about the idea of Scotland going it alone and creating a currency. That England has gone batshit and is about to hurl itself from the White Cliffs in the sure and certain faith that there is no cliff is just funny.
If the UK was facing a glorious properous future and Scotland was threatening to jump into the unknown then I can see the argument. However, it is the UK about to jump and Scotland trying to stay behind in sanity land.
The SNP will win the election next year promising a referendum vote. The UK will try and refuse. Scotland will hold it anyway. It won't be close. Westminster will accept the inevitable. Scotland leaves the UK and joins the EU. England mocks, abuses, insults. And then the newspaper reports of how Scotland is fairing better than rUK...
And down Edinburgh's Royal Mile, there's a triumphant, joyous celebration of civic, European, Scotland's victory against lumpen, bigoted Leaver England. Michel Barnier is guest of honour as he embraces Nicola Sturgeon for the typical gallic kiss on both cheeks. The bells of St Giles ring out - ring- -ring- they seem to get louder and more insistent with each peal - RING- - RING-
RP wakes up and realises it's his alarm.
Can I refer you to mockery? Of my comments: 1. The UK is throwing itself off the cliff 2. The SNP will win the 2021 Holyrood election with a mandate for a referendum 3. The referendum will be held
Those three are reality. Beyond that?
4. Leave will win 60:40 - a projection but based on hardening of the mood tracked by polling 5. Scotland will join the EU. Both sides are up for this, it allows Brussels to flick the Vs at London, Edinburgh gets financial backing 6. rUK will watch in wonder. I don't think no dealers comprehend just how rough this is going to be...
He furiously presses snooze, hoping for just five minutes more back in IScotland. Sadly it's not the same. Nicola Sturgeon now has an unaccountably long neck and keeps nibbling on high branches. And why does the Royal Mile now look like Slough? Cruel cruel world. He gets up and consoles himself with the thought that he'll be particularly beastly on PB today. Those Leaver fools are going to get it big time.
Bear in mind that most Leavers really were just that, and would have welcomed the chance to influence its direction. Admittedly there were a few chancers on the fringes, former journalists perhaps, but for the most part these were serious people.
No
IDS is even now saying we should abandon the withdrawal agreement he voted for without reading.
If true that air conditioning is an important factor then presumably some sort of automatic testing of air conditioning units might be usefully developed, along with better filtering and perhaps deprecation of those types that merely recycle air rather than drawing it in from outside.
Mr. G, the currency question is a pretty important one, to be fair.
Mr. Pete, Cameron was right not to lower the voting age, which would've been gerrymandering the electorate to his advantage.
You're right about his complacency, however. Having the official Leave campaign put together a basic prospectus would've been rather sensible, and the absence of it was a bit odd.
On your final point. That was less straightforward than it looked. "Leaving" meant all things to all men (and women) finding an agreement to move forward would not have been easy.
Anyway Cameron tried to hand the baton to Johnson who presumably had a post-victory plan, however Johnson with Gove's intervention fumbled the handover.
Fairly easy for Vote Leave to swerve. Put up a have cake and eat it nonsense. The EU will say "you're joking", VL will say "of course they're saying that now, it proves how unreasonable they are".
Bottom line, you either acknowledge that the UK's agenda-setting ability wrt the EU is limited (we can be sovereign, but numerically we aren't remotely equal) , or you don't.
Quite right. The whole premise of decrying "Project Fear" was that we can have our cake and eat it. The trouble is, many Leavers weren't too sure what the cake was exactly.
Bear in mind that most Leavers really were just that, and would have welcomed the chance to influence its direction. Admittedly there were a few chancers on the fringes, former journalists perhaps, but for the most part these were serious people.
No
IDS is even now saying we should abandon the withdrawal agreement he voted for without reading.
These are not and never have been serious people.
And if he'd been on the commission, he might have read it. If not, then the mere existence of a commission would have meant the options for the WA were thrashed out in advance.
There are too many “independent” observers of Scexit looking for problems and not proffering solutions. Scotland should just pass an Act of Parliament to rebase all contracts to groats on a 1-1 basis and let the currency slide. A form of sovereign default but get it out the way at the start and go from there, with an independent monetary policy (and printing press), competitive exchange rate and lower debt burden.
Everything else risks a bigger crisis or perpetual malaise.
Which, by the way, is what every other country becoming independent has done.
It's a tonne of hassle. But it's not terminal.
I don't think the sensible argument against separation lies in the fact that it's impossible - clearly it's not. More that it's a very rocky road to go down, for the sake of reheated resentment. Divorces are a costly business. Perhaps mediation might be worth a try before we go full Donald and Ivana.
The bit I can’t so easily wrap my head around is a lot of scots nationalists desire to jump straight into a binding relationship with the EU, having only just gained independence from the English after 300 years.
Far better to get the divorce out the way first surely, bed in running your own affairs, having your own currency, your own migration, trade, tax and fisheries policies. And then if after 5 years or so there’s a case to join the European project in full then go for it. I rather suspect Scotland would do best going no further than EFTA and possibly not even that far but we’re all only guessing.
It’s also politically a bit deaf. The nationalist europhiles will still vote Yes, even if you promise to go slow on European affairs. The Brexity nationalists will likely vote No if the cunning plan is to seek full EU and Euro membership from the very beginning.
It's perfectly logical because it's based on the ancient idea of being locked in an eternal battle with England. A kick in the face from France is better than an extended hand from England in some peoples' minds. Calculation of the pros and cons, or concepts like finance, democracy, or even independence, are not fixed, they're just deployed when they seem to agree with the campaign, and dismissed when they don't.
Rapid saliva testing allows for massively more effective track & trace.
A trial of this has just been completed on 16000 health workers and their families in Southampton
Surely the whole point of such an exercise is to allow things to go back to normal, with any new hotspot quickly snuffed out? What’s the point in it all if you’re still doing masks and restricted classes?
And if he'd been on the commission, he might have read it. If not, then the mere existence of a commission would have meant the options for the WA were thrashed out in advance.
No
If Leavers had come up with their dream WA in advance, the EU wouldn't have agreed it.
An independent Scotland would have it's own currency. It would have the option of following the Estonian model (post independence from the Soviet Union) and tying their currency to the Euro or the Pound. Or they could let it float.
Plenty of countries far smaller than Scotland have their own currencies, and they have survived perfectly well. Norway, for example, has almost exactly the same number of people, and somehow manages to have its own currency.
That's true but Scotland also has pretensions of keeping its rather outsized financial sector after independence. I don't see how that's possible, it would be another Iceland situation. Most of the industry (and tax base) would move south of the border. With the loss of those tax revenues and the loss of the Union subsidy, it does leave iScot in a pretty tough spot.
As I said before the easiest option would be to beg Westminster for a currency union, but that strikes me as very unlikely as the government would insist on having full oversight of the budget and final approval. Neither side would we that as a favourable outcome, and if anything it would leave iScot less independent than now.
The other option is the eurozone, which is also a good outcome, but the issue is surely the 7-10 years between independence and joining the EMU.
Currency, IMO, is still the toughest question to answer. There doesn't seem to be a way out of it that keeps the tax base in tact, but also gives monetary and fiscal autonomy as one would expect of an independent nation. I remember doing some modelling way back in 2014 and iScot with its own currency had an annual deficit of close to 18% on day one and was unable to borrow in its own currency because debt servicing/repayments to Westminster are in sterling. So on the one hand you have a collapsing economy and currency and on the other you have debt obligations in a currency you can't print and isn't collapsing. It's a seriously bad pincer.
The first could be sold as a route to the second, avoiding altogether the risks of the third.
Not ideal, but at some stage Scottish voters will need to be told that the path to Indy is inevitably long.
After all, it is going to be pretty much five years on from the Brexit vote before either we or our government seriously start to face up to the consequences.
Mr. G, the currency question is a pretty important one, to be fair.
Mr. Pete, Cameron was right not to lower the voting age, which would've been gerrymandering the electorate to his advantage.
You're right about his complacency, however. Having the official Leave campaign put together a basic prospectus would've been rather sensible, and the absence of it was a bit odd.
Yes MD it is but it is very simple as well as has been explained many times, they either peg to Euro ( given rUK will supposedly be hostile according to experts on here) for a spell or just start their own currency, just as every other country in the world does. It is not rocket science.
Indeed it’s not. The process will be a bit uncomfortable and messy, though.
Very true Nigel , it will be no walk in the park. You cannot have an omelette without breaking a few eggs either.
Mr. Pete, I agree entirely on the 'all things to all men' line, which is one more reason Cameron's lack of desire for an official Leave position (beyond just leaving) was so odd.
An EEA approach would've reduced enthusiasm from more 'clean-break' (if you like) types, and vice versa.
Edited extra bit: anyway, time of me to be off. Play nicely, everyone.
It's perfectly logical because it's based on the ancient idea of being locked in an eternal battle with England. A kick in the face from France is better than an extended hand from England in some peoples' minds. Calculation of the pros and cons, or concepts like finance, democracy, or even independence, are not fixed, they're just deployed when they seem to agree with the campaign, and dismissed when they don't.
Mr. Pete, by that rationale 10 year olds should also have the vote. And 3 year olds.
How did Cameron previously gerrymander an electorate?
You are being silly re: ten year olds. A voting age of 16 has a respectable track record, not least in Sindyref.
Cameron and Osborne, so insensed at Blair's 2005 victory on 36% that they embarked (not unreasonably) on levelling the playing field. However, Cameron used unusual voter population metrics to set his boundaries. The reduction of the HoC to 600 seats was also proposed to advantage Cameron. As it turned out none of it mattered., Cameron realised it was all to no avail as he withdrew Johnson's knife from his back.
As with (some of) the American efforts discussed yesterday, the trigger was the Conservatives' conviction that Labour were systematically cheating and also evil.
An essential part of the Conservatives' plan was to purge the electoral rolls and make registration more difficult. Too late, it dawned on Number 10 that this disproportionately impacted pro-EU voters: young; urban; mobile. That is why there was a belated registration drive to try and reverse the damage, and we recall the outrage amongst Leavers when the deadline to register was extended.
There are too many “independent” observers of Scexit looking for problems and not proffering solutions. Scotland should just pass an Act of Parliament to rebase all contracts to groats on a 1-1 basis and let the currency slide. A form of sovereign default but get it out the way at the start and go from there, with an independent monetary policy (and printing press), competitive exchange rate and lower debt burden.
Everything else risks a bigger crisis or perpetual malaise.
Which, by the way, is what every other country becoming independent has done.
It's a tonne of hassle. But it's not terminal.
I don't think the sensible argument against separation lies in the fact that it's impossible - clearly it's not. More that it's a very rocky road to go down, for the sake of reheated resentment. Divorces are a costly business. Perhaps mediation might be worth a try before we go full Donald and Ivana.
The bit I can’t so easily wrap my head around is a lot of scots nationalists desire to jump straight into a binding relationship with the EU, having only just gained independence from the English after 300 years.
Far better to get the divorce out the way first surely, bed in running your own affairs, having your own currency, your own migration, trade, tax and fisheries policies. And then if after 5 years or so there’s a case to join the European project in full then go for it. I rather suspect Scotland would do best going no further than EFTA and possibly not even that far but we’re all only guessing.
It’s also politically a bit deaf. The nationalist europhiles will still vote Yes, even if you promise to go slow on European affairs. The Brexity nationalists will likely vote No if the cunning plan is to seek full EU and Euro membership from the very beginning.
It's perfectly logical because it's based on the ancient idea of being locked in an eternal battle with England. A kick in the face from France is better than an extended hand from England in some peoples' minds. Calculation of the pros and cons, or concepts like finance, democracy, or even independence, are not fixed, they're just deployed when they seem to agree with the campaign, and dismissed when they don't.
France and Scotland were the Auld Alliance. probably of course on the basis that while neighbours might not get one, those a bit further away do, or possibly that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In any event, if Brexit is accompanied by some name-calling and abuse of Brussels from London, a Franco-Euro helping hand for Edinburgh would be seen as 'serving them right'. Not pretty, but the world sometimes isn't!
And if he'd been on the commission, he might have read it. If not, then the mere existence of a commission would have meant the options for the WA were thrashed out in advance.
No
If Leavers had come up with their dream WA in advance, the EU wouldn't have agreed it.
If Leavers had come up with their dream WA in advance, then at least they'd have had one rather than each Leaver having their own unicorn WA, a state of affairs still evident today as you noted earlier.
Oh, Malky. If there was a simple, obvious, easy option, you and your fellow travelers would be shouting it from the rooftops.
But you're not.
All of the options are bad, and you haven't settled on which one is least likely to scare the voters.
Just like Brexit "We'll figure it out later" is the only hope you have of winning.
It is an easy one for me Scott, I said on last post , peg to Euro till central bank sorted out and then our own Scottish pound, just as every other country in the world. It is only hard for unionists to understand.
Comments
I am guessing that virtually all at or above median intelligence leavers already realise this. Lots of whistling in the dark and Micawberism in play.
Autocorrect left untouched.
They have names on the main site. There is a grammatical horror in this one which I refuse to reproduce, but it should be called "If Leaving the EU were easy."
Mr. JohnL, indeed, it was a very peculiar omission. Not only would it have made Remain's job easier, it would've made things clearer for any negotiating government.
Slightly bizarre decision when you think about it. Born of complacency?
On topic, Mr C, from where do you get that idea? The EU isn't an unyielding monolith; there were principles behind it's foundation, and there are sound reasons for it's continued existence. It isn't perfect, of course; no human institution is.
Though I see Farage is apparently constructing his next career vehicle with Denis Potter's tumour.
Alex Belfield - THE VOICE OF REASON
94.2K subscribers
This is incredible! Murdoch is finally investing in a new TV News Channel apparently, it could feature Farage & Neil & others who want fair, balanced & truly impartial real news that affects real people! Exciting.
Speaking to the Telegraph on Saturday, a Government source said: “There is a considerable concern around impartiality and objectivity. It’s not that the BBC is left-wing and Labour supporting, it clearly isn’t.
“But lots of people think its news programmes seem only to be interested in picking holes in the Government or digging up embarrassing quotes.
“They are far less interested in listening to what ministers have to say than trying to trip them up in a way that is not entirely relevant.
“The job of the Today programme is not to chase headlines, but to ask probing questions. Newsnight is no better. It’s a relatively recent trend.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/08/22/next-bbc-boss-must-tackle-bias-say-ministers/
That is the problem with the BBC. It is not pro-Labour but it does question the government. Lèse-majesté, as they say in the EU.
What mechanism did Cameron have at his disposal to accomplish that?
The Government published their view, largely accurate, dismissed by Brexiteers as Project Fear.
Brexiteers promised sunlit uplands, regardless.
Cameron held a press conference explicitly to call out the lies, but it made no difference.
What else could he have done?
And perhaps this is the real lesson of Brexit. Even today yet more bitter posts and name calling about a debate that was supposed to have been resolved 4 years ago.
Can’t we all be a bit more Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow about it all? Won’t someone think of the kids!
https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report
EDIT: although I see now this includes death certificates with Covid on them not just lab confirmed.
Everything else risks a bigger crisis or perpetual malaise.
So, like Brexit, they have to say "nothing will change, except things you don't like, whatever they are", and then do all the shit stuff when they win
a) He rejected dropping the voting age (amongst other things) to advantage his campaign, which after all the SNP had already tried at Sindyref,and Cameron by the way was not normally averse to electoral chicanery.
b) He had no plan B in the event of failure because he believed he had not planned to fail.
Mr. Pete, Cameron was right not to lower the voting age, which would've been gerrymandering the electorate to his advantage.
You're right about his complacency, however. Having the official Leave campaign put together a basic prospectus would've been rather sensible, and the absence of it was a bit odd.
Plenty of countries far smaller than Scotland have their own currencies, and they have survived perfectly well. Norway, for example, has almost exactly the same number of people, and somehow manages to have its own currency.
Unfortunately...........
It's a tonne of hassle. But it's not terminal.
If gerrymandering remains your term of choice, Cameron had previous form in that area, so why not this time?
Happening on the right option after a month or two, a la COVID, may not be good enough.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/22/california-wildfires-10-states-help-wine-country-bay-area
If the UK was facing a glorious properous future and Scotland was threatening to jump into the unknown then I can see the argument. However, it is the UK about to jump and Scotland trying to stay behind in sanity land.
The SNP will win the election next year promising a referendum vote. The UK will try and refuse. Scotland will hold it anyway. It won't be close. Westminster will accept the inevitable. Scotland leaves the UK and joins the EU. England mocks, abuses, insults. And then the newspaper reports of how Scotland is fairing better than rUK...
How did Cameron previously gerrymander an electorate?
The process will be a bit uncomfortable and messy, though.
Similarly, for the next 12 months to go well, you don't only have to believe in the bin of Brexit, you have to be confident that Johnson, Gove and Cummings are up to the job of managing the inevitable choppy waters of change.
TLDR; we're in deep trouble.
https://twitter.com/jhuber/status/1297266435853451265
https://twitter.com/AndyBiotech/status/1297183629534167042
RP wakes up and realises it's his alarm.
Anyway Cameron tried to hand the baton to Johnson who presumably had a post-victory plan, however Johnson with Gove's intervention fumbled the handover.
As I said before the easiest option would be to beg Westminster for a currency union, but that strikes me as very unlikely as the government would insist on having full oversight of the budget and final approval. Neither side would we that as a favourable outcome, and if anything it would leave iScot less independent than now.
The other option is the eurozone, which is also a good outcome, but the issue is surely the 7-10 years between independence and joining the EMU.
Currency, IMO, is still the toughest question to answer. There doesn't seem to be a way out of it that keeps the tax base in tact, but also gives monetary and fiscal autonomy as one would expect of an independent nation. I remember doing some modelling way back in 2014 and iScot with its own currency had an annual deficit of close to 18% on day one and was unable to borrow in its own currency because debt servicing/repayments to Westminster are in sterling. So on the one hand you have a collapsing economy and currency and on the other you have debt obligations in a currency you can't print and isn't collapsing. It's a seriously bad pincer.
1. The UK is throwing itself off the cliff
2. The SNP will win the 2021 Holyrood election with a mandate for a referendum
3. The referendum will be held
Those three are reality. Beyond that?
4. Leave will win 60:40 - a projection but based on hardening of the mood tracked by polling
5. Scotland will join the EU. Both sides are up for this, it allows Brussels to flick the Vs at London, Edinburgh gets financial backing
6. rUK will watch in wonder. I don't think no dealers comprehend just how rough this is going to be...
And it’s doubly effective when the whole process is local, as at Illinois U.
Far better to get the divorce out the way first surely, bed in running your own affairs, having your own currency, your own migration, trade, tax and fisheries policies. And then if after 5 years or so there’s a case to join the European project in full then go for it. I rather suspect Scotland would do best going no further than EFTA and possibly not even that far but we’re all only guessing.
It’s also politically a bit deaf. The nationalist europhiles will still vote Yes, even if you promise to go slow on European affairs. The Brexity nationalists will likely vote No if the cunning plan is to seek full EU and Euro membership from the very beginning.
But you're not.
All of the options are bad, and you haven't settled on which one is least likely to scare the voters.
Just like Brexit "We'll figure it out later" is the only hope you have of winning.
Bottom line, you either acknowledge that the UK's agenda-setting ability wrt the EU is limited (we can be sovereign, but numerically we aren't remotely equal) , or you don't.
Cameron and Osborne, so insensed at Blair's 2005 victory on 36% that they embarked (not unreasonably) on levelling the playing field. However, Cameron used unusual voter population metrics to set his boundaries. The reduction of the HoC to 600 seats was also proposed to advantage Cameron. As it turned out none of it mattered., Cameron realised it was all to no avail as he withdrew Johnson's knife from his back.
IDS is even now saying we should abandon the withdrawal agreement he voted for without reading.
These are not and never have been serious people.
If Leavers had come up with their dream WA in advance, the EU wouldn't have agreed it.
Not ideal, but at some stage Scottish voters will need to be told that the path to Indy is inevitably long.
After all, it is going to be pretty much five years on from the Brexit vote before either we or our government seriously start to face up to the consequences.
An EEA approach would've reduced enthusiasm from more 'clean-break' (if you like) types, and vice versa.
Edited extra bit: anyway, time of me to be off. Play nicely, everyone.
I don’t quite follow the logic, but the sentiment is very clear.
https://twitter.com/_b_meyer/status/1297439355448037376
An essential part of the Conservatives' plan was to purge the electoral rolls and make registration more difficult. Too late, it dawned on Number 10 that this disproportionately impacted pro-EU voters: young; urban; mobile. That is why there was a belated registration drive to try and reverse the damage, and we recall the outrage amongst Leavers when the deadline to register was extended.
In any event, if Brexit is accompanied by some name-calling and abuse of Brussels from London, a Franco-Euro helping hand for Edinburgh would be seen as 'serving them right'.
Not pretty, but the world sometimes isn't!